Talk:Neuro-linguistic programming/Archive 15

Archive 10

←

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

→

Archive 20

Toward feature article status

This article has been submitted to Peer review and cleanup taskforce projects. We are currently working with those projects to improve the article. This is with the aim of eventually reach Feature Article candidate. To reach this goal we must aim for well written, comprehensive, factually accurate, neutral and stable article.

This section is for general question regarding the progression toward feature article status:

Comaze, have you contacted Cleanup yet? I couldn't work out how to get in touch with the same person, or isn't it supposed to be the same person?Fainites 19:35, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately the person who did the cleanup report was not a regular member of that taskforce so I could not get in contact. I've ask peer-review to comment on our progress. --Comaze 22:38, 22 January 2007 (UTC) Thanks Fainites 16:20, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

• Current status: A number of issues have been raised by both projects are being worked on. --Comaze 10:15, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Proposed changes

This section is for proposing changes to the article. In the past the article has been flooded with off-topic discussion. Here we can begin to focus our efforts in collaborating with each other. When agreement is reached and changes made, the relevant discussion can be moved to the archives.

Change subtitles and order of research reviews and mental health sections

Discussion

I noticed the 'Research reviews' has been moved into the 'Classifying NLP' section. Rationale? Doc Pato 21:11, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

That was me. I thought they fitted better after the science section. However, I have no strong views on the subject if you think they would be better suited elsewhere.Fainites 23:03, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't quite understand the new position. 58.179.173.84 05:18, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

What new position? DocPatos comment or the position of research reviews? They were moved on 11th jan. Fainites 14:25, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

What about putting the Research reviews before 'Classifying NLP'? Previously it was between Mental Health Practice and Human Resources which didn't seem appropriate. It's too far down and not specifically related to either. 'Research reviews' cover broader aspects than MH practice. They mostly undermine the underlying principles and theories of NLP. There is scientific criticism and specific research relating to MH practice in the MH section itself. The research reviews need to be near the science issues. Fainites 20:04, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I meant I didn't understand research reviews as a subsection of science and pseudoscience. I'd prefer it be a sub-section of reception as it has little to do with classification (to my mind). Perhaps move the whole Reception section above the Classifying NLP section. 58.179.182.216 07:27, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I think on reflection you're probably right. It could go above Mental health, then move the whole thing up. Then the 'classifying' section. Try it and see how it looks.Fainites 16:20, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Below is a contribution from an unknown editor added today near the top when we were discussing classification last time. I've copied it down here in case it's missed.Fainites 17:12, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi there I have 3+ years experience with NLP and I will give you my opinion to help you make a better categorization. NLP is not a science, nor is it an art nor a religion. NLP is the study of the place where science, art, and religion overlap, also known as 'subjective experience.' The original subtitle of NLP was 'the study of the structure of subjective experience.' The structure of some NLP organizations may sometimes resemble that of a cult, but NLP itself is not a cult, though it can be used by cults. Subjective experience is not always directly measurable. This is why science has a hard time with NLP. The primary way to understand subjective experience is not by measuring it - that is comparing it to something else like a yardstick - but rather by observing the structure of subjective processes that occur in all manner of human experiences - from experiences in science, art, religion, etc. Think of it in the same way that quantum physics is not an exact science, and is sometimes paradoxical. I offer this explanation to you only as a guide to help you find the right way to categorize NLP correctly. The dispute over this article comes directly from misunderstanding and miscommunication - something that NLP itself does alot to rectify when used correctly.67.174.224.210 08:53, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

• Proposed change: Move "research reviews" to subsection of reception... "It could go above Mental health, then move the whole thing up. Then the 'classifying' section."
• Status: I did this 23.1.07. Fainites 12:26, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Update tags for reception

Tried the re-order as discussed. Overall I think it's an improvement but feel free to revert if you disagree. I think perhaps your tags ought to go though Comaze. They haven't achieved anything yet.Fainites 20:15, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

What tags are you referring to? --Comaze 13:42, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Your tags at the beginning of reception. They don't seem to have produced anything. Is there a way they could perhaps be simplified? That might produce more.Fainites 17:42, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

The second tag is mine. I think it's been quite effective. I would consider an updated wording/tag. 58.178.161.126 11:40, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

• Proposed change: Update wording and tags on the reception section
• Current Status: It appears that we agree to update the wording/tags --Comaze 09:51, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Resolve confusion over criticism and reception

Somehow my suggestion got waylayed with the archiving... but how does the idea of a specific 'Criticism' section of NLP sound? This is something that's been discussed in the past, but always opposed by the sock army. The research reviews could be re-headed (unless someone wants to add the reviews suggesting some efficacy as well) and integrated within a general 'Criticism' section, which can even be possibly be followed with a brief counter criticism section? Thoughts? Doc Pato 19:20, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

:: Please read WP:CRITICISM and WP:STRUCTURES. Calling a section criticism has been a troll magnet in the past on this article. From my POV, NLP isn't really all that criticised; there is more positive reception than negative, so equal weighting would become difficult when following your suggestion.

:: What's more important though is that not all research reviews we've included are as negative as might be implied by calling the section criticism. In fact some citations we have lumped together don't necessarily belong together at all. Some groupings seem to be promoting the idea that there is a unanimous scientific "AHOY! look! quackery!" We could be a little more careful to avoid that kind of WP:OR, and a great place to start is calling a section reception (per guidelines above). 58.178.111.142 22:06, 26 January 2007 (UTC) I have struck and revoked my views from the record above due to restructuring and overgeneralising on this talk page that has altered context and meaning of my original statements. My apologies. I realise you had good intentions. 203.212.136.193 09:00, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

*Proposed change: Retain reception instead of criticism. --Comaze 10:06, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

• Current status: Tentative consensus. --Comaze 10:06, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Assigned to: N/A --Comaze 10:06, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

As a professor of psychology, I'm shocked to read this propaganda about NLP on Wikipedia. Articles this like stand as a shining example of why this site will never be considered a trustworthy source. NLP is extremely controversial, and most in the fields of psychology and counseling consider it claptrap bordering on fraud. Reading this article and it's rambling, pseudoscientific prose, one would think it was well supported by the evidence. It is not. For a more sobering explanation of NLP, read http://www.skepdic.com/neurolin.html. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.5.210.153 (talk) 02:48, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you and attempted some minor edits along those lines (bringing in the skeptics directory). How about being bold and making some more drastic edits? --Snowded TALK 05:42, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Summarize research

The research reviews aren't 'criticism' , they're research reviews. The fact that they're mostly critical is a different matter. I think there could be a 'criticism' section that presented a summary of criticism and referred to research reviews, and a positive reception section,but overall I think that 'reception' is better because although the reviews are mostly critical, not everything is entirely critical, yet you couldn't call it positive. I'm not convinced by the idea as stated above that there is more positive reception than negative though. Apart from the fact that it's popular, (Singer says there are 38,000 practitioners in the USA alone) positive reception seems a little hard to come by. A summary of the scientific views would be ideal in principle but on this site it is problematical due to past (including recent past) problems with false and misleading citations. We could easily write an agreed version but it would have to be watched like a hawk! Does anybody (apart from sockpuppets) think we should attempt a summary of scientific views rather than the current list of quotes or should we leave well alone? (ps, I have no internet access for the next few days, but would be happy to attempt a summary of science views if there was general consensus that this was appropriate). Fainites 17:30, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

:: Having considered this issue further. I'd love to have a well written summary on-hand. Perhaps it will be better than what we currently have. Good luck. 203.212.138.209 12:08, 31 January 2007 (UTC) I have struck and revoked my views from the record above due to restructuring and overgeneralising on this talk page that has altered context and meaning of my original statements. My apologies. I realise you had good intentions. 203.212.136.193 08:56, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Should this happen before or after we have a more complete the list of peer-reviewed papers. Some of the current authors are not published in peer-reviewed journals. --Comaze 06:05, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

• Proposed change: summarise the scientific reviews, separate commentary from reviews and discussion.
• Assigned to: Fainites
• Current status: Fainites has written a draft. S/he's waiting for feedback. --Comaze 23:16, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Preference peer review sources

Peer review / FAC wants us to include all PMID, ISBN and page numbers for books. This will help reviewers quickly check if sources published in peer-reviewed reputable journals and if the authors are credible. This will help us resolve some weighting issues and would help Fainites if s/he were to write a summary. Most of the sources are not indexed by PubMed but are indexed by Proquest, psychinfo and non-medical journals. This is an important distinction that was missed by the peer-review comment. I've started a list of Talk:Neuro-linguistic programming/Peer reviewed sources --Comaze 22:48, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Good start on the peer review list Comaze. Am I right in assuming Devilly, Sharpley, Druckman, Einspruch, Elich, Krugman, Buckner, Beyerstein, some Lilienfield, and in education - Craft and Tosey are all peer reviewed? However, possibly not Heap, and not Von Bergen or Figley. I think Wiki peer review have a point. What's the distinction between PubMed and Proquest, psychoinfo and non-medical journals? The research reviews should be peer reviewed only. In MH there should be a clear distinction between peer reviewed work and commentary, however notable the commentator. E.g. Drenth. How do we characterise Singer?

Looking at the one of the peer review comments, (the one that starts off with the POV that NLP is pseudoscience), the only peer reviwed scientific paper that calls it pseudoscience is Beyerstein. Lilienfield calls it pseudoscience in a book, and Corballis and Singer don't actually use the word but it's clear what they mean, but also in books. I think we should make a distinction between peer reviewed papers and commentary. However, presumably the commentary of the likes of Lilienfield and Drenth is worth having? Look forward to the complete list.Fainites 20:35, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Looking again, Devilly's abstract says 'shows some of the characteristics of pseudoscience'. I'll look at the whole article. I think we did this before. Also, Eisner is a book, therefore should be commentary, not research reviews. DocPato has a point. Peer reviewed research and reviews in one section. Other criticism in another. What we shouldn't do is conflate critical research and critical commentary.Fainites 22:58, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Comaze, can we get the reviews and research we already know about in the list first. Also, looking at some of the list, there is a difference between peer reviewed research and informative articles that happen to appear in a peer reviewed journal. We need to be careful about this.Fainites 07:56, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Should the section be 'research reviews' and 'research'. For example, Buckner et al did a specific piece of research in response to Sharpley, but it's not a review. Fainites 08:52, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Devilly uses NLP in his introduction as an 'early example' of alphabet or power therapies before going on to rubbish more recent examples such as EMDR and EFT.Fainites 14:39, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

• Current status: Comaze is still working on it. I've added some more articles and started grouping into categories and subcategoies: Talk:Neuro-linguistic programming/Peer reviewed sources
• Assigned to: --Comaze 22:48, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Views of prominent organizations

Regarding positive reception: I think perhaps I've been confusing popularity with positive reception. I agree that those who have a purely positive and purely academic interest in NLP are few. However, that is a misleading figure. If you look past a mere head-count, some very prominent government and international agencies use NLP; and I think there is implied positive reception by the amount of use internationally. So perhaps the approach for citing positive reception is to not only cite the numbers and fields (e.g. Singer says 38000 practitioners in the US) but also to cite the prominent international agencies using NLP (eg. The United Nations, UK Police force, and others).

Regarding critical reception: A list of peer-reviewed sources is useful. I don't think a abridged summary of science views is ever a good idea. Either individual researchers present their findings summarily or not. Where the findings are too verbose or unencyclopedic footnotes might be a useful comprimise. Take care. 58.178.144.161 03:30, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I have struck and revoked my views from the record above due to restructuring and overgeneralising on this talk page that has altered context and meaning of my original statements. My apologies. I realise you had good intentions. 203.212.136.193 08:57, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

US Federal Probation is another govt agency using NLP. There are many other organisations that have incorporated NLP into their training but don't refer to the source. I'll work on that list of peer review sources including the AAT, ISBN (with page numbers), ISSN and PMID so that these sources can be verified. You (including Fainites) are much better at writing that me, so I'd like to make it as easy as possible for you to look up these sources. --Comaze 12:26, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes. A list like this would be awesome. Can you provide a source for prominent organisations using NLP? 58.178.144.161 14:20, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I've added some URLs to that list Talk:Neuro-linguistic programming/Peer reviewed sources. --Comaze 22:19, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll check it out when I get some time later this week. 58.179.132.208 08:14, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

• Proposed change: Include a list of prominent organisation and their view of NLP. --Comaze 10:18, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Current status: Discussing issues. --Comaze 10:18, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Assigned to: Currently unassigned. --Comaze 10:01, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Proposal For Article Fix by 76.21.0.76

Everyone knows NLP stands for Natural Language Processing. This article is psychobabble. Fix. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.21.0.76 (talk) 05:03, August 21, 2007 (UTC)

You're looking for the NLP disambiguation page. Other meanings of the NLP acronym are covered there. 74.64.85.88 09:35, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Research Summaries

Hi Fainites. Still looking forward to the research summary. Let us know if you want us to review an in progress version. Take care. 203.212.136.193 08:52, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Awfully sorry people but I'm still without internet access at the moment except for the occasional snatched moment on borrowed computers. BT seem to be struggling with the concepts does not work and please mend it. I would hope to get down to the summary next week. Look forward to the list of peer-reviewed and other studies !Fainites 11:37, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi all. Back in business. Ready to get on with summarising (or 'summarizing' on this site) research reviews. I'll post the results and then we'll see whether or not it is an improvment on the quotes which in themselves are all summaries.

Like the list of peer reviewed studies. How do I access the 'to-do' list or hasn't it been created yet? By the way, I re-ordered the sections at the bottom, americanised the spellings and put refs at the end of sentences where possible in accordance with peer review before I went off the air. Can't remember if I mentioned this. What's left? Fainites 18:21, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Do you want to use the following todo list? --Comaze 01:59, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Comaze. good work. 203.212.143.5 08:12, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Comaze and Numbers, this summary business is more difficult than I thought it would be. It's the distinction between reviews, individual research and commentary that makes it difficult to organise. i'll try and post something this weekend and see what you think.Fainites 22:29, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Talk page format

As per 58.* comments, I want to move the to-do list to a separate page and make it op-in.. 58 is a very experience editor and I trust his/her judgement on this one. My apologies for the disruption. --Comaze 11:42, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Comaze. I think it helped resolve a few issues. A good refresher for moving forward. 58.178.160.124 00:17, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

It wasn't disruptive. It was a good idea to concentrate the mind.Fainites 16:00, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh well. Can't hurt to have it in todo list format now (See above). 203.212.143.5 22:04, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Spelling

Hi Comaze, fainites, doc. Though this page was begun the British English (see Modelling, Counselling in early edits) it quickly switched to American English (which probably shouldn't have happened). I plan to fix discrepancies up now, so let me know if there's anything particular I leave out or you want to make a case for British English. 58.178.172.195 22:23, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi Comaze, Doc and Numbers. I thought the article had pretty much settled on American English, hence my spelling edits. The only English English I deliberately left in was in quotations from British authors, eg O'Connor and Seymour. I see you've still managed to find plenty of discrepancies though Numbers! Fainites 08:40, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Levels of proficiency

Hi folks. I think it would be good to include somewhere prominent that levels of proficiency in NLP are generally known as:

• NLP practitioner
• NLP master practitioner
• NLP trainer

Your thoughts? This seems pretty fundamental and universal. 58.178.176.153 10:29, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, in that somebody reading the article for basic information would want to know what the heiroglyphs after peoples names mean. By the same token, we ought to explain what eg 'NLP practitioner' means. What is such a person supposed to be able to do, or not do?Fainites 12:23, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

My understanding is that a practitioner is qualified to run patterns, a master is qualified to create new patterns, and a trainer is qualified to train people to become the other two. Does that sound succinct enough? 58.178.176.153 21:43, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

We'd need a bit of an explanation of 'patterns' in all that then.Fainites 20:49, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

There is one more level above NLP trainer, which is NLP trainer's trainer. That's the person who trains the people moving from Master Practitioner level to the Trainer level.--Sublime01 (talk) 20:12, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

sockblock

Hi all. The lovely AlanBarnet has gone at last, although you could say 'better the devil you know'. [1]I must say, I preferred him when he was merely bloody rude as opposed to nauseatingly 'civil' for which he just didn't have the knack. As DocPato said, "idiosyncratic language is a funny thing". It should make the talk page shorter though. Thanks Ryalong. Also thanks Woohookitty if you had anything to do with it. (I contacted Woohoo to tell him AlanBarnet was citing him as a supporter along with Guy.)He'll be back though.Fainites 13:36, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Congrats on your first Headley experience Fainites. I think your voice as a new and independent editor in this headley saga made a huge difference and completely deflated his cabal theory stories. He really is utterly delusional. And thanks everyone for your continued diverse yet civil opinions on representing this controversial/criticized topic of NLP. I'm sure we'll create a balanced and useful article yet. 211.26.243.102 02:16, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

It's quite interesting really. Have you seen his reply on the admin. page? It's as if he actually believes in his own nonsense. I come across this level of self-delusion from time to time at work but it's always fascinating to watch(for a short while).Fainites 08:09, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Summary

The idea is to have a section for mainstream psychology research, reviews and commentary. Then have different sections for other disciplines.

Psychology research and reviews

More than three decades since it's inception, the broad judgement of the evidence-based psychology community is that NLP is scientifically unvalidated as to both underlying theory and effectiveness. There are many pleas for further research and much criticism of the failure of proponents to undertake adequate research. Some go further and criticise it as a pseudoscience in that proponents claim a scientific basis that is not supported by research or current knowledge, and for spreading misconceptions about how the mind works.

Elich et al (1985) tested the model that proposed a relationship between eye movements, spoken predicates, and internal imagery, and found no support for this model. They added "NLP has achieved something akin to cult status when it may be nothing more than a psychological fad" (p625)". Krugman et al (1985) tested claims for a 'one-session' treatment of performance anxiety against another method and a control group and found no support for claims of a 'one-session' effective treatment. They argued for further research into NLP amongst other treatments that have "achieved popularity in the absence of data supporting their utility".

In 1984, Sharpley undertook a literature review of 15 studies and found "little research evidence supporting its usefulness as an effective counseling tool" and no reproducible support for preferred representational systems (PRS) and predicate matching. Einspruch and Forman (1985) broadly agreed with Sharpley but disputed the conclusions, identifying a failure to address methodological errors in the research reviewed. They stated "NLP is far more complex than presumed by researchers, and thus, the data are not true evaluations of NLP" adding that NLP is difficult to test under the traditional counseling framework. Moreover the research lacked a necessary understanding of pattern recognition as part of advanced NLP training and furthermore, that there was inadequate control of context, an unfamiliarity with NLP as an approach to therapy, inadequate definitions of rapport and numerous logical mistakes in the research methodology. Sharpley (1987) responded with a review of a further 7 studies (totalling 44 including those cited by Eispruch and Forman)on the basic tenets of NLP and stated "there are conclusive data from the research on NLP, and the conclusion is that the principles and procedures of NLP have failed to be supported by those data"... "certainly research data do not support the rather extreme claims that proponents of NLP have made as to the validity of its principles or the novelty of its procedures." Also that NLP may be untestable stating "perhaps NLP principles are not amenable to research evaluation. This does not necessarily reduce NLP to worthlessness for counseling practice. Rather, it puts NLP in the same category as psychoanalysis, that is, with principles not easily demonstrated in laboratory settings but, nevertheless, strongly supported by clinicians in the field." Sharpley states that a number of NLP techniques are worthwhile or beneficial in counselling, citing predicate matching, mirroring clients behaviors, moving sensory modalities, reframing, anchoring and changing history, but that none of these techniques originated within NLP, saying "NLP may be seen as a partial compendium of rather than as an original contribution to counseling practice and, thereby, has a value distinct from the lack of research data supporting the underlying principles that Bandler and Grinder posited to present NLP as a new and magical theory". He concluded that the techniques and underlying theory of NLP, as a counseling tool, were both empirically unvalidated and unsupported.

A study by Buckner et al (1987), (after Sharpley), using trained NLP practitioners found support for the claim that specific eye movement patterns existed for visual and auditory (but not kinesthetic) components of thought, and that trained observers could reliably identify them. This study did not cover whether such patterns indicated a preferred representational system and also made suggestions for further research. In a major review the following year, Druckman and Swets (1988) NRC found that "studies fail to provide an empirical base of support for NLP assumptions...or NLP effectiveness. The committee cannot recommend the employment of such an unvalidated technique". They also concluded that matching representational systems to gain rapport was ineffective, however the idea of modeling of expert performance "merits further consideration". In a follow up study on modeling (amongst other matters) by Swets and Bjork (1991) NLP was not included except by way of acknowledgment for the idea. Thereafter it would appear that although individual studies continue to be undertaken in a variety of fields, no further major research reviews have been undertaken and NLP was dropped from the experimental psychology research stream. Similarly in the field of psychotherapy it is stated that the "original interest in NLP turned to disillusionment after the research and now it is rarely even mentioned in psychotherapy".

In 1990 Beyerstein categorised NLP as a ‘neuromythology’ and pseudoscience. Beyerstein asserts that "though it claims neuroscience in its pedigree, NLP's outmoded view of the relationship between cognitive style and brain function ultimately boils down to crude analogies." With reference to all the 'neuromythologies' covered in his article, including NLP, he states "In the long run perhaps the heaviest cost extracted by neuromythologists is the one common to all pseudosciences—deterioration in the already low levels of scientific literacy and critical thinking in society. " That judgement has been supported by others from the mainstream, empirically based psychology community, such as Lilienfield (2002), Drenth (2003) and Devilly (2005) in peer-reviewed journals, and by commentators on the fields of psychology, psychotherapy and counselling such as Eisner in 'The Death of Psychotherapy', and Singer and Lalich in 'Crazy Therapies'. Devilly (2005) states that "at the time of its introduction, NLP was heralded as a breakthrough in therapy and advertisements for training workshops, videos and books began to appears in trade magazines. The workshops provided certification... However, controlled studies shed such a poor light on the practice, and those promoting the intervention made such extreme and changeable claims that researchers began to question the wisdom of researching the area further and even suggested that NLP was an untestable theory"..."NLP is no longer as prevalent as it was in the 1970s or 1980s, but is still practiced in small pockets of the human resource community. The science has come and gone, yet the belief still remains".

As an alternative, we could just remove the commentary from the research section but otherwise leave it as it is, and put the commentary in a criticism section.( By the way, both the reviews in "traumatology', a peer-reviewed journal, describe VKD as effective for PTSD. This should probably go in with psychology.)Fainites 22:20, 11 February 2007 (UTC)All this is referenced by the way.Fainites 23:26, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

By the way, the Heap link leads to a typewritten document called 'Chapter 25'. Chapter 25 of what? It claims to be the written version of a conference address and looks to be heavily sourced in itself. Does anybody knpw what this is published in?Fainites 13:32, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Fainites. This is the source: Heap. M. (1988) Neurolinguistic programming: An interim verdict. In M. Heap (Ed.) Hypnosis: Current Clinical, Experimental and Forensic Practices. London: Croom Helm, pp 268-280. --Comaze 07:43, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Is it peer-reviewed? Fainites 21:01, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Numbers, your opinion please on the summary, or have we moved onto higher things? Fainites 19:44, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi Fainites. Thanks for asking. In general, I think it's great. Well done. I think it reads a lot better in the second half. I found the direction a little unclear in the first half and perhaps the opening paragraph doesn't reflect what follows well yet. The Sharpley paragraph might do with a sentence at the beginning that summarises his opinion... i.e. he says basically, "the non-original parts of NLP work. the original parts don't." Doesn't he?

There is certainly some copy editing that will happen when it gets posted, and some passive voice phrases and long sentences that we can tighten up. Again well done. Here's some ideas for the first para -- but you know, whatever:

Presently, the indication from the evidence-based psychology community is that NLP is scientifically unvalidated in underlying theory and effectiveness. Amid support by clinicians using NLP in their fields, there are pleas for further research to address the failure of NLP proponents to undertake adequate research. Some critics label NLP as a pseudoscience, citing that many proponents claim a scientific basis for NLP that is ultimately not supported by current scientific knowledge.

I've left off the "misconception about how the mind works" statement because that is too much like elucidating the meaning of pseudoscience, and that seems beyond the domain of the section to me. Hope this all finds you well. 58.178.140.91 08:38, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Numbers. I think your opening paragraph reads better, but I'm not sure 'indication' is strong enough. The conclusions of Sharpley and Druckman appear to have been accepted and acted upon by psychology, hence the later commentary's by Beyerstein, Lilienfield and Drenth etc. My word 'judgement' may be a tad dramatic but I can't think of an alternative at the moment. Any ideas? As for Sharpley, how about, in 1984 and 1987 Sharpley undertook literature reviews of a total of 44 studies and concluded that the techniques and underlying theory of NLP, as a counseling tool were both empirically unvalidated and unsupported, but that it also contained many techniques already in use elsewhere in counselling practice and so could be seen as a 'partial compendium' .Fainites 14:45, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

All good. I'm fine with the word "judgement", yet when I saw the phrase "broad judgement" I replaced it with "indication", which is certainly what a broad judgement is. I guess it depends how broad you mean; also could be "overview", "opinion", "feeling", "consensus", and so on.

The particular phrase that caught my attention in Sharpley was "Sharpley states that a number of NLP techniques are worthwhile or beneficial in counselling..." and goes on to say but these results were discarded 'cos they weren't strictly NLP. This highlights for me that Sharpleys results and Sharpleys interpretation of results are two different beasts. I think our paragraph needs to be completely clear not to mislead people (given that Sharpley appears to have discarded results that are attributable to sources before NLP). So where we say Sharpley found yada yada yada, we could highlight Sharpley's criteria as a prelude. I.e.:

In testing the uniquely NLP techniques, Sharpley found yada yada yada.

I'm a bit hurried but I think you get me. 58.178.140.91 16:57, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually that bit where he says it's ineffective but then lists half a dozen 'beneficial' counselling techniques and says it has 'distinct value' as a compendium was always a bit of a puzzle.Fainites 18:10, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Me too. I'd feel a whole lot more comfortable with Sharpley if someone could explain that to me.

Comaze? 58.178.133.41 21:14, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

There are some inconsistencies here. Ashley Dowlen (1996) states "the [Sharpley (1987)] conclusion in this second review is summed up by his statement that: If NLP is presented as a theory-less set of procedures gathered from many approaches to counselling, then it may serve as a reference role for therapists who wish to supplement their counselling practice by what may be novel techniques to them."(p.31) --Comaze 08:52, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

So, if I'm making sense of that (which is tricky enough): In Sharpley's 1985 statement "little research evidence supporting its usefulness as an effective counseling tool", it seems that Sharpley is saying he requires a criteria of both valid theory and effective techniques in order justify an assessment of something being an "effective counseling tool". Since he found only the techniques of NLP worked (and the theory was bogus) he hence said NLP is not effective. Is that what we are to understand by all this? 58.178.133.41 10:17, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Sharpley (1987) stated that the experimental and psychological research on the principles (or theory) underlying is "without general support". He concluded that "future research that can contribute new data on this issue via methodological advances or consideration of different aspects of NLP may be justified". This illustrates that further research should be carried with advances in methodological as raised by Eispruch et al (1985). At the same time Sharpley suggests that the existing data should be analyzed further. It is then up to the practitioners and researchers to present their clinical data and devise more appropriate methodology. --Comaze 11:24, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. So all that beings the case, this quote:

"little research evidence supporting its usefulness as an effective counseling tool"

Is easily interpreted to mean that NLP is utterly ineffective. Since that isn't what Sharpley means I think a better citation would be appropriate in the opening sentence. 58.178.133.41 11:53, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

The actual quote should read, Buckner et al (1987), "NLP [had] gained popularity among practitioners (Harmon & O'Neill, 1981). NLP's popularity [had] developed in spite of little research evidence supporting its usefulness as an effective counseling tool (Sharpley, 1984)." Here's another quote from Sharpley 1987 that is quite strongly worded. He states (1987) As I shall point out, research on NLP has consistently shown very few significant effects that lend support to claims of therapeutic magic (or even any degree of effectiveness at all), either in research designed to evaluate the basic principles of NLP or in the treatment of both "laboratory" and real clients. Perhaps some additional context could be added as well as the later commentary about future research. --Comaze 12:21, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

This gets worse, not better! Sharpley lists the techniques he says are derivative. I think we could be more careful about the selection of quotes. He's quite clear about PRS and predicate matching (ie underlying theory). He's quite clear about the rather extreme claims of a magical new theory. Where it falls apart is effectiveness in relation to the counselling techniques nicked from elsewhere and new ones. The key to this is the studies. On a quick run through all of them relate not only to the underlying theory of PRS from eye movements etc, but also the effectiveness of working in an identified PRS. "Data collected in 44 studies clearly indicate an overwhelming finding that (a) the PRS cannot be reliably assessed; (b) when it is assessed, the PRS is not consistent over time; therefore, (c) it is not even certain that the PRS exists; and (d) matching clients' or other persons' PRS does not appear to assist counselors reliably in any clearly demonstrated manner." The list of useful techniques pinched from elsewhere is "predicate matching, mirroring clients behaviors, moving sensory modalities, reframing, anchoring and changing history". I think this is our answer.

Further, 'modeling' is not mentioned. Nor is there any comparison of whether NLP versions of old techniques are new improved versions. It's the whole PRS thing that's junked. The Buckner study is interesting but limited.Therefore the passage should reflect the findings in relaion to the underlying theories of PRS, identifiying a PRS and effectiveness of working in a PRS.[User:Fainites|Fainites]] 17:50, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

In the closing paragraph of discussion Graunke and Roberts state "that Graunke (1984), in a summary of seven NLP interventions (meta modeling, matching, overlapping, disassociation, resolving incongruencies, anchoring, and changing history), suggested that none of those interventions were based on the PRS concept. For example, Dilts et al.(1980) recommended matching a client's visual-auditory-kinesthetic strategy with a statement like "It looks [visual] like our talking [auditory] about your problems can help you get a handle [kinesthetic] on possible changes." This statement seems contradictory to the past PRS concept but consistent with the recommendation to continuously track and respond to clients' use of sensory predicates. The present authors suggest that further research is required to determine whether sensory predicates or other behavioral cues suggested by NLP are useful as phychotherapeutic tools."(pp.529-530) Bruce Graunke and T. Kevin Roberts (1985) "Neurolinguistic Programming: The Impact of Imagery Tasks on Sensory Predicate Usage" Journal of Counseling Psychology 1985, Vol. 32, No. 4, 525-530. --Comaze 23:14, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

So comaze, fainites. Let's get on track. What's some wording we can use to accomodate these observations above? 58.178.141.124 06:56, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I've adjusted the summary above to incorporate a more accurate presentation of Sharpleys research and Drucman etc. I know it makes the whole thread look a bit weird but it seemed easier than posting the whole thing again :-) Fainites 15:46, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

How about an opening paragraph that says Some critics have described NLP as pseudoscience while others have suggested that its claimed effectiveness results from it's reliance on a range of therapeutic techniques gleaned from other methods rather than any new theories or techniques. Fainites 21:28, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

No, you should have posted the whole thing again. This seems to be an ongoing issue here. Talk pages should only be refactored as a very very very last resort. I'm afraid comaze set a precedent earlier, and I didn't help by removing Headley's crap. I'll make clear what wikipedia policy is: Talk pages should almost never be refactored! The best thing to do is to post a new topic called "New summary".

The opening you propose. I assume it is intended as an opening sentence for the Sharpley paragraph. 210.50.114.65 01:14, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree I set a bad example by refactoring early. Is it ok to use strikethrough? Refactoring ones own posts are ok with me. --Comaze 05:30, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Mea culpa Headmaster. I've restored the original and put the new one below. Please don't put Comaze in detention for leading me astray. It was my own post.

On the issue of content, I've tried it in the opening paragraph of the whole section. Thinking about it, something similar could go in the opening paragraph of the whole article. I've long thought it may be the explanation for why NLP is so totally panned by psychology scientists on the one hand yet continues to be apparently useful in so many contexts on the other. A number of the articles in Comazes list of PMID etc publications point out that the techniques are similar to techniques elsewhere, eg CBT. Fainites 11:11, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

New proposed summary

Psychology research and reviews

The broad judgement of the evidence-based psychology community is that NLP is scientifically unvalidated as to both underlying theory and effectiveness. Amidst pleas for further research there is much criticism of the failure of proponents to undertake adequate research. Some classify it as a pseudoscience citing that many proponents claim a scientific basis that is not supported by research or current scientific knowledge. Others have suggested that any claimed effectiveness results from it's reliance on a range of therapeutic techniques gleaned from other therapies rather than any new theories or techniques.

In 1984, Sharpley undertook a literature review of 15 studies on the existance and effectiveness of preferred representational systems (PRS), an important underlying principle of NLP, and found "little research evidence supporting its usefulness as an effective counseling tool" and no reproducible support for preferred representational systems and predicate matching. Einspruch and Forman (1985) broadly agreed with Sharpley but disputed the conclusions, identifying a failure to address methodological errors in the research reviewed. They stated "NLP is far more complex than presumed by researchers, and thus, the data are not true evaluations of NLP" adding that NLP is difficult to test under the traditional counseling framework. Moreover the research lacked a necessary understanding of pattern recognition as part of advanced NLP training and furthermore, that there was inadequate control of context, an unfamiliarity with NLP as an approach to therapy, inadequate definitions of rapport and numerous logical mistakes in the research methodology. Sharpley (1987) responded with a review of a further 7 studies on the same basic tenets (totalling 44 including those cited by Eispruch and Forman). This included Elich et al (1985) who tested the model that proposed a relationship between eye movements, spoken predicates, and internal imagery, and found no support for this model. They added "NLP has achieved something akin to cult status when it may be nothing more than a psychological fad" (p625)". Sharpley stated "Data collected in 44 studies clearly indicate an overwhelming finding that (a) the PRS cannot be reliably assessed; (b) when it is assessed, the PRS is not consistent over time; therefore, (c) it is not even certain that the PRS exists; and (d) matching clients' or other persons' PRS does not appear to assist counselors reliably in any clearly demonstrated manner."and "there are conclusive data from the research on NLP, and the conclusion is that the principles and procedures of NLP have failed to be supported by those data"... "certainly research data do not support the rather extreme claims that proponents of NLP have made as to the validity of its principles or the novelty of its procedures." Also that NLP may be untestable stating "perhaps NLP principles are not amenable to research evaluation. This does not necessarily reduce NLP to worthlessness for counseling practice. Rather, it puts NLP in the same category as psychoanalysis, that is, with principles not easily demonstrated in laboratory settings but, nevertheless, strongly supported by clinicians in the field." Sharpley states that a number of NLP techniques are worthwhile or beneficial in counselling, citing predicate matching, mirroring clients behaviors, moving sensory modalities, reframing, anchoring and changing history, but that none of these techniques originated within NLP, saying "NLP may be seen as a partial compendium of rather than as an original contribution to counseling practice and, thereby, has a value distinct from the lack of research data supporting the underlying principles that Bandler and Grinder posited to present NLP as a new and magical theory". He concluded that as a counselling tool, the techniques and underlying theory unique to NLP, were both empirically unvalidated and unsupported but that "if NLP is presented as a theory-less set of procedures gathered from many approaches to counselling, then it may serve as a reference role for therapists who wish to supplement their counselling practice by what may be novel techniques to them."

A study by Buckner et al (1987), (after Sharpley), using trained NLP practitioners found support for the claim that specific eye movement patterns existed for visual and auditory (but not kinesthetic) components of thought, and that trained observers could reliably identify them. However, the study did not cover whether such patterns indicated a preferred representational system. They also made suggestions for further research. Krugman et al (1985) tested claims for a 'one-session' treatment of performance anxiety against another method and a control group and found no support for claims of a 'one-session' effective treatment. They argued for further research into NLP amongst other treatments that have "achieved popularity in the absence of data supporting their utility".

In a major review in 1988, Druckman and Swets NRC found that "studies fail to provide an empirical base of support for NLP assumptions...or NLP effectiveness. The committee cannot recommend the employment of such an unvalidated technique". They also concluded that matching representational systems to gain rapport was ineffective, however the idea of modeling of expert performance "merits further consideration". In 2004 Druckman said of the 1988 study "Our experiences with NLP led to two different conclusions. On the one hand, we found little if any evidence to support NLP’s assumptions or to indicate that it is effective as a strategy for social influence. It assumes that by tracking another’s eye movements and language, an NLP trainer can shape the person’s thoughts, feelings, and opinions (Dilts, 1983). There is no scientific support for these assumptions. On the other hand, we were impressed with the modeling approach used to develop the technique. The technique was developed from careful observations of the way three master psychotherapists conducted their sessions, emphasizing imitation of verbal and nonverbal behaviors (Druckman & Swets, 1988, Chapter 8). This then led the committee to take up the topic of expert modeling in the second phase of its work." The follow up study on expertise by Swets and Bjork (1991) concentrated on cognitive apprenticeship. NLP was not included except by way of acknowledgment for the idea of modeling. Thereafter it would appear that although individual studies continue to be undertaken in a variety of fields, no further major research reviews have been undertaken and NLP was dropped from the experimental psychology research stream. Similarly in the field of psychotherapy it is stated that the "original interest in NLP turned to disillusionment after the research and now it is rarely even mentioned in psychotherapy".

In 1990 Beyerstein categorised NLP as a ‘neuromythology’ and pseudoscience. Beyerstein asserts that "though it claims neuroscience in its pedigree, NLP's outmoded view of the relationship between cognitive style and brain function ultimately boils down to crude analogies." With reference to all the 'neuromythologies' covered in his article, including NLP, he states "In the long run perhaps the heaviest cost extracted by neuromythologists is the one common to all pseudosciences—deterioration in the already low levels of scientific literacy and critical thinking in society. " That judgement has been supported by others from the mainstream, empirically based psychology community, such as Lilienfield (2002), Drenth (2003) and Devilly (2005) in peer-reviewed journals, and by commentators on the fields of psychology, psychotherapy and counselling such as Eisner in 'The Death of Psychotherapy', and Singer and Lalich in 'Crazy Therapies'. Devilly (2005) states that "at the time of its introduction, NLP was heralded as a breakthrough in therapy and advertisements for training workshops, videos and books began to appears in trade magazines. The workshops provided certification... However, controlled studies shed such a poor light on the practice, and those promoting the intervention made such extreme and changeable claims that researchers began to question the wisdom of researching the area further and even suggested that NLP was an untestable theory"..."NLP is no longer as prevalent as it was in the 1970s or 1980s, but is still practiced in small pockets of the human resource community. The science has come and gone, yet the belief still remains".

It's gone in, with refs so you can now all play with it. I've removed the duplication from Mental health. Also Figley who's been rather superceded. It needs a ref for Druckman 2004 added please Comaze. Mental health needs some attention I think. It's a bit of a dumping ground. This is where any notable users in that field ought to go. We also need to add VKD to techniques.Fainites 22:51, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Editorial view on NLP (RFC)

Basis of RFC and concerns: I am concerned that the overall editorial view on NLP is rather fragmented and inconsistent at present. Part of this is a hangover from the POV warfare that's dogged the article for over 18 months now, which placed heavy emphasis on a few critical views rather than balancing them with other evidence, and part of it is due to the tendency to try and improve from this starting point, rather than take a fresh look at the entire question of balance. The concern I have is around how NLP is represented. Following the vandalism, the following notions were heavily argued, and a sense of "fair balance" was lost: Fringe notion / mainstream Pseudoscience / respected Integrated / excluded Widely used by credible bodies / almost unused within credible bodies Often supported by research but more research needed / mostly dismissed by research Becoming more marginalized to date / becoming more widely used The impact of the well known POV vandal was to invent facts, selectively cite results, and heavily misrepresent the balance of findings in research, in order to present and force a view on the article of "pseudoscience". The article ended up attacking its own subject. The problem in addressing this, was that there was so much misinformation in the article that the usual method of reviewing the article itself for balance was no longer viable. Untangling truth from falsehood regarding "independent opinions of NLP" had become impossible based upon the article itself, because the article was that badly damaged. Back around a year ago, I tried to look up these issues myself, independent of the present article (which at that time was heavily slanted and untrustworthy). Instead of any preconceived notion, I and other editors looked up all that could be found of users and usage, and professional views and studies of NLP. It took some time. Only sourced cited works that we could check and others could review too, were accepted, in order to avoid allegations either side of bias. The results were summarized in two reference lists: List of users of NLP - how widely is NLP used? What credible bodies use it, and how do they represent it? List of studies on Neuro-linguistic programming - what research has been undertaken? How well does this support or contradict the views and approaches of NLP? Looking up these questions "from scratch", rather than reliance upon the vandalism influence on the artcile to date, I found very consistent answers were "out there", and that these were sourced, verifiable, and citable. Unfortunately, the articles we have at present, are still greatly influenced by the POV imposed during trolling. The problem which I have submitted for RFC is, to ensure that the articles on NLP fairly and neutrally represent their subject, and to obtain independent help in editing them so that the issues of credibility, usage and research are appropriately addressed and balanced. Editors of this article have been under sustained attack for 18 months that any positive view of NLP is said to be "promotion". So outside help would be useful in ensuring that a genuine balance that is based upon consensus not bias, is created. The following issues are therefore central to the RFC and to getting a fresh, neutral, starting point for the article's representation of its subject: Views on the two lists above (credible usage + research). Other sourced, verifiable evidence related to research, usage and credibility. Bearing in mind these lists, do the articles on Neuro-linguistic programming and NLP and science fairly represent their subject in a balanced manner at present, or is there still a NPOV problem in the present articles? Third party editorial help in editing and removing imbalance or misrepresentation in the articles, so that the article doesn't accidentally swap one extreme for another. (Note that I am not asking for RFC on "what NLP is" or its techniques; but purely on whether credibility, usage, and research are fairly represented in the two main articles, and help from independent editors in rebalancing that aspect if needed. If there is evidence that the two lists compiled by editors are unrepresentative in any way, that of course would be part of the RFC discussion and consensus-finding.) FT2 (Talk | email) 12:58, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Having to concentrate so much on the misrepresentation and falsity surrounding the existing citations has resulted in a skewed article, (although hopefully the false and misleading citations are now all gone). The main view currently represented is empirically based psychology, which tho' important is not the whole story, and the last major review appears to have been 1988. Research has clearly continued thereafter in a variety of fields. The usage list is excellent. How about sections for the research, commentary and usage in different areas?Fainites 13:43, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

The problem, of course, is that NLP is a fringe view that is not generally accepted in the community of clinical psychology. So, aside from the need to accurately describe NLP and its techniques, it's also important to not try and indicate a greater level of validity than the level NLP actually enjoys. Contrary to your statement Fainites, "empirically based psychology" is, in fact, the whole story as psychology is just as subject to the scientific method as medicine, especially in the clinical field. If something cannot be supported by empirical evidence, it is either pseudoscience, protoscience, purely theoretical, or quackery. siafu 13:49, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

It might be the whole story as far as science is concerned but that doesn't mean it's the whole story as far as an encyclopaedic entry is concerned. NLP is only one of many scientifically unvalidated 'therapies' used in mental health. You may well think for example, that the NHS and the police are unwise or worse to use unvalidated methods but if it's a fact that they do why should this be excluded? As for the research that's been undertaken after Druckman, surely that can speak for itself, negative or positive?Fainites 14:04, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

As you can see in my comment, I do believe that it's equally important to accurately describe NLP and its methods. Of course, given that there already exist more than twenty articles (in four categories) on NLP and its methodology, there is potentially a serious NPOV problem of undue weight already. siafu 14:08, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes. The subsidiary articles I've seen rather overdo it. If we can get the balance and the sources right on the main article it should make it easier to clean up the daughter articles. Can something still be a 'protoscience' after 40 years?Fainites 14:18, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

It seems unlikely to me that something can retain "protoscience" status for so long before simply falling into pseudoscience, but that's just my own opinon. siafu 14:22, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Same here. Even if the underlying theories aren't particularly amenable to empirical research, there's always outcome studies of which not enough were done.Fainites 14:49, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Just a note on the above. It is my impression that various psychological and related fields are in a similar boat. Our role here is not to judge what "science/culture's view should be". It is to note the evidence of what it is. For example: The evidence seems to be that NLP is widely used in contexts that suggest a wide range of notable current users consider it credible in some way or another. It is not our job to guess NLP users' motives or guess why they feel that way, whether from experience, or concept, or results, or research, or indeed "just a phase" and "latest fad". We are not being asked to choose between protoscience or pseudoscience, or indeed between these and "not fully tested", or any other category, if reliable credible sources have not done so. We aren't into OR here. The question is, what reliable, credible views on NLP exist, and what would seem to be a balanced way to represent them. So fortunately, we don't have to guess at our own synthesis or opinion. We don't have to ask if it is "right" or not, or if 40 years is "enough" or not. We just have to ensure the article comprises what we feel is a fair balanced representation of reliable, credible, verifiable sources. The purpose of this article is to represent NLP fairly and neutrally. Whether other articles are notable or not is in a sense secondary. The question for this article is its balance and neutrality and representation of verifiable, citable, neutral, credible, factual information. The rest is a little bit tangential. (My $0.02) FT2 (Talk | email) 16:41, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Please clarify:

The evidence seems to be that NLP is widely used in contexts that suggest a wide range of notable current users consider it credible in some way or another.

What do you mean by "widely used" and "wide range of notable current users" and "credible in some way"? It's certainly not widely accepted by the mental health community at large; NLP therapy modalities are not covered by medicaid in my state at least, not covered by medicare anywhere, and most likely not covered by private insurance companies in the United States. That is, if it's only available to those wealthy enough to pay out of pocket in the first place (not many), just how widely accepted can it be? siafu 23:28, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I suppose this is what I meant by clinical psychology not being the whole story. I think I wasn't being clear above. As far as I am aware, the NHS do not offer it as a therapy. Bits of the UK NHS use bits of it for stress issues, communication and staff training. It would be misleading to just say the NHS uses it as that would imply therapeutic use. On the other hand, they are a pretty notable organisation. This kind of use should not be overstated but it does exist. It ought to be possible to ascertain for certain whether any aspect of NLP would be covered by USA private health insurance. Other uses of NLP and research into this is scattered across a variey of fields that have nothing to do with psychology or therapeutic use. Fainites 07:22, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually you referred to "empirically based psychology", not "clinical psychology". The former is, in fact, the whole story, the latter is just a branch of psychology-- but a branch to which NLP belongs, nonetheless. What "bits" of NLP does the NHS use, specifically, and are they uniquely associated with NLP? siafu 12:59, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry. I thought you were referring to clinical psychology. Is NLP only a branch of clinical psychology? Anyway, try this. Page 28. Rapport and pacing. [2]I suppose you could say that's Erikson. If you look in the article under 'technology'you will see a quote from Sharpley to the effect that many 'NLP' techniques' are not new to NLP. Or this. Page 27 [3]. Or this [4]Fainites 18:47, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

The point of my question is that if the techniques being used by the NHS from NLP (which need to be explicitly laid out, if at all possible) are not unique to NLP, it needs to be established that the NHS is using these techniques from NLP specifically and not from their original source(s). If we can't do that, we can't asser that NHS is using NLP techniques. siafu 22:08, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

The three examples I gave here all specifically refer to NLP as such.Fainites 22:16, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Would there be any merit in a list of NLP techniques that already existed in other forms, in which they may or may not be validated? (eg is 'Parts Integration' 'Ego-State Therapy' from Psychoanalysis. 'Anchoring'predates NLP.) Or is this all too esoteric?Fainites 22:22, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

It only has merit inasmuchas as it speaks to the claim that NLP is used by various notable individuals or organizations. siafu 01:50, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm enjoying following this discussion. Much thanks. I read the three citations Fainites provided. It occurred to me that perhaps what matters most is what the organisations themselves believe about the origins of the NLP techniques they use. The first group Fainites posted [5] believes Rapport originates with NLP. Should we take care to highlight how they're wrong? Or should we just report it as they say it? In other words; how do we report noteworthy yet ill-formed citations? 58.178.140.220 09:29, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Just to be clear, what the source referred to specifically says is:

Building rapport is a technique described and practiced in Neuro Linguistic Programming (NLP).

Technically this is true, but it's rather meaningless as building a rapport is described almost every modality in existence. I just skimmed, but is there anything specific to NLP in the following paages about rapport, or is it simply general? siafu 14:24, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

The first one covers rapport, pacing and leading, all of which I understand come from the Milton model, i.e. Erickson did it, NLPers copied it and reduced it to a reproducable pattern. The other 2 cites seem to cover a broader gamut of NLP. The third one (for Guys, Kings and St Thomas's, three teaching hospitals in London, now merged into one)refers to 'medical NLP' and talks about effective communication skills. There are other citations aswell.There doesn't seem to be any reason not to suppose that both providers and users believe they're using NLP. If in fact what they're using is all the bits of NLP that already existed in other branches this could be pointed out. This brings me back to the idea of a list of NLP techniques borrowed from elsewhere. However, would I be right in thinking that modeling as practised in NLP really originated with NLP, even though the idea has been taken up in other disciplines? (I think there was an earlier thread that discussed this weird mixture of pseudoscientific underpinnings, borrowed techniques and possibly new ideas).Fainites 17:25, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

PRS and non PRS techniques

It appears from these quotes that anchoring and reframing was imported from Satir:

• "Virginia received notoriety by Neuro Linguistic Programming (NLP) researchers (Grinder, Bandler, & Satir, 1976) for her uncanny ability to reframe even the most dire circumstances."(p.31)
• "Bandler and Grinder also noted Satir’s ability to anchor desired experiences. By consistently referring to the good feeling of the hands when they lovingly enveloped the face, she anchored a new way to make contact. By repetitiously inviting each parent-child dyad to practice this type of touch, she further anchored a new interpersonal possibility for each of them."(p.32)Haber, Russell (2002) Virginia Satir: An integrated, humanistic approach Contemporary Family Therapy. Vol 24(1), Mar 2002, pp. 23-34 ISSN 1573-3335 doi:10.1023/A:1014317420921 --Comaze 23:20, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

And modelling? Is it original to NLP? 58.178.141.124 06:59, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

NLP modeling was imported from various fields. In structure of magic it credits Korzybski for human modeling methodology. --Comaze 00:23, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh dear. How much imported?Fainites 22:02, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

So far we have "meta modeling, matching, overlapping, disassociation, resolving incongruencies, anchoring, and changing history," from Graunke as not based on PRS and "predicate matching, mirroring clients behaviors, moving sensory modalities (Gestalt therapy), reframing (5 other therapies), anchoring and changing history" from Sharpley as not new. 'Parts' seems to come from Virginia Satir too although it is remarkably similar to ego-state therapy. Is there anything in Graunkes list that isn't in Sharpleys list and was new? Is there anything else new at all (except PRS (apparently discredited))?Fainites 16:08, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Basis and origins of NLP techniques

Techniques/ideas	Based on PRS theory	new with NLP
meta modelling	no	no
overlapping	no	?
disassociation	no	no
resolving incongruencies	no	?
anchoring	no	no
changing history	no	no
mirroring	no	no
moving sensory modalities	?	no
reframing	no	no
modelling	no	yes
parts integration	no	no
ecology checking	no	yes
rapport/pacing/leading	no (it has been claimed that matching PRS can build rapport)	no
swish pattern	no	yes
VKD	no	yes
PRS	yes	yes
rep. systems	no	no
submodalities	?	yes
goal setting	no	no

Some of these overlap. There may be some more. Labouchiere talks of the NLP techniques of 'anchoring, isomorphic metaphor and goal setting'. Miller talks of 'changing submodalities'. As these are the only two positive research papers we have in the article so far it's quite important to ascertain whether or not these are NLP techniques. Can somebody who has studied NLP please fill in the ?'s and add any more techniques. I hope the point of this makes sense. Fainites 19:51, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean by "Original NLP technique"? --Comaze 11:45, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, what was new I suppose, as opposed to 'early'. New in the sense of new as useable in therapy or PD. It's often described as a 'toolbox'. You wouldn't expect a toolbox not to contain hammers and screwdrivers, but then you wouldn't credit the collator of the toolbox with inventing hammers and screwdrivers. Similarly, if anchoring, reframing and rapport are all validated and useful you would expect to find them in any number of personal development systems or therapies. The point is twofold. 1. when people say NLP has been disproved by research, what exactly are they talking about? and 2. what was new in NLP that hadn't been thought of or done in a comparable way before?Fainites 15:51, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Next question Comaze, is isomorphic metaphor the same as resolving incongruencies?Fainites 17:21, 24 February 2007 (UTC)I think submodalities could be an important one. Fainites 19:54, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Re modelling, had a look at Swets and Bjork in the follow up study to Druckman and Swets which acknowledges NLP gave them the idea of modelling. In the follow up they looked at 'cognitive apprenticeship' which includes modelling, coaching, scaffolding, articulation, reflection and exploration. They talk of '2 decades of cognitive science literature on expertise' (in 1991). Looks as if Bandler and Grindler might have been in the vanguard on this one but then outstripped by people who actually do the research. Fainites 18:14, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I've broken my own rule and edited your table above according to what I think you meant. I found the "yes + not" combo and layout could be bettered. Hope that's okay. Now I'm in trouble for refactoring I'm sure. I changed some ? to yeses here and there so that we don't fence sit too much on one side. :D 210.50.232.201 23:12, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

This is what I had in mind when I started but lacked the essential skills.You are forgiven.Fainites 23:14, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Just as a matter of common sense I can't see how VKD, Swish, ecology, parts, modelling or reframing are based on PRS though presumably the practitioner is supposed to keep the supposed PRS in mind throughout.Fainites 23:36, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

There is a myth that people are defined by their PRS, ie. an "NLP practitioner" might say "I'm a visual person" (ie. I think in pictures) or "I'm a kinesthetic person" (ie. I'm think primarily with my feeling). In contrast, the New Code approach seeks to help people gain access to all representational systems. New Code of NLP also stresses the importance of context and that people are constantly using all representational systems. The NLP spelling strategy holds that poor spelling primarily use auditory when encoding and recalling words. The intervention to improve spelling is geared toward helping the client use multiple sensory systems when encoding and recalling the words. This spelling strategy was also part of classic code and demonstrates that Bandler and Grinder understood that people are conscious of different representational systems depending on context. --Comaze 00:40, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I guess one distinction we should make is whether NLP proponents would concede some techniques as flawed if PRS was ever utterly disproven; which is what Sharpley seems to claim. So which techniques are independent enough of PRS to be excluded from Sharpley's research findings? Isn't that what Fainites is trying to establish? 210.50.232.201 09:37, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Come on Comaze. You're the NLPer! Which techniques don't rely on/use/have anything to do with PRS? Fainites 17:42, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

There are many different descriptions and misinterpretations of PRS, there is an recent article by a cognitive scientist who reviewed the research literature[6] (I was partly involved in that research project). I learned PRS as part of sensory acuity and calibration training. I have used PRS to help people access past resource states. It is not required but seems to help people access the states smoothly. A typical change process will involve helping people recall and access past resource states. Starting with the preferred system, you ask the person to remember the resourceful state, see it from your own eyes, hear the sounds around you, and feel what is like to embody that now. When the person is in the desired state it can be anchored for later use. I'm not sure if PRS is required for any process, but sensory acuity, and the ability to shift between sensory modalities most certainly is required. I highly recommend that you read the preferred-rep-system article It has quotes showing the varying interpretations from Bandler & Grinder's original conception as well as the subsequent research literature --Comaze 00:21, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

OK Comaze. I've read the preferred rep article. Even if PRS is not 'required', we need to express in the article the extent to which research on PRS affects NLP processes and techniques. Are you saying you can do the entire gamut of NLP without any reference to or recourse to PRS? I also note that the daughter article on PRS says it was mainly dumped (by Dilts and Bandler no less) in the 80's. Also, where did 'representational systems' come from?Fainites 22:58, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I've tried to flesh out the paragraph on representational systems in the current article. It needs some work and so does the section on PRS and submodalities. Submodalities is very important to many NLP practitioners, especially those trained in the Bandler (or Andreas) lineage. I think this is necessary next step. --Comaze 03:10, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Are you sure that representational systems rather than preferred representational systems came in with NLP? Fainites 07:51, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Something similar to Representational systems can be found in gestalt therapy and can be traced further back to the founder of modern psychology, William James. --Comaze 13:01, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I've added a bit more to Rep systems and PRS. We need to make sure there are explanations in non-NLP language for the uninitiated. I also tried to express the different views on PRS. Is this a fair representation? It probably needs some refs, ie Grinder and Bostic St Clair. Any advances on the table? In particular, what about submodalities?Fainites 00:13, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I've added some more detail to submodalities. If you could do the same sort of edit from a non-NLP perspective that would be great. --Comaze 00:45, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Comaze; goal setting seems to be common to personal development. Is 'well-formed outcome' basically the same thing? Fainites 22:15, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

A simple way to describe the well-formed outcome process would be to say it extends the idea of goal-setting in personal development. It adds the meta-model to get very specific about the evidence and criteria. It also seeks to discover discover what states and other resources would be required to achieve the outcome. During the process sub-goals may be discovered that required further investigation. So, yes, it is basically the same thing are goal setting, however, there are some important distinctions that would be useful for contrast. --Comaze 11:27, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

So goal setting was not new with NLP but they've expanded it a little.Fainites 18:14, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

One important difference is that NLP process is content free. This means that the practitioner guides the client through the process without suggesting a solution. This allows the clients to take ownership and discover the pathway on their own. Classic NLP uses the "Present state"->"Desired state" model which is more general used than well-formed outcome. Essentially both the present and desired states are defined and the steps in between are explored. --Comaze 00:32, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I think we need to add short sections on ecology and well-formed outcome. Anything else?Fainites 22:52, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

How about metaphor? --Comaze 00:32, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Comaze, can you add a ref for New Code de-emphasising PRS if that's what it did. I added O'Connor and Seymour as a standard work still emphasising PRS as it's a book that's endorsed by Dilts and Grinder.Fainites 21:48, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll look it up and get back to you. --Comaze 01:08, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

The German article on NLP

Does anyone here have enough German to extract whatever is useful from the German NLP article? If not, I will submit a translation of it about a week from now. Sometime after that I could also translate the Russian article on NLP.Jbhood 11:36, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm trying to cast my net as wide as possible. There are hundreds if not thousands of references back to NLP from other subject areas. The babbelfish translations of the German and Russian articles do look promising. Esterbrook (2006) doctoral dissertation has a literature review of both western and Russian perspectives on NLP (full text available via Proquest/UMI). --Comaze 08:37, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

You don't need to translate the Russian Wikipedia article, because it had already been translated from an older version of this article. But you may translate the English article into Russian, at least parts of it (the latter needs restructuring according to English-article standards), because I completely lack of time to do so. Eli the Barrow-boy 00:40, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Eli, thanks for the info. As it turns out, I also lack the time to translate the German article any time soon, and translating *into* Russian is not my usual direction in any case. Let us hope some one else can tackle that one. Jbhood 02:16, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Evidence based

Re your edits, Comaze, thanks for the refs. The whole psychology section is about the 'evidence based' or 'experimental psychology' research and view. We don't need to characterise each scientist within it. I would have thought that Counselling is included in this, provided it's evidence based. The Mental Health section should show what actually happens in practice, ie it isn't all just evidence based interventions. Where we need different sections is learning and human resources.Fainites 07:31, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Would you consider Sharpley to be an experimental psychologist? By the way, I just read through the article. It is really starting to take shape. Good work. --Comaze 07:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Wouldn't you? (I mean about Sharpley, not taking shape). Fainites 22:50, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Sharpley gave preference to evidence from experimental psychology. He was also looking for aspects of NLP that could improve the practice and theory of conselling psychology which I assume also preferences experimental evidence above qualititative, case studies or outcome based studies. The SAGE handbook on conselling and psychotherapy (2006) which says that research requirements for boundary conditions in traditional conselling psychology is somewhat incompatiable with NLP. Ref: Cooper and Seal (2006) "Theory and Approaches - Eclectic-intergrative approaches: Neuro-linguistic programming" In Feldtham and Horton (Eds) The SAGE Handbook of Counselling and Psychotherapy 2e --Comaze 03:05, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I think this is fairer representation of Bandler and Grinder's argument about theory and it puts it in context of conselling psychology and the APA. Here is a quote from "Relation of theory and epistemology to clinical practice":

The relation between theory and clinical practice is an issue that repeatedly permeates serious discussion of family therapy. For example, Whitaker (35), Haley (14), and Bandler and Grinder (1) have all protested, in different ways, that theory can hinder clinical work. Unfortunately, their theories about the relation of other theories to clinical practice may lead the reader to overlook the necessary connections between ideas and action or, more broadly, between aesthetics and pragmatics. Any effort to disassociate this relation reinforces the false occidental dualism of mind and body. This epistemological error may consequently lead to maintaining various forms of pathology at individual, social, cultural, and planetary levels (see Bateson, 2).

When therapists argue that “theory” is not immediately useful to clinical practice, they are partly correct in the sense that a theory of therapy (or diagnosis or research) is of a different logical level from therapeutic action. However, to regard theory (whether organic, psychodynamic, behavioral, or systems) as completely irrelevant to the clinician ignores the ways in which theory and clinical practice interact. An earlier work on the relation of ecosystemic epistemology to family therapy (17) suggested that it is impossible to have no epistemology, for even the idea that one has no epistemology arises from a particular epistemology. Therefore, a therapist must always be operating from an epistemological base. Reference: Keeney, Bradford P; Sprenkle, Douglas H (1992) Ecosystemic epistemology: Critical implications for the aesthetics and pragmatics of family therapy In Miller, Ronald B. (Ed). (1992). The restoration of dialogue: Readings in the philosophy of clinical psychology. (pp. 477-495). Washington, DC, US: American Psychological Association. xx, 654 pp. --Comaze 03:38, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't lump outcome studies in with qualitative research or case studies Comaze. Nothing wrong with outcome studies from the empirical point of view or indeed to an experimental psychologist as long as they fulfil basic scientific requirements and are repeatable. This is made clear by amongst others, Drenth and Beyerstein.Fainites 12:20, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Fainites, you're correct. I've striked out that bit about outcomes studies. I'll reply to your other thread when I can. --Comaze 12:47, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Thats why the founders and proponents are criticised. It may be true that NLP theories are not amenable to scientific research but anybody can do outcome studies with a bit of care.Fainites 15:17, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Techniques

I've added a few simplistic descriptions of outcome, VK/D, ecology and metaphor. Feel free to rewrite. Fainites 15:44, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Cults!

Found a reference.pp's 99-102 [7]. It's the French anti-cult body report. They're complaining about the lack of regulation and quality control of therapists making it possible for guru type groups in more fringe therapies like NLP and TA to become cult-like.Fainites 21:39, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Towards Completion

In my view, the last remaining jobs to do are 1) expand the section on modeling as this is really the focus of NLP. 2) complete the refs, ie page numbers, PMID's etc, 3)add more verifiable users under Human resources etc, 4) make the 'science/humanism/technology sections more readable. Any thoughts? Also, I've added in bits to the techniques about the source of the techniques. Does anybody think a completed version of our table should go in the article?Fainites 22:23, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to see the table in the article. Perhaps it could also have what year the technique was developed or imported for use in NLP and by whom. It would be nice to acknowledge the original sources. I'll work on fixing up the references and add the PMIDs / page numbers. --Comaze 07:20, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Hey, if you think you can work out what year what technique went in where, then good luck to you Comaze! More power to your elbow! I think the important point is that these are all models which is the basis for it all. Fainites 22:33, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Lead Section

Someone has removed the criticism from the lead section and placed it in a separate paragraph. I have no problem with a section for criticism if required, but in my view a summary of the main criticisms/controversies should be in the lead section.[8] There has been extensive previous discussion about this and consensus was reached. Unless there is any opposition I propose to put the summarised criticism back in the lead section.Fainites 22:26, 16 March 2007 (UTC) Reverted Fainites 16:39, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Religiosity and Spirituality/humanistic psychology

Looking at the "Religiosity and Spirituality" section, there does not appear to be much of genuine substance and relevance. The links between NLP and religion given in the sources cited are tenuous, and it's debatable whether they are notable enough for inclusion in the article. Looking at each part in turn:

• "Sociologist and Christian scholar, Stephen J. Hunt states that NLP "is a technique rather than an organised religion and is used by several different human potential movements" yet that it has an "implied religiosity". The "implied religiosity" quote is potentially misleading, as could imply to some readers that Hunt thinks that NLP is a religion in some sense. However, the whole point of Hunt's book is to explore similarities between different things and religion, and sees religiosity in a lot of places; for example, he also says dieting fads have an "implied religiosity". I don't think you can conclude from the book that Hunt sees anything but a few extremely tenuous similarities between NLP and religion, and the case for including it in the article is not very strong.
• "Skeptics have described NLP as simply a "New Age" development citing the USNRC study which found no hard empirical evidence for its efficacy." The source given, Beyerstein, doesn't have anything much to say about religion or spirituality; its main conclusion is that NLP is unscientific.
• "Dilts states that John Grinder was influenced by Carlos Castaneda's Don Juan in developing the double hypnotic induction, perceptual positions and rechanneling of attention and energy to more appropriate contexts." Not obvious what the relevance of this is.
• "David V. Barrett (2001) in his work The New Believers: A Survey of Sects, Cults and Alternative Religions, describes NLP as a technique or series of techniques, or a process, and notes it is sometimes used by some religious sects. He states that while "the brief biographies of NLP Trainers susually give the names of the people they have trained under... could be seen as similar to new eastern origin religions tracing themselves back through a progression of gurus", and that NLP as a philosophy does exhibit some characteristics which are sometimes found in some religions, "overall the balance comes down against it being labeled as a religion." Another source, similar to Hunt, that explores whether different ideas are religious or similar to religions. Again, the conclusion from the source is that NLP is not a religion, and it's not obvious why we are quoting the sentence which makes the tenuous link between NLP and Eastern religions.

Overall, the sources don't have much to say about NLP and religion/spirituality, other than a fairly consistent conclusion that NLP is not a religion anyway. I would suggest that the whole section is removed, or at least slimmed down. It's potentially misleading and is just not adding much of interest to the article. Any comments? Enchanter 23:00, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I think, like a lot of older versions of this article, the religion section is a left over after all of the fake and misleading citations have been removed. Taking each point in turn;

• I don't see the point of Hunt
• There may be some point in the New Age idea if NLP is part of a whole gamut of ideas/philosophies etc that can be loosely characterised as New Age. The phrase 'New Age' seems to have a more pejorative meaning in the USA than in the UK though. Beyerstein has a slot in the psychology section calling NLP a 'neuromythology' and pseudoscience. It would make more sense to put him altogether.
• Castenada is worthy of inclusion somewhere but I don't see what it's got to do with religion.
• I don't see the point of Barratt as he presumably decides NLP is neither a cult, nor a sect nor an alternative religion. We did have a discussion at some point, given how many people think NLP is a cult, as to whether we should include anything about cults and the fact that major cult commentators such as Singer and Hussan do not say NLP is a cult, but decided against it. Fainites 14:49, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Section now removed. Enchanter 19:30, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Hello Enchanter. I suggest a slightly different and perhaps more subtle approach. The information may turn out to be quite crucial, albeit under a different title. My worry is the information will most likely come back and be presented as out of context as it was before. So I have been working on how to best frame the article, and I see that the later research is more focused on belief change, change at work, and epistemology. As it is we need information that makes the belief aspects of NLP clearer. Here is my bias - I personally feel that NLP is a belief change method par excellence. It is one way to increase all sorts of confidence effects which go beyond placebo. There are also NLP inroads into sports psychology, in one form or another. I think my feeling also reflects the more recent attitudes in NLP and I've looked into NLPworld to find support for this. So here's my proposal:

Title - Beliefs and performance; NLP has been described as a new age therapy but NLP uses beliefs for belief change (described by Barret) at work, Grinder talks of ethics, and NLP is actually a technique (Hunt). Confidence and beliefs are known to be used to increase performance in sport, work, and so on. NLP has been used by ----- in order to increase performance via belief change.

What do you think? Steve B110 03:59, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Good suggestion Steve B110. I made a change as appropriate. 144.214.54.82 05:03, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Hello. Well its a bit better than before but I had some more information from Barrett in mind. For example he is a lot more positive about NLP than the present line states. He writes about belief change for coping and for increasing performance. Bandler also has some key developments in belief change relating specifically to submodalities. I think the Dilts line could possibly go altogether. Also I think we should probably discuss this in more depth before making changes on the article.Steve B110 05:20, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Hello everyone. I found an even fairer appraisal of NLP in relation to belief change. Here is the perspective: NLP is only mentioned in books about new religions because of the belief change aspects. Humanistic psychology is also mentioned there usually for the same reasons. Here is a quote from an author called Partridge (2004) the most recent view on the subject:

"NLP may be best thought of as a system of psychology concerned with the self development of the human being. It claims to provide a set of skills and techniques that enable its practitioners to achieve competence and excellence in any field"(page 402). "It is concerned with the function of belief rather than its nature. It is not concerned whether a belief is true or not, but whether it is empowering or disempowering"(page 403).

I suggest the first line is an absolute must. I don't think the article can get away without handling the belief change aspects and "spiritual psychology" aspects. So I think it would be best to handle it properly for good. I think the belief information should be added to the humanistic psychology section. What do you think? Steve B110 05:56, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi again everyone. Here is my suggestion I've been working on:

Humanistic psychology handles the issue of beliefs is a functional way and this is reflected in the way belief experts view NLP. For example Partridge (2003) states that "NLP may be best thought of as a system of psychology concerned with the self development of the human being" and "It is concerned with the function of belief rather than its nature. It is not concerned whether a belief is true or not, but whether it is empowering or disempowering". Similarly, Stephen J. Hunt states that NLP "is a technique rather than an organised religion and is used by several different human potential movements". David V. Barrett (2001) also describes NLP as a technique or series of techniques, or a process. He states that that "the balance comes down against it being labeled as a religion.". Beliefs can be altered or enhanced by using NLP in order to improve performance and health usually using such submodality interventions, or through reframing (Bolstad et al 2001).

As I said, it should go in the humanistic psychology section I think. havn't checked that last reference by Bolstad, but he's a good developer and it looks ok. Other references may help a bit. Tell me what you think? Steve B110 09:24, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I like the Partridge bit. The second sentence is as important as the first I think. Not so sure about Barrett when he says it's not a religion. Well who ever seriously said it was? I think we need to keep a very clear distinction between the notion of 'belief' as in personal belief system (Partridge) and 'belief' as in belief in an outside entity or force. Hunt and Barrett (the bit that was in) were considering the latter issue whilst Partridge (and Grinder) are talking about the former.Fainites 20:34, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Fainites. Well unfortunately a lot of misguided people do tend to call NLP a kind of new religion. I think it would help the Wikipedia reader if we cleared that up using a reputable ref. Its confusing to some people to talk about belief change. They often jump to the conclusion its about some sort of wierd spiritual conversion. If we have a good source putting it right, the misconception can be squashed in good time. A few sources together saying its not considered a religion or cult is pretty informative. Steve B110 07:39, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Hello. I decided to try out my proposed paragraph in the hum psych section. I think it goes well but it could be a bit more brief. I also think its a good explanation for the LGAT misconception. In reality, NLP can be confusing and I think this article needs to spend more time on explaining the actual intentions of NLP, rather than just quoting the misconceptions of academics out of context. Steve B110 06:46, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup

This article has been edited and re-edited, but it reads like arcana. I honestly don't think the basic concepts of NLP are that difficult, although both friends and enemies have made them obscure at times. I realize there is an ongoing battle raging, which has left the article a bit technical. That's unfortunate. Let's make it readable. Yakuman 20:53, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi.Nice to see you here. All suggestions gratefully received. Fainites 20:54, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I have cleaned up the lead and plan to work my way through everything. My intent is to leave fact claims intact, but to make the article more accessible to the intelligent reader. A big part of this is cutting back on jargon and technical terminology. My own views are that while I am not an NLP advocate, I believe that the structure of subjective experience deserves study. While this system may not have the answers, it asks many good questions that researchers should examine under more structured conditions, using traditional canons of examination and scientific method. I believe I can help clean up this article without unfairly biasing it toward one side or the other. I assumed our common goal is a fair, NPOV overview of the subject. Yakuman (数え役満) 10:57, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Hello Yakuman. I have no idea what this article is on about. Please continue with cleaning it up. Nobody else seems to be botherd about it. Looks like its designed to be as clear as mud. At first I thought it was about programming computers. From then on it got more confusing. I think half the terms don't even exist in dictionaries. Good luck. Mibmub 15:03, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Yakuman. The edits are fine. Articles that have been as heavily edited as this one always need a fresh eye. My quibbles would be 1)Devilly does not just say the techniques are scientifically unvalidated. The vast majority of the research was about PRS which was very important in NLP but none of the research supported it. Most of NLP's actual techniques are taken from other therapies, some of which are scientifically validated elsewhere, and 2) Perls, Erikson and Satir are not just inspirations. They modelled them and derived their patterns from the models. If you propose changing anything else factual it would be a good idea to raise it here first as most factual issues have been heavily researched and discussed in the past.Fainites 15:53, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Hello. This seems to be part of the problem. I have no idea what you are on about. You seem to be talking in absurdities. NLP doesn't work, but NLP techniques work? Is that what you are saying? Because that seems to be the gist of the article as it stands. I think Yakuman is doing fine without the illogic. Yakuman, please continue. Mibmub 15:13, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Why don't you read the earlier talk page? The article has to be understood by the average intelligent reader but it also has to be accurate. There is obviously a difference between whether something 'works' and whether or not underlying theoretical principles are scientifically validated. Important underlying theoretical principles of NLP such as the existence of a preferred representational system have not been supported by the scientific research. That doesn't mean none of it 'works'. The fact that NLP borrowed many techniques from other therapeutic systems is not a difficult concept to understand.Fainites 14:21, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Right! The problem I see with this wikipedia article is its not telling the whole story. The bottom line is that NLP is widely accepted. It doesn't matter how many science studies have been published. The fact is it works! I noticed that there are a whole lot of facts missing from the article. OK some studies obviously say that some things about NLP don't show up on the meter. But the brain is more sensitive than the meter. NLP works in real life. NLP authors have turned the tables on the research every time. That hasn't been fairly shown yet. We should see a lot more of the real views on the article I think. Starting with the fact that its about the most popular change technology on the market. I know there are a lot of powerful new technologies out there but NLP really is the most widely accepted. Steve

Hi Yakuman. I added more cleanup and put the views and answers the right way round. I really would like to help out here. Theres a lot of balancing to do. I think the science stuff has the article totally out of joint. I heard a lot of really convincing reasons why the science is all wrong. Its not going to take long to get them into the article as answers. I'm sure they can be quoted from the recent NLP web pages and books. Steve

Hi Steve. Facts stated need to be verified (referenced) and credible. Some of your changes have left references that do not justify your edits. Currently the two references for NLP being popular are Sanghera and Singer. If you want to add stuff about popularity and wide acceptance then you will need some sources to back this up. For example, see the references in the human resources section to the NHS. Fainites 20:14, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Fainites. Yes I have some books in mind. I'll add the ref soon. Steve B110 03:54, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Yakuman. I see you have made some changes to my yesterdays edits. Thanks, they look better. Steve B110 11:10, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

this should be obvious, should it not:

the techniques of neuro-linguistic programming are not new. i use most of the techniques. i've learned to call it "meta-programming" or "meditation" or "whatever".

so there should be two articles: one should deal with neuro-linguistic programming techniques; the other should deal with the marketing aspect of it. that is, an instructional and a bullshit one respectively.

i think i might just redo the fuck out of all of this because it's so unbelievably unacceptable as is.

user harlequence

Hi Harlequence. I'm totally with you on that last line. I think Fainites and other authors have been around a while though. So I think its going to need some careful writing. I want to get it right.Steve B110 03:57, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

No, of course it's not new. The ideas are ancient. Cf. Plato's allegory of the cave and Hamlet's "Nothing's good or bad but thinking makes it so." NLP is also hardly the only field to take up this philosophy. See cognitive behavioral therapy for a much better tested, much more widely accepted psycho-theraputic technique based on these ideas. BTW, "metaprogramming" is also fringe, seems to be only John C. Lilly and certain subcultures (e.g. Leri and offshoots) who use this term. --Jonathan Stray 20:37, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Access to references online???

Hi Yakuman, Fainites and harlequence. I can see there are quite a few references that need checking over and there is info from refs that really doesn't need saying at all. Do you know which refs are accessible via the web? That Sharply ref basically concludes what I would say is the overall fact:: that NLP is a collection of diverse useful techniques that can be synergistically used for change under the right direction. But I want to read the thing in full because there seems to be a lot of irrelevant stuff there. There are also some negative reviews that really have been answered many times over by NLP authors. If there are any web access ones I'd be happy to give them the answers I collected over the years from various authorities. Steve B110 11:49, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Steve and Yakumen. I can send you the Sharpley papers by e-mail if you enable your e-mail. Have you looked at earlier discussions? There is a whole discussion on this page about where the various techniques come from. I've added the verified ones to the article in the techniques and concepts section. Do you have any others? You will also see that for ages the article just said NLP had been disproved by science but in fact if you look carefully at the research about the only thing they ever really researched was PRS. The full quote from Sharepley about it being a compendium of techniques is already in the article.Fainites 12:46, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Also Steve, I think all the references have been checked recently. I checked most of the science and all the cult ones myself. This site was under constant attack for about 18 months by an abuser and multiple sock puppets. The POV pushed was that NLP was both completely unvalidated rubbish and at the same time a powerful, evil and dangerous cult! Citations were invented and peverted. Hence the recent checks on references. On the other hand it also gets attacked by people who htink that whether or not it is scientifically validated is the only thing to say about NLP. I think the section on religiosity could probably go altogether. The quotes in it are accurate because they are what is left after all the mad cult nonsense was removed, but they don't actually say anything of any real relevance or interest. What do you think? Fainites 13:46, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

OK Fainites. Whether we add more recent info from NLP authors or doublecheck to see if there were mistakes made with research, it looks like things can only get better. It seems that we can probably clean up that previous abuse fairly pronto. I put my email on my talkpage. Steve B110 14:46, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

The research has been cleaned up in the sense that they are now valid quotations and summaries from genuine sources and the more minor critics have already been dumped. I suppose the issue is whether the science is over or under emphasised and whether there are valid replies to the criticisms made. I think the views of the 'psychology community' are important, particularly given NLP's use in therapy. I think the later section on science/pseudoscience/technology etc is a bit of a mess though. It was an attempt to deal with both what NLP actually is and what it says it is.Fainites 14:55, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Well thats good to know, Fainites. At least we know these are certain statements placed into a certain perspective. I'll see how that perspective looks when other solid statements are placed alongside. Steve B110 16:23, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Large Group Awareness Training

I see no cited references, and thus no rationale for including this article in the LGAT category. I propose that it be removed. Lsi john 04:35, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Hello LSI John. From my experience NLP is run more as a workshop than a large group. Its also a set of specific skills rather than just awareness. It doesn't fits the category. Steve B110 09:48, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Steve, it turns out that Smee has defined the category for Large Group Awareness as any group or article which references a group or article already in the LGAT category .. thus making it very easy to qualify for the category. I'm waiting to see if she permits that fact to stay on the LGAT category page. Lsi john 12:59, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi again Lsi John. I guess solid refs will be the measure. The cat will probably only apply if a good reference quotes that the subject is related to LGAT. I'm sure its not a long term problem. Steve B110 14:42, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I've read Singer on LGAT's and she definately does not include NLP. There is a brief reference in her book to some LGAT's using some NLP techniques. I can give you the full quote of you wish. My understanding is that a key note of LGATs is that they push a particular spiritual, philosophical POV. They are also a means to an end. If anybody can find a verified credible source to name NLP as such as LGAT or significantly rleated to LGATs then fair enough, but otherwise there's no basis for including it here. We had the same issue with cults only more so as there is definately evidence that some cults use NLP techniques. Well they would wouldn't they. But no evidence that NLP itself is a cult a was previously claimed on this site.Fainites 15:35, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Right Fainites. I still think its highly doubtful that there are any reliable refs saying NLP is LGAT also. It certainly not my experience. Steve B110 07:41, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

• I have included (2) reputable citations that mention NLP as an LGAT. Smee 23:06, 20 April 2007 (UTC).

Well OK (until we present some contradicting evidence) but you also included a pretty dubious link to a New Zealand cult awareness body in the references. Really NLP is not even similar to a cult and you are seriously misinforming the article by posting that link. Steve B110 06:20, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Here is the passage from Du Merton, Smees first citation. It is a doctoral thesis, not on NLP or LGATs but on optimism. The description of NLP as a LGAT comes in a passage where he's describing Choices seminars as a LGAT. Whilst strictly speaking he does refer to NLP as a LGAT, it's very much a side comment and not at all the subject matter of the thesis. It certainly is not justifiable to place it in the introduction! I leave it here for other editors to comment as to whether it's inclusion is justifiable at all. p 39 by the way everybody)

"The researcher contends that the Choices seminar is a type of Large Group Awareness Training (LGAT) program. LGAT was a name coined for personal development programs in which many people at one time receive intense, emotionallyfocussed instruction over a period of hours or days to help them begin to discover the full potential for their lives. Described as part psychotherapy, part spirituality, and part business (Langone, 1998), notable LGAT programs, which originated from the human potential movement of the 1950s and 1960s, include the Erhard Seminars Training (est), Landmark Forum, Lifespring and Neurolinguistic Programming (NLP). These simplistic, highly structured and lucrative methods have spawned hundreds of take-offs on the original seminars, each attempting to create their own unique version."

Fainites 18:25, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

The definition for LGAT has been revised. To be included in LGAT, you must qualify to be in the LIST for LGAT. As only organizations specifically cited to be LGAT can be included in the list, this article would not qualify for Category:LGAT because it is not an organization. Lsi john 18:36, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I've looked up the other cite from Smee (Partridge). The passage on NLP does not state in any way shape or form that NLP is a LGAT. However, in the passage on LGATs it says 'both Landmark Forum and est could be clasified as LGATs, a sociological grouping that includes neurolinguistic programming...Insight Training Seminars and a whole plethora of sales and motivational courses.' This is a better reference than the first (which does not in my view count as a source). However, this seems to be rather a sidewind reference. Presumably if any of the major researchers and authorities on LGAT's had included mention of NLP as a LGAT you would have mentioned it Smee? Can we therefore assume that they don't? Hardly sufficient to justify including in the introduction but may well be worth a mention in the appropriate paragraph. Fainites 18:47, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

• As I said, its a moot point. The requirements for the category are that the article qualfies to be on the LGAT LIST. The requirements to be on the LIST of LGAT are that an organization, itself, be ciated by WP:RS as being/using LGAT. This article is about a technique, not an organization therefore it can be removed from the LGAT category. Lsi john 18:55, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

By the way Lsi, what list? Who's revised the definition of LGAT? This seems to be an ongoing argument between LGAT specialists being conducted on the NLP page! Could you be a little more informative please?

• It was discussed in the talk section of both? articles. As Smee was the one who originally created the category (and list), I deferred to her for clarification on what she intended that should be included in it. She clarified both pages with specific inclusion comments. Category:Large Group Awareness Training and List of Large Group Awareness Training organizations Lsi john 18:55, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

One of the problems with all this is that NLP is not an organisation. It's a loose, diffuse collection of techniques, propositions and aphorisms. There's no controlling body, no central philosophy, no aim, no plan. It's actually extremely difficult to define. It also gets used by large numbers of people who have different aims. On the one hand, some cults use it's more hypnotic techniques to further their non NLP aims. On theother hand, for example, the police here use it to conduct seminars on the use of body language and spoken language to reduce conflict in difficult situation. Doctors use it to improve their rapport with patients in consultations. How it can be said 'NLP is a LGAT' is difficult to understand. I can quite see however how LGAT organisations may use NLP techniques. Fainites 00:02, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Lsi. I've looked at the list you mentioned. The two citations given to justify NLP's inclusion in the list are both 'Cults in our Midst' by Lalich and Singer. This was previously cited on the NLP page as stating that NLP was a cult. This was put in by the permanently banned long term abuser HeadleyDown and was in fact entirely false, as were 7 out of 8 other 'citations' naming NLP as a cult. Singer and Lalich neither name NLP as a cult, nor as a LGAT. Smee may have been mislead by this false citation. I think it needs more than the two refs given above to name NLP as a LGAT. Fainites 00:12, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

• She has changed the definition for inclusion, to include methodologies. Now it is not as clear a decision. Without reading the text, I cannot say whether or not those two books #63 #63 make a clear and specific claim that NLP fits in the LGAT model. IF they do, then NLP would qualify to be on the LIST, as the list now includes methodologies.

Perhaps Smee has read them, or has access to them and can address this question.

Lsi john 00:23, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Hello. My main concern is that any misinformation link about NLP being a cult should be stricken from the article. Here is my evidence: [9]. It should be avoided at all costs. The Partridge book may be a good source and he states his view its a LGAT as it is in the book. However its only one source. The other source seems dubious. So I would only accept the LGAT sentence if there is another good source alongside. I'm not sure why the LGAT category would be useful to any reader but as long as its out of the way at the bottom of the article it might not look too bad. Most people don't know what it means. Steve B110 02:42, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

IMO, LGAT is often used as a pseudonym for cult. However, the term has been used by WP:RS individuals and my opinion is irrelevant. In my limited experience here, if even one remotely citable source says something, it can be included in an article. My suggestion is to do your homework, do your research and present the evidence. The wiki-reference you gave states that articles cannot say "XYZ is a cult", but it also clarifies that articles can say "XYZ has been called a cult by ABC".

That same issue is one of my current arguements with many of the LGAT articles. However, unlike cult, it seems that LGAT gets to be both a training methodology and a brand for companies. It is this branding that I believe replaces the word cult. LGAT is a methodology, yet many of the articles say "XYZ is LGAT".

All we can do is work to get the bias out. We must do our research and read the citations. In the case of cult, it is a much easier task because of the rule you cited. In the case of LGAT, it must be done on a case by case basis to determine whether the author said "XYZ is LGAT" or "XYZ uses LGAT methods" and then enforce the rules to prevent abuse and bias.

If you question the other source, document it here. Quote the text exactly, and explain why you believe it should not be referenced. Once you do that, it can be discussed. If you are still unhappy, a third-party opinion can be requested.

04:44, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

• We have (2) reputable citations that utilize this term to characterize NLP. I do not understand what the confusion is here? Smee 05:04, 22 April 2007 (UTC).

OK Smee. I personally think not many people see LGAT as meaning cult. I want to repeat my experience that NLP in any forum can be beneficial to anyone, and that view needs to be emphasized a bit more fairly on the article. I think its innocuous enough to have LGAT where it was but only as somebodys view and not as an absolute fact. Large Group and Awareness are ok. Perhaps I was a bit hasty about the other reference. It does seem to be ok and another backup ref is mentioned (Langone) who gives a reasonably fair categorization of LGAT (nothing to do with cults per se). But I still have to emphasize that I don't think that NZ cult link should stand as it was. I think that compromise will be ok. Steve B110 05:18, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

What compromise is that? (Sorry, I had not had this page on my watchlist, so I was confused)... Smee 05:20, 22 April 2007 (UTC).

Well actually I have read Singer and it does not by any stretch of the imagination characterise NLP as either a cult or a LGAT. Of the two references you cite, one mentions it merely in passing and it is not remotely the subjest of the thesis, therefore I do not supoport it's inclusion. The policies do not mean that any passing reference, however pasing, superficial or irrelevant should be cited a s source. Your second citation has more weight, but even so, it's the only reference found so far, it is again pretty much in passing and difficult to understand given that no mention of LGATs is made in the NLP section. It may well be appropriate to include a fair summary of this in the sections that discuss what NLP is but it's certainly not a view or criticism worthy of inclusion in the introduction. (If Singer or somebody equivalent had named NLP a LGAT or cult and why that would be very different. She's hardly unaware of it. There's a whole section on it in her book 'Crazy Therapies' which is used in this article') Fainites 10:25, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

• Yes I understand your feeling Fainites. There is safety in categories though. From my view if NLP is in the category LGAT, then that moves it away from the cult category. I have to admit that Partridge seems to be categorical about NLP as a LGAT. He handles it nicely though and describes it away from the cult label. I do think Singer is dismissive of NLP. She does come from a very behavioral background though and she probably doesn't take into account the complexities of modern psychological methods. She describes it under the umbrella of LGATs. I don't mind such cynical researchers having their views heard. As long as the misleading cult information is removed I don't mind the LGAT category. Actually I feel the only way NLP can be fairly presented here is if it is presented as a popular development that a lot of people rate highly. The LGAT category makes it obvious that its popular and that a lot of people find it helpful I think. I'm not sure about Wikipedia rules on support but it would be nice to see more references supporting the view. Steve B110 12:43, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I believe there is a guideline that states that citations need to be on-point with the article. My personal opinion (which counts for nothing) is that if we cite something, then the specific citation we use needs to be on point with our article and a significant amount of the material in the overall article we are citing should be on point with our article. Casual comments, not directly on-point with the cited material's subject, might be out of the author's field of expertise and thus non WP:RS inside an otherwise unrelated but WP:RS article on another subject.

It would probably be very improper to cite a casual remark about trees, in an article about the reproductive habits of dogs. It might also be improper to cite a remark about dogs' toenails in an article about reproductive habits of dogs, unless toenails were somehow on-point with a dog's reproductive habits. Unless some verfiable research is included in the article which supports the remark or the author is otherwise-qualified to make such a remark about toenails.

Unfortunately, this is where the area gets grey. Who is qualified to make what remarks without providing any scientifically verifiable research to support it? Who is qualified to claim LGAT without defining it at the time of the claim?

Since LGAT has no universal definition, if an author claims LGAT without defining it in the article where the claim is made, would it then be appropriate to require a citation which shows where they have previously defined it? (in order that the reader be able to understand which definition is being used?)

One rule allows us to cite WP:RS material, but other guidelines suggest that the material should be on point. Now the question is, if a citation is only mentioning our article's subject in passing, and no background or buildup or verifiable research is included in the cited material, is it usable on wiki?

And, if we can use it, does that mean we should use it? Does it actually add significant value to the article? If only a single author, mentions something in passing, and there is not a substantial amount of other works which are in agreement, then I'm inclined to say that the information does not bring significant value with it and thus is not relevant. If the author's book is directly on-point with our article, then it might be appropriate to include a passing remark, but probably not even then. If it were significant to the author, they would spend considerably more time on it than a passing remark. Lsi john 13:08, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

We musn't start calling NLP a LGAT to protect it from being called a cult! On both points, either there are verified and credible sources stating one way or the other, or at least discussing the issue, or there aren't. I'm not that up on LGAT's but it seems odd to me that two such thin sources should be provided. Surely if NLP as such is a LGAT then some major commentators in the field would have noticed? Singer is only one example. She does not describe NLP as a LGAT. There is one passing mention of some NLP being used amongst a list of other things being used, by a LGAT unless there's some more material of her's beyond 'Cults in our Midst'. If there is, bring it on. I think the reference that's a passing mention in a thesis on a different topic should go, and the other should be qualified.Fainites 19:59, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Right Fainites. Only Partridge and Langone qualifies so far. Just because the thesis mentions Langone, I don't think it should qualify. Steve B110 01:46, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd still quite like to know from Smee, if it was you who set up the LGAT list, why NLP is included on the basis of a citation of 'Cults in our Midst', when that book does not name NLP as a LGAT.Fainites 18:28, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

• That is not one of the 2 citations utilized at the moment for inclusion of that entry. Smee 18:30, 23 April 2007 (UTC).

When i looked at the link provided by Lsi 2 days ago both citations were Cults in Our Midst. Can you give me a link please. This LGAT argument between you and Lsi has obviously been going on a while and it will take time for us mere NLPers to catch up.Fainites 18:38, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

So am I right in thinking then that the only basis for inclusion in the LGAT list are Du Merton, a passing reference in a thesis on another subject, and Partridge, a book thats a sort of digest of hundreds of new religions, sects and spiritualities? Plus, now I look at Partridge again the passage is not even on LGATs. Its on Landmark forum. They don't have an entry on LGATs. If your basis for inclusion in the LGAT list is any published reference anywhere on whatever, then it would pass to be on your list, but that's not my reading of WP:RS. I think it needs a little more to warrant a serious discussion on the NLP page. I've looked at Langone on LGATs that is cited on your list in the refs and he does not mention NLP there at all. My understanding is that there are some serious commentators on LGATs. Nlp is a substantial and well known phenomenon. I would have thought that if it were seriously thought that NLP were a LGAT, the mainstream, academic researchers in this field would have noticed.Fainites 19:14, 23 April 2007 (UTC)Fainites 18:55, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

On balance I am doubtful also. Well it is written pretty clearly that NLP is a LGAT, even more in the category than Landmark (which I'd say is more of a cult), and its a Oxford University Press book that uses academic peers as contributors. But as an editor though Partridge seems to be unqualified with no academic standing. He's the main guy. That does seem to cast doubt on RS. Steve B110 02:17, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

• However, this does not get around the fact that both citations do satisfy WP:RS, and are reputable secondary sourced citations. Smee 05:34, 24 April 2007 (UTC).

Actually the first one almost certainly doesn't. See;

"Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy, or are authoritative in relation to the subject at hand.

The reliability of a source depends on context; what is reliable in one topic may not be in another. A world-renowned mathematician may not be a reliable source on topics of biology. In general, a topic should use the most reliable sources available to its editors."

As for the second one, it probably does qualify, just, but would certainly also need qualifying itself. Am I right in assuming that as it seems to be your intention, for what ever reason, to name NLP as a LGAT, you would have used better sources if you had any? Fainites 08:26, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

• Well, as we already have 2 reputable citations, if we found more references, I would be inclined to simply mention those as well. Smee 08:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC).

Hello Smee. Perhaps as a compromise we could call by its more appropriate title: Personal Growth Seminar (PGS) [10]. It actually quite inocuous and normal by business oriented seminar standards. Steve B110 10:16, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Smee, the citations need to be more than 'reputable', they need to be authoritative. It's a straight forward point. You're obviously very interested in LGATs. Do any of the major researchers/writers on the issue of LGATs name NLP as a LGAT and if so, can we have the source. If not, then we have have to consider the quality of these. Fainites 20:47, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

• Making NO specific reference to the current contents of this article:

I think they should also be relevant to the article and should contribute significant value. Just because something is a published work, by a reputable source, and we technically can include it here, does not mean we should include it here.

Wiki articles should tell the story about the article's subject (using reliable sources) in a smooth continuous flow. I don't believe wiki articles are intended to be a disjointed collection of statements, made by random authors in unrelated articles which may (or not) have been intended to address our article's subject. Lsi john 20:54, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

• Based on the way I read wiki rules for inclusion; Unless there is significant other supporting evidence which supports the conclusion, a single statement, in a minor work, by a minor author, not only can, but probably should, be excluded from the article. Lsi john 20:59, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

• Based on the policies of WP:RS, we have at least (2) reputable sources that back this up already. Smee 06:49, 25 April 2007 (UTC).

Here's an explanation. Theres a lot of misconception about NLP as it quite clear from the article. I admit its not an easy subject to grasp. But the view that NLP is a LGAT can easily be explained in terms of the potentially good aspects of LGATs. For example, NLP provides a philosophy that allows the individual to better cope in the world and allows for a feeling of purpose, connectedness, and resourse. Thats what the larger NLP seminars provide in abundance. Its also what is pretty core to humanistic psychology. I think an NLP developer would probably accept that NLP has been taught to large audiences in marathon sessions. But thats only to provide the peak experience that is required for change. Its all quite easy to explain from a humanistic psychology perspective. Steve B110 06:56, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

You're not answering the question Smee. I take it therefore that major commentators on LGATs do not name NLP as a LGAT. My proposal would be that Du Merton is not an authoritative source at all. Partridge could be included on the following basis;

Partridge, in a compendium called "New Religions: A Guide; New Religious Movements, Sects and Alternative Spiritualities" names NLP as a LGAT in his section on Landmark Forum, but no major commentators on LGATs cite NLP as a LGAT.

Unless you point us to a major LGAT commentator who says otherwise. Fainites 16:28, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Skeptics

I'm opening this as a new section.

After reading the citation http://skepdic.com/lgsap.html I am convinced that this emphatically does NOT meet WP:RS guidlines. There are no verifiable sources and the entire page appears to be opinion. Though some is factual, to me it is clearly not WP:RS.

Lsi john 14:39, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

The actual book looks self published to me. I picked it up in the library the other day and it was full of all sorts of nonsense. What are the author's credentials? If its just a skeptic I should think the book doesn't qualify. Steve B110 15:45, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

• WP:RS

What is a reliable source? - Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy, or are authoritative in relation to the subject at hand.

Who wrote this particular definition at skeptic.com? Is the author regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand?

The reliability of a source depends on context; what is reliable in one topic may not be in another. A world-renowned mathematician may not be a reliable source on topics of biology. In general, a topic should use the most reliable sources available to its editors.

I do not see that any single-author (skeptic.com) can be an expert RS for every subject. I also do not see verifiable research in this specific skeptic reference for LGAT.

Aspects of reliability - Scholarly and non-scholarly sources

Wikipedia welcomes material written by scientists, scholars, and researchers, particularly material published by peer-reviewed journals. However, these may be outdated by more recent research, or may be controversial in the sense that there are alternative scholarly and non-scholarly treatments. Wikipedia articles should therefore ideally rely on all majority and significant-minority treatments of a topic, scholarly and non-scholarly, so long as the sources are reliable.

This does not appear to be a scientific document or anything which falls under a peer-review process.

IMO, it should be removed.

Lsi john 15:56, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

There isn't actually any material from Skeptics Dictionary in the actual article. Its just a link. Do the same rules apply for links as for sources in the article? Fainites 20:06, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

The subjective guidelines for External Links are HERE. Lsi john 21:44, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Right, I don't think Carroll qualifies either. He's not even a psychologist, just a philosophy professor. I think he probably wouldn't know the first thing about NLP or LGATS. Steve B110 01:49, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

• I removed the other link from within the citation as well. The citation itself is all that is needed here. Smee 02:38, 23 April 2007 (UTC).

I don't think there's a particular problem with using broad commentators as a secondary source provided you have a decent primary source. A commentator like Carroll must get his information from somewhere. He's not doing studies on several hundred entries himself. I don't think it is appropriate to use something like Skeptics Dictionary as the primary or only source for any particular proposition. The question is whether he fulfils the 'link to avoid' criteria of Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research. See Reliable sources. I'm referring in particular to his opening line that NLP is a LGAT. [[[User:Fainites|Fainites]] 20:59, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree. If it is Carrol's opinion (as a skeptic) it must be characterised as such. If he has cited another work then the primary source should be used. If there is no primary source published in peer-reviewed journal (or another reliable source). If it is from a less reliable source it should be characterised as such or excluded. --Comaze 22:54, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

The catch here is that self-published authors are accepted as reliable-source in their field. In the WP:EL section, it would be proper to add a descriptive tag which indicates that skeptics is a negative opinion.

Now the question might be, is Carrol's field directly related to LGAT, or is that a reach for him?

And I believe it is reasonable to ask for reference material.

But I'm not really sure this is a tree we should be barking up.

I suspect there might not be any cheese down that tube. Lsi john 23:52, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Fainites 22:11, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Neurosemantics

If this is a later development of NLP, should it not go in the history section, perhaps linked to its own article, rather than popular culture and media ?Fainites 22:11, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Length

Regarding the length tag; the most unwieldy section is probably the 'Classifying NLP' section. Any ideas? Fainites 22:35, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Just edited all the technical psychology stuff out of Methods, and moved it to a separate article to help you out a bit. I originally put the tag on the article, by the way.

Doing the same with Reception and Classifying will do the trick.

--User:Krator (t c) 23:41, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Krator. BIG changes also. I moved some to the NLP and Science section and deleted some. Please review my changes carefully. I moved over the technical psychology discussion and deleted some information that seemed unnecessary or repeated. I guess some of it could be summarised nicely and put back into the main article. The article is a bit smaller now - the length is down to 56. Steve B110 02:21, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi again Krator and everyone. I moved informtion from mental health section to wider critiques. I really feel that the article could be fairer to NLP. Think if NLP is used by a group of psychologists or helpers then it should be up front somewhere. Otherwise that information is just getting drowned out by negative comments. All the positive adoption of NLP should be shown away from the critiques and preferably just after the concepts and methods section because its those reputable organisations who actually like and use NLP's concepts and methods.

Steve, reducing Sharpley in size is fine. You're probably right that it does need simplifying, but the paragraph you left actually made no sense, grammatically or factually. Also, Sharpley did not conduct research, it was a review. You left in a bit of Einspruch and Forman but removed the ref. Can we discuss the reduction here first please? An awful lot of work went into writing an accurate psychology section which was posted above for discussion for 10 days. It's quite important to retain the information that the research all related to PRS only as Sharpley is usually cited by sceptics as supporting the proposition that the whole of NLP has actually been disproved by science. Also, Von Bergen is not psychology. There's been some discussion before about whether or not he's notable enough to be in at all. Also, whats the rationale behind removing any mention of ongoing positive research? Fainites 19:30, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Krator, do you not think we need something on methods and techniques? At the moment someone could read the entire article and come out at the other end saying 'yes but what is it?' I like the expanded use section being moved up though. Fainites 20:01, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Fanties, I'm not familiar with NLP. After reading through the article, I would have expected a better description under Concepts and methods of exactly what NLP is. Be Bold and stick to cited facts. Remember that we cannot create the work and publish what we know, but we can summarize other reliable sources who have written about it. Write from neutral (don't stick in how wonderful (or crappy) it is, just stick to the facts). Just my opinion. Lsi john 20:08, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeh this is a good point. I was expecting some of the cnocepts and technqies bit to come back but only as a summarised set of sentences. I'll have a go at making it summarised. Steve B110 06:08, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, I think the section on humanistic psychology could go with a new paragraph on techniques: E.g. techniques like mirroring, reframing, and so on, then the humanistic explanation, and then the paragraph on beliefs to explain that its not religious but functional. What do you think? Steve B110 06:23, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Lsi if you click on the link under 'concepts and methods' called 'methods of NLP' you will see what the 'concepts and methods' section used to be until yesterday, complete with multiple refs! Fainites 20:30, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Fainites. People keep telling me to be bold. I think the changes you made are also bold - and constructive on the whole. The file size is still better than before. The only think I am not happy about is the Bergen ref in the uses of NLP and the cults information there. I would put it later with all those critical views and I would label them critical views. Right now they seem to really break up the reading and make it look inconsistent. There are other positive views I would bring to the top also. Perhaps we could rename the uses of NLP. Steve B110 01:30, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Well there isn't now a specific section for the likes of Bergen or Langone as they've been removed! Length is not a god. I think there should be a section somewhere to deal with the whole belief issue. But Bergen does not belong in the psychology section. The psychology section is important because NLP began life modelling therapists and essentially being 'therapeutic'. There was alot of excitement and alot of research in the early years until Sharpley, Druckman and Swets, and its been panned by evidence based psychs ever since. 19:43, 3 May 2007 (UTC)Fainites

I believe the reason Krator moved some of the sections, was due to their length. Not because they were too long, but because once a section gets to a certain length, it deserves its own article. It's my understanding that wiki (main) articles are not intended to be an end-all for every speck of information about a specific subject. Perhaps the NLP article can be very short and simply discuss an overview of what NLP is, who uses it and why, and then link to new pages/articles with an expanded description of those sections. Lsi john 21:06, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes Lsi john that was my thinking. Bergen and langone are both talking about psychology also, especially Bergen. I still feel the article flows better with the negative comments al together. I agree the psychology lot have panned NLP. I'm researching for more positive views from NLP oriented professionals. I will also work on adding techniques in short form. I don't think we need more than a paragraph for it as above. Steve B110 01:24, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Spot on. Just too long. Move per wiki policy. I am out of here, too, as I decided beforehand I would do that if my edit was reverted. --User:Krator (t c) 17:44, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Well Krator, you removed the entire concepts and methods section without any discussion, despite being invited to discuss it here. What did you expect? It wasn't put back for 6 days.Fainites 23:14, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I think people who know nothing of NLP when they read the article will come out the other end none the wiser if there is not a reasonably comprehensive section on what it is and what it does. This article now gives no idea what to expect if you went to try NLP or if you met soemone who said they were a practitioner. It would be better to shorten the rather esoteric arguments on science -v- humanism -v- technology but givemore information on what it is in practical terms. Also Steve, Bergen is talking about human resources, not psychology, and the Langone quote comes from a book on cults etc, nothinbg to do with psychology. You really need to read the sources before shifting them around or deleting them. It's better to discuss things first because if you just delete whole chunks, other editors will simply put them back.Fainites 16:06, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I would propose copying back the methods and concepts section and then working on reducing and simplifying it in situ. Reducing the overall length of the article is a good aim but there's no big rush. Fainites 22:54, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

No worries Fainites. I'm working on a smaller more compact version. I'll add it soon. Steve B110 01:09, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I put the techniques back in but in a shorter form because there are separate articles for them already. I think it injects a bit more interest into the article this way so its not so dry any more. I think it could be written more compactly still and even add more in there that way. The filesize is about 65 now up from 58. Not too much of a jump but I think we can take it back down past 50 focusing on other sections. Steve B110 01:52, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Where have you put the techniques back in shorter form? Its not coming up on my screen! Don't hesitate to ask if you need any help with anything technical. We don't have to go mad about length you know. Its an aim, not an instant requirement. This article used to be even longer and we spent about three months reducing to the size it was when you arrived. I would have thought techniques and methods were more important than the long discussion about science/humanism/technology.Fainites 20:16, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I've put the concepts and methods back in for now. Please discuss shortening or summarising this here before removing it. We can't just leave the page with absolutely nothing about what NLP actually is and does, even if it is a bit long. Fainites 22:00, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Fainites. Comaze removed my short form version. I thought you guys would improve instead of just deleting or reverting. I guess we can shorten from the current long version though. Steve B110 02:52, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I had no choice but to revert. The edit had syntax errors. --Comaze 03:22, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Steve. If you look at your version you'll see it accidently messed up all the refs. Don't hesitate to ask if you need a bit of technical help.Fainites 08:45, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

(2) LGAT citations

• The (2) LGAT citations have been restored. Smee 01:56, 4 May 2007 (UTC).

Hi Smee. I'm not going to take the information away but in the interests of the article I think you need to do some more work on gaining consensus. I for one would require more support for the sentence if you can't convince me that the one's there already are sufficient. Steve B110 03:28, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I will look on finding more citations. But in the meantime, (2) should be plenty. One citation from a reputable secondary source should be plenty, but no worries :) Smee 09:46, 4 May 2007 (UTC).

I have removed Du Merton as he is not an adequate source (see earlier discussion on this and the LGAT talkpage) and qualified Partridge. You really need more than a passing mention in a compendium to call NLP 'a LGAT', as opposed to saying it is sometimes taught as a component of LGATs or taught in LGAT form. No doubt if NLP is a LGAT as such you will be providing these citations from major commentators and researchers in the field in due course :) Fainites 21:56, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes Smee. I don't think you can leave the information as is. Its going to need proper refs otherwise it'll just get removed. Steve B110 05:50, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Genius

Claims of genius critera are unsourced and seem over stated. If this is the correct word, please provide WP:RS citation which backs up the claim. Otherwise the proper wording should be used and cited. Lsi john 21:32, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the unsourced claim about genuises and replaced Bteson who was an important influence. There is already a passage about the modelling of the the three therapists who were considered to have achieved 'excellence'. Fainites 21:52, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. The word Genius seemed a bit over-stated and hence my challenge. Lsi john 22:22, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

'psychological science'

Re your last edit Comaze, I take your point, but I think there may be a better way of expressing it. Has any substantial research been done outside the field of psychology? There are various papers from education and the like but I'm not sure it adds up to scientific validation or the opposite. How about 'remains scientifically unvalidated within the field of psychology'. Fainites 11:26, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I would agree with Comaze in that it is more specific to say psychol science. Its specific and covers all the areas of the research. Joseph.

Somebody removed the only bits of ongoing research I could find on NLP from the science section and put them in the science article. Do you think we should put them back or is it too esoteric? It was this bit:

Examples of ongoing research include the following: an empirical study using a heuristic qualitative methodology in which the submodality change process was tested for treating grief and mourning and which suggested that manipulating certain submodalities can help the subject shift into more resourceful state and speed the healing process, a study incorporating a number of NLP behaviour change techniques (anchoring, isomorphic metaphor, goal setting) into a program for learning about and preventing the spread of AIDS which recommended that these tools be promoted and adopted internationally, and a review of several small studies on the effectiveness of Visual/Kinesthetic Dissociation (V/KD) which suggested that V/KD, although currently at an experimental level of efficacy and in need of further well-designed empirical study, may be a promising treatment for at least some forms of Posttraumatic Disorder.

Fainites 21:17, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

By the way Joseph, if you sign yourself with 4 of these things ~ it automatically puts in your registered name or IP number and links to your userpage etc. Fainites 21:20, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Link

I've overlooked the links at the end of the article but I found an important one missing:

http://www.nlpweekly.com

It is a very useful resource for information and has a mostly (which is seldom enough) nice community. And it has helped my a lot, what I can't say about other nlp-related pages. So .. pls give it a look :)

greetings

ps. I hope I did this right and this is the correct place for this kinda thing ..

62.178.96.157 02:56, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Morrison

Hi. I noticed this reversion [11] I think it does need some sourcing. Its the kind of thing that I have heard though in many areas of NLP. There are a lot of amazingly good facilitators out there that can do great things with your potential. I'll have a good dig around for similar. Steve B110 13:42, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Snappier concepts

Hi. I saw the recommendations to make the concepts and applications a bit more snappy have not really been followed through. I know there is quite a lot on most editors plates but I think I can suggest some points. But first, I think there is a lot more "delivery" to do there. It really should be a bit more upbeat (with good encyclopedia writing in mind though). Fainites and Comaze or anyone else with experience; What do you think? Steve B110 13:46, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi Steve. Nice to see you back. I agree it could be more readable. It's difficult though to squash sufficient info. in to something snappy. We're aiming for intelligent readers who may have no prior knowledge but wish to be informed but not patronised. I tried the other day to cut down the concepts a bit but only managed a few lines. I still think it's the 'what is NLP section that could be cut down. Fainites 17:20, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I remember a professors saying to imagine that you are writing for an intelligent ignoramus (not an expert). --Comaze 17:29, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi Fainites and Comaze. Nice to be back. Great to see things are even more positive. Shame about the dissers in the background. I noticed your work on improving things Fainites. Great stuff. Nice one Comaze:) Steve B110 05:10, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi Steve or should I say Headley? I don't think anyones going to be convinced by your efforts to pretend that you, me and Comaze are all jollily working together to make the NLP article ever more positive, least of all your target audience (editors on the pseudoscience page). If you want things to be more positive, find some decent sources. But decent sources are not really your thing are they Headley. Whichever team you pretend to bat for. Fainites 21:35, 29 June 2007 (UTC) (one of the 'dissers')

Blocks

I have indefinitely blocked the accounts called Maypole, Steve B and Newtonspeed after discussion.

There are fairly obvious others but -- festina lente...

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 23:26, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks FT2. These socks don't half clutter up the talkpages. Fainites 23:28, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Subjectivity

Has it dawned on anyone that most of the adjectives used in the following sentence are subjective? "NLP teaches that a person can develop successful habits by amplifying helpful behaviors and diminishing negative ones. Positive change can come when one carefully reproduces the behaviors and beliefs of successful people (called 'modeling'). It also states that all human beings have all the resources necessary for success within themselves." •Jim62sch• 03:01, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Yerse. Seems a bit clumsy to keep repeating 'NLP teaches' though. How would you put it? Fainites 13:03, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

"NLP advocates hold that"; "practitioners of NLP believe that", etc. BTW, NLP cannot teach, we need to be careful with allowing anthropomorphism to creep in.

In any case, I was referring to the following words: successful, amplifying (OK, not an adjective), helpful, negative, Positive change (which just happens to be jargon), successful. If the statements are a direct quote, it should be cited. Otherwise, we need to show that these adjectives (and the one verb) are being used subjectively. What is a successful habit? Who defines successful? Isn't "success" defined societally and culturally, rather than scientifically? After all, a successful habit in the US, might be tabu in China.

This sentence shows precisely why NLP is pseudoscience, "It also states that all human beings have all the resources necessary for success within themselves." Science doesn't do touchy-feely feel-good stuff. •Jim62sch• 13:18, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

What the hell are "Evidence-based psychologists"? •Jim62sch• 13:34, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

NLP isn't a science so it does do the touchy feely stuff. The 'all human beings have all resources' bit is one of its aphorisms. I think I might dig up an earlier intro. from before SteveBrand etc. Fainites 15:11, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Some editors think commentators ought to be characterised as to what angle they are coming from. I don't think its necessary as 'psychology' purports to be a science in any event but feel less strongly about saying 'evidence based' as opposed to 'skeptic'. Fainites 15:33, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

What about "mainsteam" (as much as I dislike that word, it seems to be applicable here)? •Jim62sch• 17:31, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Better. The one I don't like is the pysochology 'community' though it seems to be common usage. It sounds like a parish council. Fainites 19:03, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Possible copy-vio

See [12] •Jim62sch• 13:30, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

ooh yes! I wonder who put that in?

Anyway, here's the previous opening para from before the recent wave.

Neuro-linguistic programming (NLP) is a set of techniques, axioms and beliefs that adherents use primarily as an approach to personal development. It is based on the idea that mind, body and language interact to create an individual's perception of the world and that perceptions, and hence behaviors, can be changed by the application of a variety of techniques; in particular, "modeling" which involves the careful reproduction of the behaviors and beliefs of those who have achieved 'excellence'. The early focus of NLP was the study of the underlying patterns in the language and techniques of noted and successful therapists in hypnotherapy, gestalt therapy and family therapy. The patterns discovered were adapted for general communication and effecting change.

Despite its popularity NLP continues to be controversial, particularly for use in therapy, and after three decades of existence remains scientifically unvalidated. NLP has been criticized for lacking a defining and regulating body to impose standards and a professional ethical code.

Preferable I think. Fainites 15:16, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually Jim, looking at it, it's the other way round. That website has been copied from this article. There's parts of it that I know were put together by several different editors with discussion, at various different times, including me. Fainites 16:06, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm...then the website is a copy-vio. Under GFDL they're free to use it, but must attribute it. The article's looking a bit better though, so I guess it doesn't matter which was the copy-vio. •Jim62sch• 17:29, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Except insofar as its a serious allegation. The intro was largely rewritten recently by Yakuman but I don't think he did much with the rest of the article. SteveB110 messed it about alot. But some of the bits I recognise from further down that article are quite a bit older than Yakuman. Fainites 19:08, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

A big problem with this article at the moment is length. Fainites 19:15, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, length is one of the problems. Undue weight is another. NLP is pseudoscience -- parts of this article still read like a PR firm's NLP wet-dream. •Jim62sch• 21:58, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Well pseudoscience or not, we still need to say what it is, what it does, what it purports to be and do etc etc. It's also a little anomalous as so much of it is simply lifted from other therapies. If you look further up the talkpage you'll see a table wherein we attempted to ascertain what came from where. Fainites 08:29, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, of course we must define it, but in a much more NPOV manner, and yes, we need to be more succint -- the article is too long. Also, any cases of "we" and "our" need to be excised. •Jim62sch• 15:52, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Fine by me. Keep up the good work. I've always found it rather difficult to define NLP as it seems very amorphous to me. Fainites 18:59, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Dowm from 83 to 80 kilobytes now. Fainites 21:59, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I've shifted things round a bit to put the Psychology section immediately after the Concepts and Methods, and History down towards the end. I've also restored the statement that psychs call it pseudoscience and moved Drenth and Singer from the 'what is NLP' stuff to join the other psych views in the psych section. I think there's some more stuff that SteveB110 got rid of in his 'NLP is wonderful' campaign but I haven't had time to look through it all yet.Fainites 22:32, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Down to 78 kb. Fainites 23:00, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Well I've reduced everything I can think of reducing and its down to 77 kbs in total but thats only 41 kbs of readable prose which is the relevent figure. Perhaps someone else would like to have a go. Fainites 11:10, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Criticism Section?

NLP seems more pseudo-science than an accepted domain of psychology. At the very least there has been some real controversary here. Why isn't there a specific Controversary section? DPeterson^talk 13:12, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Cognitive Pyschotherapy

Hi Action man. I've asked Jonathon on his talkpage if the Aaron beck cite is intended to be for all the statements. We'll see if he comes back to us. Fainites ^barley 00:38, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

This section should be deleted or kept?

This entire section really does not belong:

In contrast, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy is a mainstream branch of psychotherapy which is conceptually similar in many ways to NLP. For example, both are based on the idea that people act and feel based on their perception or maps of the world rather than the actual world (the map is not the territory), both involve techniques to find and modify harmful beliefs, both discuss "reframing", and both advise that behaviour change greatly facilitates the integration of new, more beneficial beliefs. However, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy and its forerunner Cognitive Therapy now have a history of more than 40 years of experimental testing, verification, and refinement by many different individuals -- all of it performed not-for-profit and published publicly in peer-reviewed journals. Thus there is good reason to believe the claim that Cognitive Behavioral Therapy is currently the most effective type of psychotherapy known for depression and other mood disorders.

for several reasons:

1. .There is not basis to say NLP is similiar to CBT.
2. . What is cited as evidence is OR.
3. . The rest of the section about CBT is not relevant to NLP...reads as if it is saying that the only reason CBT has evidence is it's 40 year history and so implies NLP is will be "valid" with time.

DPeterson^talk 01:13, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I just checked the cited Beck reference and there is no mention of NLP there at all. Perhaps we can rely on Walker for the comparison. I believe Walker cites Beck and Walker is published by a reputable book publisher: I added some of this quote from Walker to the article: "As I began to research CBT methodologies, I found that NLP and CBT had not only paralleled each other's rise over the years, but also shared similar basic assumptions about information processing in individuals in health and disease. Indeed, it became clear to me that there hads also been a major cross-fertilsation of ideas and techniques between the two therapies."(Walker 2006). Most of the other results in psychotherapy seem to be psychotherapists who combine NLP with CBT (and other approaches), eg. "Dr. Poteryko uses a combination of 'insight-oriented psychotherapy, motivational therapy, cognitive behaviour therapy (CBT) and neurolinguistic programming (NLP).'"(Sylvain 2006). Also, "Thelma Dabor is Vice Chair of the Association for Rational Emotive Behaviour Therapy, which is a Member Organisation of the United Kingdom Council for Psychotherapy (UKCP). She is qualified in hypnosis and NLP and is UKCP Registered (CBT & REBT)."[13].

References:

• Lewis Walker (2004) Changing With Nlp: A Casebook of Neuro-linguistic Programming in Medical Practice
• Matthew Sylvain. (2006) Snuffing out smoking in Nanaimo Medical Post. Toronto: Jan 10, 2006. Vol.42, Iss. 1; pg. 6, 1 pgs.

I borrowed the new Sage Handbook of Counselling a while ago. It has a chapter on NLP as an approach to psychotherapy which might also be useful to put it in perspective. Unfortunately the Google scholar preview is limited. Colin Feltham, Ian E. Horton (2006) "The Sage Handbook of Counselling And Psychotherapy" ----Action potential ^{t c} 02:18, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi AP. I was hoping that new editor might come and discuss this but the aggressive tone of the above delete proposal may have put him off. I'd be interested to see the Sage thing. Fainites ^barley 10:49, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Remember this AP? We got quite a way as well with trying to work out where various NLP techniques came from, given it's somewhat parasitical nature, but I don't think it was ever finished. I'm not sure about some of the entries either! I did put those bits we had sources for in the article. I'd be interested to know where reframing actually started. We could narrow the PRS column and have another column showing verified sources of techniques.

Basis and origins of NLP techniques

Techniques/ideas	Based on PRS theory	new with NLP
meta modelling	no	no
overlapping	no	?
disassociation	no	no
resolving incongruencies	no	?
anchoring	no	no
changing history	no	no
mirroring	no	no
moving sensory modalities	?	no
reframing	no	no
modelling	no	yes
parts integration	no	no
ecology checking	no	yes
rapport/pacing/leading	no (it has been claimed that matching PRS can build rapport)	no
swish pattern	no	yes
VKD	no	yes
PRS	yes	yes
rep. systems	no	no
submodalities	?	yes
goal setting	no	no

Fainites ^barley 12:55, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

The earliest article on reframing that I can find is: LOYD S PETTEGREW. (1975) "THE GENTLE ART OF REFRAMING" Journal of Communication. New York: Vol.25, Iss. 4; pg.208. I'll try to get the document. ----Action potential ^{t c} 13:40, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Hello all. I wrote the original paragraph on CBT in this entry. The Beck reference was intended to support the statement that "Thus there is good reason to believe the claim that Cognitive Behavioral Therapy is currently the most effective type of psychotherapy known for depression and other mood disorders." I thank you, Action Potential, for adding the Walker reference to help verify other aspects of this paragraph. I have a few other comments at this point. First of all, the paragraph question has since been moved to its own "Comparisons With Cognitive Therapy" section, which is perhaps fine, however there is one aspect of this edit that I object to: one of the things I was trying to do was to bring up the point that CBT is a conceptually related body of knowledge that, unlike NLP, has been extensively tested in well-designed studies, by many different people, in peer-reviewed fashion. That is to say, it is evidence-based in a way that NLP is not. I think that moving CBT into its own section loses this point, which is directly relevant to the existing discussion of the "Empirically Validated Psychotherapy" section as it provides a concrete example of a similar but better-tested body body of knowledge. I propose either 1) moving the CBT paragraph back into "Empirically Validated Psychotherapy" or 2) adding a sentence to the to note that NLP and CBT, despite conceptual similarities, differ in this regard. Also, why the edit of the first sentence into "considered by some to be conceptually similar in many ways"? Isn't "conceptually similar in many ways" accurate, as attested by the comparisons immediately following? (And again thanks, Action Potential, for expanding on this description.) --Jonathan Stray 15:52, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

The table is clearly WP:OR. I do not see any material to support the conclusion that CBT is the same as NLP...or even related. If there is, let's see a reference from CBT supporting this statement...otherwise, I agree, it should be deleted. RalphLender^talk 15:51, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

The claim is not that they're the same, but that a) they are conceptually similar and b) CBT has been far more extensively tested. There are now references for both of these claims. Consider it an illustration of the concept of "empirically validated", if you like. In fact I have moved it back into the "Empirically Validated Psychotherapy" section to further this point. --Jonathan Stray 19:17, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Jonathon. Thanks for adding to all this. I agree with you that the fact that CBT is evidence based (its proponents having taken the trouble to do the research), and that NLP is not is the crucial distinction. I'm not sure I agree that putting it in its own paragraph obscures this but I'm easy really on that. If you read the psychology section you will see it sets out the whys and wherefores of NLP's lack of scientific validation after a flurry of research in the 80's and its 'progress' towards being written off as a pseudoscience in the 90's. It is also relevent, though, the way so many of it's concepts and techniques are copied/derived from/parallel to other therapies. It would be interesting to know whether CBT and NLP arose seperately from similar concepts or whether NLP is essentially parasitical on CBT. It's also hugely derivative from clinical hypnotherapy. If you look earlier up the page where we originally developed the table there's lots of discussion about where various bits come from. I'd be really interested to know if anything else in NLP derives from or is similar to CBT. Its a useful comparison.Fainites ^barley 21:09, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Here AP! Had you noticed its been rated as B-Class. Thats promotion.Fainites ^barley 23:05, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words Fainites. Yes, I too am fascinated by the similarities and sources of NLP. But then, the basic idea is very old, cf. allegory of the cave, Hamlet's "Nothing's good or bad but thinking makes it so," and of course Buddhist cosmology. (If you want an even weirder and harder to research hybrid sometime, trace the conceptual roots and influences of Scientology, which were for the most part entirely uncredited by its creator.) Anyway, feeling that I have made my point of the relation of CBT and NLP to someone who seems to be a careful editor, I am going to sit back and watch for a little while; please do whatever you feel is appropriate with the paragraph I initiated. --Jonathan Stray 03:55, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps a separate article. sources of NLP. Its interesting because modeling is so central but of course the process of modelling led and leads to wholesale adoption of techniques from other therapies. The answer to the question 'what is NLP' slips through your fingers like sand! Fainites ^barley 11:32, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Heads up

Warning note to users: DPeterson, RalphLender etc - collapsed text for brevity. Now probably redundant as sock accounts have since been blocked.
A quick heads up to DPeterson, RalphLender and other newly joining accounts with an aggressive editorial style This note is intended for AWeidman, RalphLender, DPeterson, JohnsenRon, SamDavidson, MarkWood, and JonesRD, as well as any other accounts which appear to be editing on a basis of puppetry in common with any of these. Purpose of this note There is a behavioral guideline on Wikipedia: Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers, as well as policies such as WP:NPOV on neutrality. I suggest and ask, with courtesy, that you read them carefully again. The reason I say this is that there are newcomers on this article, and an over aggressive stance to them will breach this guideline. Such concerns have been noted by other editors. There are also NPOV and POV warring concerns, which I have from the few DIFFs to date of DPeterson and RalphLender. In view of present evidence of a tendency by these editors towards abusive dominative editing, disruptive editing, and driving off or drowning other editors' voices on other articles, (which is presently in evidence stage at Arbcom), and the extreme likelihood of puppetry between these accounts (also discussed at Arbcom), the assumption of good faith is no longer reasonably permissible on your present editing patterns. It is to these editors that I therefore address this. Warnings I do not like to take action without warning, so this is a warning, on the following disruptive actions, at least until Arbcom has determined their view: Do not BITE the newcomers. You will be short term blocked if you do. You know that biting newcomers is not okay. Do not claim false consensus, or attempt to drown out argument by number of voices, rather than quality of evidence. You will be short term blocked if you do. You know that WP:CONSENSUS says that this is not okay. Do not seek to win editorial arguments by repetition of inadequately backed assertations without supplying precise diffs and cites forthwith on demand when requested. Do not ignore others attempts to work collaboratively, or stonewall the article's development in a disruptive manner. You will be short term blocked if you do. You know that Wikipedia:Tendentious editing says that this is not okay. In the above context, do not make arguments that some matter or other is "clearly" OR, or "clearly" wrong or "clearly" anything. Your track record on this is poor, and your editorial history suggests a persistent strategy of dancing around precise evidence whilst using this method to wear down others and exhaust patience. Give clear specific citations and provide arguments that are well enough explained that any reasonable editor will agree the case you make is evidenced. Repeat them or give clear links if they are re-requested for checking. Do not make vague repeated claims of what is "clear" or "obvious" or has been "given before"when others clearly show they need actual details or good specific policy-based logic. This - in your editing history (as opposed to other editors history) - often appears to be used as a form of disruptive or tendentious editing. You know that policy and guidelines state this is not okay. You know that arguments need to be policy-based and policy-supported, with clear (and specific) evidence provided on demand. You will be short term blocked if you engage in disruptive or tendentious editing. Do not engage in incivility or personal attack. Whilst blocking for incivility is not the norm, given the track record of using incivility for apparent edit warring, being considered at arbcom at the moment, further incivility is not acceptable on a new article. You know that WP:CIVIL says that incivility is not okay, and that WP:NPA says that personal attacks are not okay. You will be short term blocked if you do. Do not edit with a pre-given viewpoint, or with bias, or to make a point disruptively, or with implicit hostility to viewpoints other than yours. Wikipedia articles document viewpoints, they do not take them, or argue from them. This is core, non-negotiable policy on Wikipedia, documented in WP:NPOV, and also a behavioral guideline documented in WP:POINT. Do not do these things. You will be short term blocked if you do. Do not play games with the citation system to exclude reliable sources documenting opposing views. WP:RS is clear what a reliable source is, and is not. WP:V is clear what evidence is expected. Do not play games with these policies. You will be short term blocked if you do. Edit with a view to presenting all notable viewpoints with fairness of tone, without undue wieght or bias towards a given side, without adding personal views (but only views fairly documenting the different viewpoints and sources of each), and with good attribution. These are all required by WP:NPOV which is non negotiable and mandatory, and also some are required by WP:OR which is policy. You know that WP:NPOV placed strict demands on editing approach and attitude, and that editing without a neutral point of view is not okay. Do not edit with an editorial approach that breaches WP:NPOV. You will be short term blocked if you do. Last, do not play games on these warnings. They apply to the entirety of Wikipedia and will be applied based on conduct here or elsewhere, until Arbcom finally rule on the prima facie case whether the suggested editing conduct is in fact proven or not proven. Specificity I am being exceedingly specific here, because there is no way I am going to allow room for a future claim that you do not understand what I am saying. I shall not be patroling this article, but will respond if a claim of improper editorial conduct is cited. If it then seems that there is evidence of a genuine, knowing, breach of a policy or guideline (as opposed to genuine ignorance), and that this was something you knew or had been informed was inappropriate or untoward (but did anyway), then you will be short term blocked. You will have the usual choice to appeal via WP:ANI, but part of administrator activity is to be very strictly fair, and any block placed under this warning will obviously be on the basis that I feel any other uninvolved administrator viewing the evidence would probably have agreed with the action too. This rather unusual and blunt warning should be viewed by other editors in the context of serious behavior and related evidence currently documented on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Attachment Therapy/Evidence, which alleges:- puppetry, POV warring, subtle vandalism, gaming the system, personal attack and defamation, over the entirety of the past year and which is in essence continuing even now at Arbcom. Review If you feel this warning is improper, then please contact me below or on my talk page. You are also always at utter freedom in filing a complaint at WP:ANI if you feel I am acting wrongly. However, please note that what is said is simple: Good faith is not an appropriate assumption in the space between evidence at arbcom, and a final ruling on WP:RFArb/Attachment Therapy. You have engaged in aggressive and disruptive editing and POV warring elsewhere. Significant evidence has been placed at Arbcom of aggressive editing and puppetry, but Arbcom have not yet made a ruling upon it. Your actions here, few as they are, already raise concerns of possible BITing and POV editing. Administrators roles include making the decision whether and how (within reason) to address such actions, when despite warning and knowledge, editors are unable or unwilling to self-manage. My proposal for managing this issue is: I propose to not be involved in this page, or care about its discussion. You will have my word I shall not even care to watch this page during that time. But if I am asked to review, and at that point it seems you are attempting to bring that same conduct here, via any account, or a mysterious new account suddenly "appears" and likewise acting in breach of policies and guidelines you know are communally expected, then a short term block will be applied to that disruptive account. Non-involvement Please take this as your warning, and edit with care. Beyond that, I shall take no involvement in this article unless specific DIFFs (or cites showing disruptive editing), happen to be specified and I am asked to review the evidenced conduct. Final word and hopes Despite all this, my hope is that you will see the benfits of good quality, collaborative editing, and edit nicely, and in accordance with general communal standards, so the article can progress and the editing environment and your own experience be a positive one. FT2 (Talk | email) 01:08, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Eat your heart out Milton

Found this on the hypnosis page. Fainites ^barley 09:19, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Opening paragraph: Devilly/Drenth

I added "Psychologists such as Devilly (2005) and Drenth (2003) criticize NLP for being pseudoscientific" to the opening paragraph and Action Potential removed it saying it is covered by the phrase "scientifically unfounded," or something like that. Let's see what people think. Any input? --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 00:29, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually he said, in history, "(rv: this is already covered in the phrase "scientifically unvalidated")" --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 00:32, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Certainly the two phrases are not equivalent. One provides direct sources that claim that NLP is plainly unscientific, the other merely claims that it is as yet unvalidated. The debated sentence is a much stronger claim, and I think it should be included. siafu 00:38, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

On what evidence does Devilly and Drenth base their claims? ----Action potential ^{t c} 00:51, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Also, how much weight should be give the views Devilly(2005)/Drenth(2003)? Neither papers are published in high impact journals and either papers are cited in high impact journals. The main subject of the Devilly paper is Power therpies (eg. Figley et al). From memory Drenth criticises fringe practitioners with little or no formal training. ----Action potential ^{t c} 00:40, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I would like to change Drenth (2003) to Drenth (1999). Drenth 2003 is a conference paper, 1999 is a journal. They both say the same thing, but 1999 will probably get more weight. Think so? --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 03:39, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

You have a point there. Drenth (1999) is published in a peer-reviewed journal so it has more weight than Drenth (2003). But according to psycinfo nobody has cited Drenth 1999 (except for Drenth citing himself) nor is it a high impact journal so it does not carry much weight. There are papers that are more supportive of NLP, of equal, or higher weight, that have not been included (eg. Pasztor, Ana (1998) Subjective experience divided and conquered. Communication & Cognition. Vol 31(1), 1998, pp. 73-102). ----Action potential ^{t c} 04:17, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Right, and thanks. But here's the thing. The opening section is like an executive summary of the rest of this huge article. The huge article includes Drenth in a significant fashion, so it is appropriate in the opening section. On the other hand, if your arguments about it not being so hotsy totsy as a resource are correct and are not based on artificial factors like media or scholars ignoring Drenth because they don't like what's being said or they are afraid to publicize what's being said (unlike we wiki editors who are not afraid of stating and supporting the truth), then it does not belong in the article in the first place. Therefore, while Drenth is being used in the article, it is okay for the opening section. Your arguments go to the wikiworthiness of the source itself and really have little to do with placement or not in the opening paragraph. Now I'll assume none of us are real scholars in this area. Isn't there some way to determine once and for all, so to speak, the wikiworthyiness of Drenth in the context of this NLP article? --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 04:31, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't know how much weight to assign to Drenth. Keep in mind that it is an opinion article and Drenth does not cite any evidence to support his views about NLP. Determining importance is not always easy and requires discussion and consensus. You could also get Requests for comment (RFC). You could use impact factor, or web of science to analyse the relative importance of the each source. One of the wikipedia policies suggests google scholar number of citations as a rule of thumb. It is accessible to everyone (unlike web of science). On the other hand, NLP is not a academic field and most models and methods are published in books and taught in workshops rather than in academic journals. I'm not sure how to resolve that. ----Action potential ^{t c} 05:57, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

If you look in the psychology section you'll see that more than just Drenth call it a pseudoscience. A 'number' have called it a pseudoscience. The issue is whether being called a pseudoscience is a sufficiently notable part of NLP to warrant a specific mention in the introduction. In relation to scientific validation, insofar as its underlying tenets were new they did not stand up to scientific scrutiny. As far as can be ascertained the vast bulk ot the research was on PRS only.Fainites ^barley 06:23, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm really not in a position to make that call. That's why I'm looking for some objective test to ascertain notability. There must have been issues like this before on wikipedia. ----Action potential ^{t c} 09:37, 24 July 2007 (UTC) I'm not sure about the changes that I made today. Could you please have a close look at them to see if they are ok. I want to reduce the size of the article whilst keeping the important information. I'd like to see it flow more freely. ----Action potential ^{t c} 10:09, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Re notability of Drenth, it isn't particularly important because two other scientists who call it a pseudoscience are Devilly and Lillienfield, who are both definitely notable. However, the intro. is no place for picking out names. If pseudoscience is to be included it should be along the lines of 'and is criticised as a pseudoscience' or 'named as a... etc' or something, then the refs. The actual detail of the criticisms is then in the psychology section. Fainites ^barley 18:44, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Lilienfeld says that NLP is one of the many New Age therapies. Lilienfeld et al (2003) also criticizes the power therapies (EMDR, TFT, EFT, Advanced NLP, and TIR) in his book "Science and Pseudoscience in Clinical Psychology" but this focuses on EMDR. I search Sharpley in that text but found no results. I just had a go at expanding Drenth's view in the body of the article. Do you have the article? ----Action potential ^{t c} 10:04, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

All, I just added a simple phrase to an existing sentence that I think presents the information in an agreeable format and manner. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 13:02, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

We need to deal with this in context. Devilly is a trauma / PTSD researcher who values evidence-based practice. He is an excellent researcher with good reputation. But Devilly does not directly support the statement of NLP "being pseudoscience". Devilly is an evidence-based trauma researcher. The strongest scientific statement Devilly made was that there has been no peer-review controlled trials published on VK/D. He also cites Sharpley's reviews already covered in the current article. The statement you inserted into the introduction goes beyond the evidence (at least for Devilly). ----Action potential ^{t c} 03:48, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I think its preferable and more encyclopaedic to put in links to the articles rather than names. Drenth is certainly not the most notable. The others, including Beyerstein, are more so. The advantage of links is that many of the citations on this article give direct links to the papers/books in question.Fainites ^barley 19:52, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Figley

Hi AP. I don't think Figley really warrants entry. He did 'promising treatments' in 1997 but it never went anywhere and became validated or anything. There's a more recent example of a small scale study on VKD under the 'ongoing research' section. I also reduced duplication of Sharpley a bit and dated Beyerstein. Fainites ^barley 20:27, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I forgot the small study on VK/D stuff was in the ongoing research section. That's fine. ----Action potential ^{t c} 23:43, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Brief therapy

NLP (Bandler & Grinder) is often credited with, in part (see also: Hayley, Lankton), inspiring brief therapy through their work on Erickson. Brief therapy is not yet discussed in the article. It might be nice to introduce it somewhere and link through to SFBT page. See page 671 in Steenbarger (2002) "Single-session therapy: Theoretical underpinnings" In Elsevier Encyclopedia of Psychotherapy ----Action potential ^{t c} 23:43, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Aphorisms

I think they look better without extensive explanation. The whole point of an aphorism is to be a catch phrase after all. eg "there's no failure, only feedback" kind of speaks for itself, as its meant to.Fainites ^barley 19:50, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm weighing up between just having each expression or having a few sentences explaining each one. Either way I think it needs to be consistent and sourced. ----Action potential ^{t c} 03:57, 28 July 2007 (UTC) I've bolded the aphorisms and added one. I've also put the see also stuff in the ref notes. ----Action potential ^{t c} 03:03, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Associations and external links

I checked the links that were added by a recent anonymous edit. The links seemed to be individual trainers from different countries rather than legitimate associations. It raises the questions, what is a legit NLP association and how do we decide what associations (if any) to list? It is a difficult question because there are so many competing associations. ----Action potential ^{t c} 03:00, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I think you're wrong about that, in part at least. The Irish Institute of NLP is Ireland's certifying body for the Society of NLP. NLP Connections has 4,000 members and is independent of any trainer. The teacher's link is for a program run by the Society of NLP's director of education. Some of the links may be as you say as they're in languages I can't read so I can't check them out in detail but I don't think you should have reverted the whole edit. Incidentally, the BBNLP, which is included, has a handful of members and is run by two (married) trainers. I think the important this is for Wikipedia to be consistent and unbiased. Nlpenthusiast 18:19, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I reverted most of your edit because I wanted to discuss the changes. I agree that this section is a problematic. I agree that BBNLP does not pass the criteria. I think its ok just to list Society of NLP without listing the sub-branches (eg. Irish...). You could put a note saying that it has branches in different countries. The external links under Research were added because I (and other editors) used those sites to create this article. I'm not sure about the NLP Connection site. Check the wikipdeia link inclusion criteria for this one. ----Action potential ^{t c} 22:22, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

My understanding is that Wikipedia is a democracy based on rules. Someone added the links and you reverted them without any justification as far as I can tell. That's why I reverted your edit and i wrote on your page. Then you reverted my edit without replying to me. It's like you feel you're the only one who has the right to edit this page. You've made something like 40 edits in the last week and reverted everyone else's edits in that time. Please be reasonable about this. BBNLP is a member organisation with about 200 members. NLP Connections is a member organisation with 4,000 members. If one is included, the other certainly should be. If the national organisations for some countries are included, all national organisations (including Ireland) should be too. It has to be fair. I also strongly feel the specialist sites for doctors and teachers should be included. Nlpenthusiast 12:43, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

The links were added by an anonymous editor and it appears you created the account directly after this. There are no way to discuss with the anonymous editor. I'd rather point you to the appropriate wikipedia policies so we can discuss the points for and against inclusion of certain links. Firstly, wikipedia is not a link directory and the burden of proof is really on the person wanting to add links. There are other directory sites that would accept the links you added. I think most would agree that we cannot list an organisation from each country so we need discern which are good ones. The Society of NLP should probably be included. We should check the others against the notability criteria and other Wikipedia:External links policies. I wonder if a paragraph describing the various organisation would be ok. ----Action potential ^{t c} 23:00, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

If you're implying I was the original editor then that's not true. I joined after reading on a mailing list that the wiki entry for NLP was being "hi-jacked again" (their words, not mine). Seems that's true as there's no reason to include some of the links in there but not the links we're discussing now. It's sheer favouritism. Still, I can't be bothered to argue. Nlpenthusiast 17:15, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Identifying who added the links or not is beside the point and I apologise for implying it was you. The point I was trying to make was that an anonymous editor added the links and provided no evidence or discussion for the edit. I asked the editor to discuss in my edit description. Because the editor was anonymous there was no way to discuss it further. I agree that the links to various associations is problematic and open to interpretation. It is therefore necessary to discuss the relevant wikipedia policy and value of each link. ----Action potential ^{t c} 02:13, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Brooklyn program

I wonder if this could be including in ongoing research? "An addiction treatment based on tools derived from NLP under the United States Probation Department for Eastern New York reported good retention and low relapse rates for its participants." ----Action potential ^{t c} 06:03, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

New Intro

I'm not convinced by the new intro. Its not so much that's its wrong. More that if you imagine yourself as a reasonably intelligent reader with no prior knowledge, you'd read that intro and be none the wiser. Fainites ^barley 18:31, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Do you know of a particularly good example of an introduction that we could work from as a template. Any good article should be written for the intelligent ignoramus. Someone who has no idea of the subject matter but can read and get something useful out of reading the intro and then (hopefully) stay to read the rest of the article. ----Action potential ^{t c} 12:49, 24 August 2007 (UTC) I've rewritten the 2nd paragraph from scratch. I've tried to use only review sources and summarise the main points. I removed some of the repeated stuff from that was already covered in the first paragraph. Please feel free to edit, or improve (or revert it). ----Action potential ^{t c} 13:48, 24 August 2007 (UTC) I think my edit might have made it more complicated. Its really difficult to strike a balance between accuracy and easy to read/understand. ----Action potential ^{t c} 13:58, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry not to reply AP. I've been a bit taken up with AT lately. I see we've got a 'B' though! I see what you're trying to do in the intro, but in general I think intro's should be much shorter and pithier. The trouble is, its such an amorphous subject. Fainites ^barley 20:44, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I agree it should be much simpler. The entire article could be pithier. I'll take a break for a few days and come back to it with fresh eyes. ----Action potential ^{t c} 12:02, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

As a reader who had never heard of NLP until about 10 minutes ago, I must say that I think the intro still needs work. There is a lot of jargon that uninitiated readers will have a lot of trouble penetrating. I just made a small edit to move the phrase an approach to psychotherapy and a "model of interpersonal communications" into the first sentence, which I think makes a big difference towards understandability. As previously written, the first sentence had almost zero content, relying on nonexistent context to tell the reader what "applied system" meant. --Steve-o Stonebraker 02:37, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

That's better. thanks. The second paragraph could be much clearer. ----Action potential ^{t c} 13:50, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello. I'm also reading about this for the first time, and I must say that the intro is, in my opinion, too long and confusing. It talks too much about NLP and its qualities but without first saying what NLP is about in more simple terms. I think that an introductory paragraph should be more close to the answer that someone could tell you if you asked "what is NLP"? Probably the answer wouldn't be so long. All the information within it can be understood, but it is confusing because it is too abstract, for someone who doesn't still know what the article is talking about. (I got to the end of the intro basically knowing that NLP is 'something' with many uses, and that different ways to use NLP exist). 164.77.106.50 20:27, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. I agree. I hope to make the opening much clearer. ----Action potential ^{t c} 12:53, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello. I agree that the intro is too complex, though it's incredibly hard to give a simple opening. It's confusing (perhaps contradictory) to say it's an alternative to psychotherapy, and then that "its application was not limited to psychotherapy, rather they attended to the patterns of interpersonal communications that could be applied generally". Not a criticism... just trying to get my head around a way of explaining it clearly. It may be possible to remove the whole 2nd paragraph, since it probably doesn't aid in the understanding (and it's nlp techniques and only one small facet of those). Greg 07:35, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

The opening sentence is a paraphrase of the oxford dictionary of psychology dictionary definition. I changed it slightly given your objection. I can see your point. Some people do see NLP as a form of psychotherapy. Others see it as a model for persuasion (or change/communications). The second paragraph is important. What sort of things would someone find in an NLP books, CDs or seminars? Most have step-by-step instructions for creating outcomes, make personal changes, reframing negative beliefs, etc. It just needs to be simple but cover the mains ones. ----Action potential ^{t c} 16:13, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I meant more that we say NLP patterns can be applied to Psychotherapy but also in other areas... and we also say that NLP is an alternative to Psychotherapy. One places it alongside Psychotherapy (NLP vs Psychotherapy), the other as a set of techniques that can be applied to Psychotherapy. I think your fix may cover that though... saying it's two different things.

I don't like the change from (paraphrased) "NLP's application is not limited to modeling psychotherapy but rather attends to interpersonal communication generally"' to "NLP's modeled patterns of psychotherapists were intended to be used more generally"... though both miss a bit. I'll have a play, see what you think.

I also think it's fair to say that NLP as a field is unconcerned with the theory, though not that NLP practitioners are unconcerned with theory. There are plenty of practitioners who have tried to link NLP with existing theories or come up with new ones (often crap theories, sometimes good IMO)... but should we more clearly define what NLP teaches as separate to what practitioners do with it? Greg 02:53, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh.. the 2nd paragraph... it has 4 distinct methodologies mentioned in 4 sentences. Perhaps point form would help? Greg 02:53, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

The second paragraph is inteded to give an overview of the techniques and patterns that someone might expect to find in NLP. Its the stuff that is found in the NLP books and seminars. General principles for persuasive communication, step-by-step instructions for change processes, and the use of story and metaphor. Can you think of anything else? Any of these not primary? ----Action potential ^{t c} 05:37, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

The 2nd paragraph talks about anchoring, submodalities (and altering them), & meta model questions. (personally I'd say state management is an underlying principle of all work as well as the use of presuppositions.) You mention persuasive communication, step-by-step instructions, and use of story and metaphor though... so perhaps I'm looking at the wrong paragraph? Greg 06:58, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I was talking about what should be in that paragraph rather than what is there now. I'm just thinking about what is in the literature and taught in seminars. In classic NLP, the most common form of state regulation would be anchoring. I want to stick to those basic classic formats. You could introduce (new code or other forms of) state management later in the article. ----Action potential ^{t c} 10:59, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. Then Story and metaphor I agree with. Presuppositions is pretty key to what is taught but it's rarely spelt out (and perhaps we should deliberately avoid it here too?). What do you mean by persuasive communication & step-by-step instructions?

Oh... have been playing with various possibilities and haven't created anything that explains it well... so please don't take anything as a criticism :) Greg 13:12, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Greg's play on New Intro

I'm going to just play with a new intro. I intend it to be entirely awful to start with as I flip and change and try to find something that is clarifying to the new reader. I'm doing this here rather than on the main page... if anyone has thoughts (on what's good, bad, suggestions...) let me know. Greg

---

Neuro-linguistic programming (NLP) is an interpersonal communications model and an alternative approach to psychotherapy based on the subjective study of language, communication and personal change.. It was co-founded by Richard Bandler and linguist John Grinder in the 1970s as a method of personal change and communications. The focus was pragmatic, modeling three successful psychotherapists, Virginia Satir, Milton Erickson and Fritz Perls.

An NLP practitioner intends to help people (including themself) to create or discover new choices and ways of doing what they do - principally by either

1. discovering existing 'problem' patterns, and applying therapeutic NLP patterns to encourage change (such as those originally modeled), or
2. modeling high performers in any field to discover their 'excellence' patterns and to teach these patterns to others (see NLP modeling).

Variants and applications of NLP are often found in seminars, workshops, books and audio programs in the form of exercises and principles intended to influence change in self and others.

NLP is often said to be unconcerned with theory. It focuses on 'what works' - looking for patterns (such as "when the therapists uses a question of type X, it elicits response Y", "the subject is repeating behaviours a->b->c") - rather than focusing on why this happens or theories of the underlying neurological activity. However, outside of recognising the patterns, NLP's theoretical foundations borrowed from work related to the original models and from disciplines related to communication and the mind, including psychology, linguistics, cognitive science, and occupational therapy. In some ways NLP began with the theory that to accurately detect the patterns the original Psychotherapists were using it was necessary to have no existing theory of what they were doing.

The field of NLP is loosely spread and resistant to a single comprehensive definition. There is also a great deal of difference between the depth and breadth of training and standards. Some NLP trainers & practitioners give there own theories behind an NLP process which is based on their own experience & background rather than NLP itself. Greg 00:44, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

---

An important assumption of NLP is that emotion, thought and behavior consists of, and is influenced by, how the sensory-specific modalities (visual, auditory, kinesthetic, olfactory, gustatory) are organized and give rise to consciousness. Further, the mode and limits to the underlying mental representations is revealed by unconscious choice of words, sensory-specific predicates (eg. visual language) and non-verbal cues (such as intonation; gesture; posture; facial expression and eye movements). A basic method in NLP involves asking specifying questions to help clarify the intended message in communication. It seeks to recover what has been left out and to reframe faulty thinking when the communication is distorted or over-generalised. These meta-model questions are often combined with suggestions for personal growth and potential. Another technique seeks to alter sensory-specific submodalities (eg. brightness, size or location of visual imagery or sensory representations) to affect the intensity of mental states and affect changes in behavior. A classic format has people anchor resourceful mind-body states (eg. creativity, confidence, etc.) to make them available in situations where a person wants to act differently. Generally, the intent of NLP is to increase choice in the underlying representations so that the individual has more choice and flexibility in the world.

In the early 1980s, NLP was heralded as an important advance in psychotherapy and counseling. It attracted significant interest from researchers and practitioners in the profession. Reviews of research in counseling psychology and by the National Research Council (NRC) committee found little empirical basis for NLP assumptions or effectiveness. The NRC committee were impressed, however, with NLP modeling as an approach to expert modeling and it inspired further research by the NRC in that area. Most counseling psychology studies focused on the claim that careful tracking eye movements and matching sensory predicates improves rapport and influence in the client-counselor relationship. This lead some evidence-based clinicians and researchers to label NLP as a New Age or pseudoscientific form of psychotherapy. Some argued that researchers did not have adequate training in, or understanding of, the complexities of NLP and the research had numerous methodological errors. The general lack of support in literature reviews marked a decrease in research interest, especially for matching sensory predicates to enhance the client-counselor relationship. Subsequent peer-reviewed research has been sporadic and spread across multiple disciplines. The majority of information on NLP has been published in books, multimedia products, and via workshops not subject to the rigor of peer-reviewed journals. Nevertheless, NLP remains widely supported by its practitioners in the field and has influenced other forms of brief and eclectic interventions.

---

Reasons NLP is hard to tie down

Just thinking about why NLP is hard to define. Feel free to add... :)

1. Bandler & Grinder may have or may currently define NLP differently.
2. Anyone can call themselves an NLP trainer or practitioner, there are no controls over what is or what is not NLP.
3. NLP was never focused on one theory, one way of doing something, but focused at a more general level of recognising what would have the best effect and choosing an appropriate response. It was also based on watching whether it worked and then doing something different if it wasn't having the desired effect. However, it was often understood much more simply as X->Y.
4. Every NLP trainer, author, practitioner has their own background. NLP often has no theory about a process so others have filled this in with their own, which has sometimes been associated with NLP after this.
5. The presuppositions of NLP are often confused with actual beliefs of NLP. For example, acting with 100% sincerity that a change will be successful improves the success of a change. This is very similar to a placebo effect. As a very loose (an inaccurate) extrapolation - NLP doesn't actually teach "this always works", but it teaches to sincerely say "this always works". Many critics do not see the difference.
6. NLP teaches that conscious understanding and perception is limited - that there are always many interacting factors that influence us, and we are not aware of many of those. Some trainings avoid explaining consciously (at first) to avoid preconceptions, so that participants learn by observation (modeling) & experience. As such, some teachings are taken in isolation and do not hold true, or are misunderstood due to an individuals preconceptions.

None of the above is to say NLP works - just why it is hard to define & easy to misunderstand Greg 00:56, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Differentiating PRS studies from generic NLP studies?

Hi there, I used to be involved here but ran out of time to help. Hopefully I have some more time now. I like what's been done with the article and it seems to cover most of NLP reasonably fairly - the good and the bad. I've noticed that the early studies on the PRS are being generalised as comments on NLP and I'm not sure how best to improve that (or if it's already been attempted). To paraphrase them... they say that NLP is of interest, they talk about PRS, they study PRS, find problems, but summarise by "NLP doesn't work". ie: The context of their final "NLP doesn't work" is omitted. ie: it's like saying "counselling was found to be really effective" rather than "counselling using narrative therapy was found to be really effective" etc (counselling is too broad a term). I'll leave there for now... I don't want to touch stuff without communicating with whoever is here first. Greg 07:35, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Popular culture and media

Mind reading and magic

In 2003, English mentalist Derren Brown often performs stunts and magical tricks on British television. One stunt Brown played Russian roulette with 5 players picked from an audience of 100. Skeptical, Glenn Wilson, a psychologist at Kings College London, said it was a magic trick and Brown probably used stooges who acted as if they were from the audience. Wilson doubted Brown's mind reading and influence capability. Others who believed that the stunt was more than mere magic, claim that Brown used NLP, cold reading and indirect suggestion to inform the participants which chamber the bullet was located. Derren later revealed that it was infact a trick. Brown has stated that an interest developing skills in reading non-verbal signals reading and indirect suggestion was initially spurred by NLP.

I'm trying to work out what this all means, and to put it into an NLP context. The newspaper link doesn't help but the Wikipedia link describes it better. So Derren Brown does a stunt where an audience member chooses one chamber of a gun, loads that chamber, and then Derren picks which chamber to fire - such that if he can 'read the audience members mind' he doesn't get shot. Then the debate I'm reading above is whether he can (a) read their minds, (b) uses stooges, (c) reads their face, or (d) tells them unconsciously which gun to load. If that's right.. and he claims to read minds, then (b), (c), or (d) are all "tricks". Even (e) he has a fake gun that he controls. The wiki article says the police said " "There was no live ammunition involved and at no time was anyone at risk."... kinda implies (e) which we don't even mention.

(and to quote that NLP is "more than mere magic"... that's quite different to the original!!! "Those who want to believe Brown's stunt was more than a common magic trick, have suggested he may be an expert in NLP".)

Are we trying to say

In 2003, English mentalist Derren Brown performed stunts and magical tricks on British television. In one stunt Derren played Russian roulette with an audience member. The trick involved Derren firing a loaded gun at himself, and he would only be safe if he didn't choose the chamber that the audience member had placed the bullet into. Glenn Wilson, a psychologist, doubted Brown's mind reading and influence capability, saying it was a magic trick and Derren probably used stooges who acted as if they were from the audience. Others believed that the stunt was more than a mere trick, and that Derren was using NLP cold reading and indirect suggestion (Derren has stated that NLP spurred his interest in developing skills in reading non-verbal signals and indirect suggestion). Derren later revealed that this was infact a trick, and the local police confirmed that no live ammunition was involved.

And if that is correct... is it really relevant to this whole article? If so... in what way so we can make it clear. Greg 08:39, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I have replaced the paragraph with a more descriptive one like Id suggested above. Still unclear as to why it relates to NLP. Greg 01:54, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Brown is really popular in the UK at the moment. He claims to use NLP as part of his act. That's the extent of the relevance. Maybe that sentence should be moved to the Derren Brown page and we just link to that page. ----Action potential ^{t c} 16:05, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Derren Brown makes no such claim, and never has. People have assumed that he uses NLP simply because he mentions he makes use of psychology and persuasion techniques. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.149.124.135 (talk) 20:44, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Discussion method?

I'm not sure who's involved in editing, etc, or if we have to discuss here before modifying the article (as previously required).

I assume we ask here especially if it may be contentious... and if there's a change made on the main article that is not agreed to itll be amended or reverted and then discussed here?

By the way, my name is Greg, I'm a practicing counsellor and am trained with an undergraduate Psych degree, Hypnosis courses, I'm an Associate Trainer of NLP, and I've studied various counselling types too. Greg 08:50, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Science summary?

Just thinking through all the science stuff I'm reading and have read... and I have links all over my browser and want to quickly throw my thoughts down so I don't lose them. So a quick 'summary' of scientific testing of NLP...

Confounding factors

• NLP does not teach the scientific method of testing and partially avoids it for various reasons. When an NLP practitioner does research it is often deemed to be scientifically flawed.
• Psychology uses the scientific method, but psychologists are usually not trained in NLP. Scientists have often misunderstood the NLP process they were testing and/or have trained their subjects themselves from their own understanding of NLP.
• The meaning of NLP & the quality of NLP trainings & practitioners varies wildly. There is no standards body that can guarantee who is competent.
• Clinical study is far more difficult in a counselling/change environment than in medicine. In medicine, half the clients can be given the 'real pill' and the other half given a 'fake pill' (placebo) and the doctor themselves can be made unaware of which pill the clients received. In counselling, giving half the clients "real counselling" and the other half "fake counselling" is far more difficult (see Outcome based research)
• There has been a "scientist / practitioner divide" in psychology. Practicing psychologists and psychotherapists have not seen the research as applicable to their practice as it does not see the whole picture of the client-practitioner interaction. CBT has made great strides in bridging this gap. See also Scientist-Practitioner Model of Clinical Psychology
• Some psychologists have said that 40% of a subjects change comes from just walking in the door to get help, 30% comes from the client-practitioner relationship, 15% from placebo, and 15% from the technique used. As such, a dubious therapy could help a client greatly just based on the clients decision, placebo, and a good relationship. This makes it harder to determine if NLP processes are responsible for improvements in a client in non-controlled settings (Note that NLP also teaches how to create the placebo effect and how to gain rapport and a good relationship with the client)
• Outcome based research has only recently become more heavily used and accepted. See also "Qualitative psychological research", "Evidence-based medicine", and "A Science Advisory Board - Perspective". Note also that only 45% (of 400) respondents in a Science Advisory Board survey "believe that collecting and evaluating data on real world clinical practices is the best way to improve the value of today’s medical care" [14].

The scientific results

• Up to the mid 80s there were many (>50?) well controlled scientific studies on NLP (focused on PRS) & 2 major meta studies of those findings. They showed overwhelmingly that the PRS theories as studied were not supported. Most of these studies claimed (in their abstracts and conclusions) to be studying NLP, but in greater detail showed various PRS studies.
• After the mid 80s there were very few scientific studies. There were many studies by NLP practitioners, which were largely anecdotal or considered otherwise flawed by scientists.
• In the 2000s, there were 8 outcome based studies all supportive of NLP. However, these studies can not show which processes of NLP work or do not work - just that there was an overall benefit during treatment (for example, this benefit may have been entirely via the metamodel questions which CBT has already shown to be effective via their 'cognitive distortion' model). There was also no control group in many studies, and subjects may have gotten better on their own without any intervention. etc.
• There are no studies of efficacy of NLP in therapy in comparison to other psychotherapeutic models.

There are 3 contradictory main 'findings' towards scientific study of NLP

1. NLP was studied and it was overwhelmingly shown that NLP's underlying assumptions did not work (1988 NRC stuff)
2. NLP has been studied in the field and has found support (2000s)
3. NLP has not been studied effectively enough to conclude whether it has scientific support for its model.

Have I got anything wrong? Greg 23:36, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I think you need to distinguish between the different types of evidence and research. The early 1980s interest in NLP in academic literature can be summed up in Sharpley (1987; counseling psychology) and NRC (1988; human performance task force). The CBT cognitive restructuring or distortions is based on Socratic questioning. The counselor wants the client to become rational or clear about his or her "thoughts". From memory the NLP meta model also borrows from this Socratic form of questioning. There are many other aspects of NLP that are supported in other fields under different names. Anchoring (a form of classical conditioning), modeling (vicarious learning). There are other CBT interventions that have counterparts in NLP, eg. systematic desensitization, therapeutic metaphor, goal setting, and progressive relaxation. There are some subtle, some larger differences in the approaches. A critique of CBT is that is too conscious and directive, whereas the Ericksonian influence on NLP means that it is indirect. CBT comes across as a "cookbook" approach to therapy. There are some differences. NLP does not buy into the DSM style, ASSESS-TREAT-ASSESS model. NLP places importance on responding to the individual (using sensory acuity, calibration, and sub-modalities) and helping the client come up with her or her goals for the session. Both CBT and NLP were created as a reaction to psychoanalysis. But NLP was also created as a reaction against behaviorism. There are some other differences. CBT does not make a distinction between "thoughts" and internal dialog, or other sensory systems. NLP is very clear about the differences between what someone says, what are internal representations and explores the inner experience of the client (Visual, auditory and kinesthetic). CBT leaves this area (intentionally) very vague (e.g. they use undefined words like feelings, thoughts, emotion). CBT has a positivist reductionist philosophy. NLP has an embodied realism view of the world and has a respect for the individual phenomenology. ----Action potential ^{t c} 06:56, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Quick reply to this... so you are basically agreeing with my quick summary, but saying that the summary should include research of methodologies that are shared by NLP and other therapies (eg CBT)? Greg 08:50, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Principles of NLP

Does anyone else think some of the principles of NLP should be clearly defined as "presuppositions of NLP"?

Specifically,

• Behind every behavior there is a positive intention.
• There is no failure, only feedback.
• People already have all the internal resources they need to succeed.

NLP doesn't actually teach that these are true. These presuppositions were modelled from the early therapists as a part of successful change patterns. NLP teaches that if you act AS IF these are true, it encourages successful change. Greg 05:37, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Weaseling and PseudoScientific Article disparaging NLP through Straw Man & Ad Populum arguments.

The statement at the beginning (which would not fly in even a first year introductory psychology class ) is weak and biased:

"Most counseling psychology studies [Ad Populum Fallacy] focused on the claim that careful tracking eye movements and matching sensory predicates improves rapport and influence in the client-counselor relationship. This has led [how does this lead to this???] some "Evidence-Based" [well, they must be right then!] clinicians and researchers to label [!] NLP as [name-calling] "New-Age" or [name-calling] pseudoscientific form of psychotherapy."

( As well, improved rapport and influence, if it does occur, WOULD be a helpful thing in therapy! And how would improved rapport "lead" "evidence-based" people to this conclusion??? This is garbage! )

-This, to me, sums up the pseudoscientific and biased nature of this article.

66.183.199.146 18:47, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't make much sense does it. THe article is huge... and I think it misses some crucially important points. In your example above - what about

"Early counseling psychology studies focused on the claim that careful tracking of eye movements would reveal a Preferred Representation System, and that matching sensory predicates to that system would improve rapport & influence in the client-counselor relationship. These studies universally found no such relationships - and led to clinicians & researchers classing NLP as a pseudoscientific form of psychotherapy, and New Age"

Maybe you can elaborate/correct further? Greg 03:12, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Something wrong with timeline

In 1988 at the request of the US Army, the National Research Council evaluated several highly marketed "New age" human performance enhancement technologies.[7] Twenty five years later, Druckman stated that...

Blaise 22:00, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah it spun me too. I think it's accurate... but why not take a comment that was written at the time rather than 25 years later? Greg 03:26, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Basically at the time they said modelling was a good idea. They followed it up, but not through NLP. They looked at things like cognitive apprenticeship which is researched and tested - unlike NLP. The 25 years later bit is Druckman acknowledging the idea from NLP. Fainites ^barley 17:36, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Fainites, I can send you the quote if you like. Druckman headed the US Army commissioned committee that looked into NLP but did not follow through with the evaluation. It helps establish context. ----Action potential ^{t c} 07:03, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Way, WAY, shorter?

The more I look at this article, the more I think it needs to be incredibly shorter. Like 10% of the current length.

At the moment, it's long enough that most people wouldn't read the whole thing. And most people would NEVER actually go to some of the subpages. I think a shorter page should give an overview of what NLP is without about 5 subheadings - and then each of those subheadings expands in a separate page (probably the existing pages).

What do others think? Am I way off base here? It's just so unwieldy. Greg 13:43, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Have a look at the WP:good article criteria. What needs to be done to get it up to scratch? An good example of a feature on a similar topic might be Philosophy of mind. Can you find an other feature (or good) articles on similar topics? ----Action potential ^{t c} 12:30, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether this answers my concern. Good articles should be "well written, stable, accurate, and referenced, have a neutral point of view, and show relevant illustrations with an appropriate copyright". Fair enough.

I'm actually focussing on the "well written" component of that, in that the article is too long. I think the article is fairly stable, accurate, and referenced (though the neutrality is difficult and probably needs further work). The article is difficult for someone to get a quick idea of NLP, and if they read the whole article it takes some time and even then they don't learn a great deal more than if it was a shorter article.

I'm still not sure of HOW to achieve that, though I've got a few ideas... I may have a play in another space first. Greg 10:19, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I see the changes you're making ActP. They all make sense and they do clarify, but I seriously can't see how the article comes together. For anyone willing to read the whole article, they get a whole lot of good information... but do you know how rare it is for someone to read much? I feel like fixing sentences is..... not seeing the forest for the trees.

Seriously - if someone said to you - "I've heard lots of different stuff about NLP and I don't really know what it is or how it fits - tell me about NLP"... and then offered "Perhaps you could start by breaking it into 5 main things you think I should know"... what would you say.

Off the cuff... the thoughts I'm having are:

1. NLP is defined by different people differently. No central control, important to find good quality practitioners or trainers. There is a trend to what is called NLP.
2. NLP began with the modeling of psychotherapists - some practitioners say NLP is the MODELING (originally of psychotherapists), while others say it is the processes (which were modeled) from PSYCHOTHERAPISTS
3. NLP training teaches processes which can be applied to therapy, coaching, and modeling.
4. Many processes used in NLP practice are very similar to psychotherapies (especially those that are solution focussed). An NLP practitioner is more instructive in having the client walk through a change process, and NLP shares some characteristics with hypnosis.
5. Psychologists and NLP practitioners don't see eye to eye (nor do psychologists and psychotherapists) - they have different ways of doing what they do. That's led to disagreement in research methods and result validity. Suffice to say - while some underlying assumptions have not been supported, research on NLP in practice indicates it's effective.

And walk through 1 process in depth... with quick mention of names of others.

Care to add? change? Do you agree that there is anything wrong with the structure at present? Greg 12:52, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Its way to long and with way to much jargon that the average reader just wouldn't get. There must be simpler ways of explaining 'submodalities' and 'representational systems'. If you look at the version we had back in July - just after getting rid of a pro NLP sock - it was down to about 41 kbs of readable prose and had more simplistic explanations.[15] Fainites ^barley 17:28, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I guess I'm thinking that there are 2 potential approaches to this article

1. Write an extensive article covering NLP pretty widely, or
2. Write the shortest overview possible, aim at people who know little (the article will still be hefty enough), with links to subpages for all the detail.

We've got lots of sub articles... so I'm voting for #2 Greg 00:31, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

(Action Potential seem to be expanding though... ??) Greg 00:33, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd vote for 2. A reasonably comprehensive, jargon free article. There's already about 3 thousand subpages. There's a constant process over the years of material from this article being dumped on sub pages, like tectonic plates. There's even one where an outside editor, with no discussion, removed the entire concepts and methods section and created a new article with it. [16]Fainites ^barley 07:17, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Have just shortened several sections and attempted to simplify. Feel free to improve or revert.

Looking over the article, I wonder if there's a confusion in the headings (...MetaModel, MiltonModel shouldn't be next to Map/Territory)... perhaps it needs separation of the NLP processes into one section. Science & Research should be together? Perhaps even a whole section encompassing NLP-as-Therapy, NLP-as-modelling, NLP-applied-to-other-fields. Is anybody supporting the current structure, or is that just something that's organically grown and needs some tlc? Greg 08:48, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

It never stays the same for 2 days at a time. I was heavily involved up till about 7 months ago when the whole thing had been pretty much rewritten over the preceding month or two. Now its completely different again. Just about every variation there ever could be regarding article structure and content has probably been discussed some where in the talkpages. Perhaps this article's history says more about the inchoate nature of NLP than the article itself ever could. I'll have a go at simplifying and shortening over the weekend if poss.Fainites ^barley 23:56, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Would you or Action Potential prefer discussion here before making some structural changes? Or am I okay to change and we'll revert as necessary? Greg 04:28, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Why not try a change and then we can all say what we think. Its easier to tell what its like when its actually up as it were. Fainites ^barley 19:05, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good (I'll have a play, also interested in your shortening). Hey, Action Potential, is your lack of answer here while extending descriptions on the main page a way of saying you would prefer a longer article? Greg (talk) 05:09, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Good articles have well written paragraphs. I don't like the dot points in the opening and would like them coverted to paragraphs at one stage. There is no reason why we cannot three or four well-written paragraphs to introduce the topic. On the whole flow and cohesion seem to be lacking in the article so I'd like to work on that as a priority rather than concision. The sub articles also need a lot of work. When these are up to scratch you can link there for the detail and make this article much more concise. I'm still looking for a good article on wikipedia that we could use as a model for this one. Any ideas? Also, the reason I have not been discussing here is because I've reallly busy with study at the moment and I have just been editing during the breaks. If you have problems with my edits please let me know. ----Action potential ^{t c} 10:59, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I agree with you guys, the current articles does need to be reduced in size. I've worked on the opening a bit more. I would like to see this flow more freely. I would really like to develop the sub articles and link to them so that we can reduce the size of the current article. I won't have time to make any changes for a few weeks. I want to work on bringing the subarticles up to scratch then. ----Action potential ^{t c} 09:10, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Cool. What makes you think that dot points aren't effective? If overdone, they detract from an article, but in the right places dot points allow for easy summaries of what is being said. Or put another way - when you are listing the qualities or types (etc) of something, usually a list (numbered or bulleted) is the most effective way of doing this.

ps. When I converted your paragraph to its 4 points, it then became clear that each point wasn't clear... and now we have almost a new paragraph for each point which was not my intent at all. Increasing the length of the article results in a less understandable article. Greg (talk) 11:57, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

The dot points were helpful to structure the main points, but we will probably need to convert them into one paragraph at some stage to meet good (or featured) article criteria. The article still lacks from flow and cohesion. While the dot points can help us organise the main points, it does not address the flow issue. There is a lot of detail that can be chopped out or replaced by links to the sub articles. Also, I think we can use jargon as long as it is defined when it is introduced. I don't have any time at all at the moment so please go ahead and try to clean it up. Run things by Fainites. ----Action potential ^{t c} 04:17, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

No worries, will make some clean up attempts. When you get a chance, can you tell me where wikipedia says that dot points shouldn't be used (as per featured/good article guidelines) all I can find is [17] which uses dot points all through it... (ooops, I see you've amended that...) Greg (talk) 04:53, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

This is what Wikipedia:Lead says "The lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, establishing context, summarizing the most important points, explaining why the subject is interesting or notable, and briefly describing its notable controversies, if there are any." Taken literally: the first paragraph should establish context, the second summarize the most important points, the third explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and forth briefly describe any notable controversies. ----Action potential ^{t c} 07:01, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Action Potential - that really doesn't say when a point is appropriate or not.

BTW Check out NLP Overview for my play at a shorter article. Still more info not integrated yet (see the discussion page for all the stuff I left out). Greg (talk) 09:49, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

"NLP Overview" should not be in the Main namespace. I have moved it to User:GregA/NLP Overview. See User talk:GregA/NLP Overview#Main namespace for details or further discussion. Thanks, -- Gyrofrog (talk) 16:07, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, wasn't aware of how to use namespaces. I suggest that any discussion remain on this board as it's a play on a new structure for this page. Greg (talk) 20:24, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Science - pseudoscience

I preferred this version [18]. Its comprehensive but also makes it very clear that the research was nearly all on preferred representational systems (one of the important underlying tenets) which didn't work. Alot of the rest of it is developments of existing techniques from other therapies. I couldn't find very much outcome research at all back then. Proponents just don't seem to bother. If there's any more - stick it in! Fainites ^barley 17:21, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree the intro needed rewriting though. its always been a fiendishly difficult task. Fainites ^barley 17:40, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

---

I'm not sure why you think Preferred Rep Systems is "the" important underlying tenet. I'd say rep systems are crucial, including "primary rep systems"... but "preferred rep systems" just seems so minor. I also skip between abbreviating them BOTH as PRS and I'm sure others have too... which doesn't help.

The main problem with summarising scientific research is being clear, not having to re-teach Preferred Rep Systems and its context within NLP, explaining research and lack-of-research in context... it becomes a book, and one which doesn't get read. Also, much of the early stuff generalises the PRS research as indicative of NLP.

Among the points

• Preferred.Rep.Sys said that in people in certain contexts, a rep system was preferred above the others, and that matching that system would increase rapport. Note that the rep systems teaching is important throughout NLP, but that the Pref.Rep.Sys is a specific subset of rep systems and was one specific strategy for rapport.
• Primary Rep system is in contrast to the Secondary Rep systems. Often not explicitly taught - primary refers to the vakog systems, secondary refers to Internal Dialogue and our understanding of the world (usually far more conscious too, but not always). Grinder now calls them F1 and F2.
• The assumptions of Pref.Rep.Sys were deduced by Psychologists from the Pref.Rep.Sys processes said to work in NLP books. It was tested against all people (not in specific contexts, einspruch criticised) and basically found that matching (with practitioner's words) a single preferred rep system (determined through subject's words or eye movements) had no significant impact on rapport.
• The failure of tests of the assumption from Pref.Rep.Sys was presented as negating all NLP teaching.
• Pref.Rep.Sys doesn't seem to be taught much anymore. In fact, the NRC report writers actually met with Bandler, who said that the importance of Pref.Rep.Sys in NLP had now been far reduced (Bandler moved on).
• Unless an NLP proponent is also psychologically trained, research they do is often not scientific enough. NLP does not teach the scientific method, NLP has a different approach entirely to Psychology. And psychologists are required to do several years of research before they are qualified to practice. NLP practitioners don't have much interest in doing psychological style research.
• Outcome research generally on talking therapies finds universally that doing some sort of therapy is better than doing no therapy. However, there is very little research comparing different therapies.
• Outcome research on NLP** finds that people doing NLP is better than doing no therapy, but does not compare how much better/worse than other therapies
• NLP teaches very similar things to many other therapies - and its core claim is to have modelled its processes on other therapies. NLP claimed to teach what Perls and Satir were actually doing, which was different to what Perls and Satir themselves said was important in what they were doing.
• To some degree, all talk therapies have cross overs in what they teach. There are estimates of 1000 different therapy types now. This does not negate the usefulness of any therapy - in fact a therapy which effectively pulls together all the best parts should be the best therapy.
• NLP, unfortunately like all the psychotherapies I've attempted to learn about, teaches everything from scratch. Though there are huge overlaps in therapies, none seem to teach as "this is how we're different from X"... which would make it much easier to work out if there was something new. I'd say NLP (in the therapy context) differs from others in where it focuses - a different importance on the various skills in interacting with people, the removal of teaching the underlying theories (and focus on experiential learning of the behaviours). It also has a focus on deliberate state change of a subject (sometimes hypnotic) between various more resourceful states and the problem state, during therapy, in order for the subject to access their own resources and find their own best answer. But that's something that pervades the NLP processes and teaching rather than being made very explicit.

• • From memory, 18 months ago (on here) I found 6 or 7 outcome based research studies all supporting NLP. I'd have to find the info again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GregA (talk • contribs) 22:41, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

PRS was considered important at the time and a crucial new tool for rapport with dramatic effects. It was one of their new ideas. It was certainly dumped by some later when research showed it didn't work - but not by everybody. Some up-to date NLP texts still teach it as a done deal. The earlier science section attempted to make the distinction between PRS research and what was said about all the other techniques as actually PRS is pretty much irrelevant to most techniques. Rep systems are older. The earlier version explained in the techniques sections the derivation of the techniques.

I'd be interested to see the outcome research you've found. I managed to find very little.Fainites ^barley 08:51, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Check out our subpage List of studies on Neuro-linguistic programming for some of the outcome studies. I once found some of those outcome based ones, looks like someone moved them there and sorted differently :) One I found most interesting was

• Genser-Medlitsch & Schütz (1997) tested the effects of NLP master practitioners working on 55 clients with severe DSM conditions, many of whom were on psychiatric drugs. The control group of 60 had milder symptoms. After treatment of the NLP group, 2% felt no different, 98% felt better or much better, none felt worse (control group: 48% no different, 36% better, 15% worse). After therapy, the clients who received NLP scored higher in their perception of themselves as in control of their lives (with a difference at 10% significance level), reduced their use of drugs, used more successful coping methods, and reduced symptoms such as anxiety, aggression, paranoid thinking, social insecurity, compulsive behaviours, and depression. Positive changes in 25 of 33 symptom areas (76%) occurred as a result of NLP, positive changes in 3 areas occurred in both NLP and control groups. The researchers concluded "It could be established that, in principle, NLP is effective in accordance with the therapeutic objective."

Years back one of the anti-NLP sockpuppets posted 62 articles he found on medline, of which 14 were research. I then looked through and summarised.

• 7 did not support NLP. 6 of these were pre 1987 (the last in 2003) - and as with Druckman & Swets (88) and Heap (89) review of NLP, all were rep systems related.
• Another 7 studies supported NLP, all were after 1987 and used a variety NLP processes (and often don't say which - though only 1 was eye focussed). While they were supportive, they were not well controlled.

For a summary of the 7 supportive studies, with Flavius's comments and my reply, see our Talk page in November 2005

I also found this paper interesting - NLP Potential for learning and teaching. Greg 12:19, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

You might also be interested in this? The NLP topic just keeps growing. I've personally lost track where it's going, but I'm probably not the only one judging from the amount of cite errors in the ref lists. Where did Corballis go, anyway? I thought that was a pretty good reference, and so was Lilienfeld. Did anyone discuss keeping a Dutch Skepter article and not of the others? Piechjo (talk) 07:59, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what happened to Lilienfield, Beyerstein, Devilly and the rest. They all used to be in the article. Also PRS has been removed. I don't agree its not important. If it wasn't important why is nearly all the research on PRS? Singers criticism revolves alot around the misapplication of PRS. The research found no evidence for it - except for the Buckner paper - which has also been removed. Accepting research and moving on is one thing, but rewriting history is another. Bandler may well have dumped it but a recent edition of an NLP manual with forwards by the big names in NLP still teaches it as an accepted thing. The earlier paragraph on PRS used to explain this. [19] Fainites ^barley 21:35, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Lilienfield et al and Devilly focus on Power therapies eg. EMDR, TFT etc.. They criticise VK/D alongside the other power therapies (Figley) which they say should be based on empirical research. Devilly (2005) cites Lilienfeld in criticism of power therapies in general, but says that there has been no peer reviewed empirical research published in VK/D. Devilly (2005) does criticise NLP in the introduction of the article but only cites Sharpley's reviews as evidence. I think we should focus no Sharpley's reviews. It should be notes that Lilienfeld, Beyerstein and Devilly are on the extreme end of the evidence based psychotherapy debate. The group headed up by Lilienfeld argues that to be called evidence-based an intervention must be based on empirical research. Most psychologists prefer an eclectic approach. I've made an attempt at summarising this position in the "Lack of scientific validation" section. ----Action potential ^{t c} 02:02, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I have to say I find it hard to understand what's written in that section. The only clear statement is probably the Skepter one. But what happened to Corballis? Drenth is in the intro and among the cite errors. I really think this article should cool down. Piechjo (talk) 09:47, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Apparently Corballis claims that NLP is just a fake title. Can you confirm the context in which this was made and the evidence that was used to support this statement? This point is already made in the paragraph that cites Levelt. I don't see a need to repeat the same point. Maybe you could add another citation to that point if yo want to add weight to that statement. We need to focus on putting the views of proponents and views of skeptic fairly and let the facts speak for themselves. ----Action potential ^{t c} 12:47, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I really can't agree AP, that stating that to be called 'evidence based' one must have a basis in empirical research is at 'the extreme end of the evidence based psychotherapy debate'. This is bog standard, not extreme. In fact to be 'evidence based' is to be based not only on empirical research but on more than one RCT, replicating results, plus recognition within the psych. community. See Chambless and Hollon. The Oxford scheme is similar at the top end but posits a hierarchy, as do a number of others. RCT's and proper recognition are considered the gold standard though for calling a therapy 'evidence based'. There are lesser hierarchy's such as Saunders et al but these do not use the term 'evidence based.

Where I would agree with you is that merely not to be 'evidence-based' does not mean it is a pseudoscience. A therapy may have a sound theoretical foundation and a series of valid studies yet be way off achieving evidence base. But extra 'qualities' are needed to acquire the accolade of pseudoscience! I think Devilly should be replaced. Fainites ^barley 22:10, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

By the way, the section being argued about used to read:

• psycholinguist Willem Levelt (1996) states "NLP is not informed about linguistics literature, it is based on vague insights that were out of date long ago, their linguistics concepts are not properly construed or are mere fabrications, and conclusions are based upon the wrong premises."... "NLP theory and practice has nothing to do with neuroscientific insights or linguistics, nor with informatics or theories of programming". Cognitive neuroscience researcher Michael C Corballis (1999) agrees and says that "NLP is a thoroughly fake title, designed to give the impression of scientific respectability." Drenth (2003) uses the "movement known by the name NLP" to illustrate his descriptions of pseudoscience, stating "Unlike diagnosis, prediction of human performance or behavior, and assessment, therapy is not an (applied) scientific activity. Criteria for therapeutic activity is effectiveness, not verity;" ... "But what brings some of these therapeutic approaches into the category of pseudoscience is the claim that their presumptions are predicated on scientific understanding and scientific evidence." Psychologist Margaret Singer (1996) criticizes NLP promoters and advertisers for continuing to "call the originators 'scientists' and to use such terms a 'science', 'technology' and 'hi-tech psychology' in describing NLP"(p.172).

Fainites ^barley 22:14, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I've inserted the quote from Corballis and amended the paragraph on Lilienfeld. Lilienfeld does believe that evidence-based practice must be based on empirical research. That view is not shared by everyone in psychology. It should be clear that he has a preference for randomised controlled studies. Most psychotherapists and clinical psychologists are not that extreme. It is very difficult to test psychotherapy under those conditions. Norcross et al (2006) conducted a survey rating experts opinions of "not at all discredited" to "certainly discredited" for a range of treatments. The results put NLP somewhere in the middle. On criticism of that poll was it was stanted towards proponents of CBT and those polled did not have adequate knowledge of electic or integrative methods. ref: Norcross, JC, Garofalo.A, Koocher.G. (2006) Discredited Psychological Treatments and Tests; A Delphi Poll. Professional Psychology; Research and Practice. vol37. No 5. 515-522 ----Action potential ^{t c} 02:06, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

The point is to be evidence based you must be based on sound empirical research. Otherwise you are not evidence based. I don't think there's much disagreement on that. The dispute is over whether non-evidence based therapies have any validity, how do you measure it and should they be practised. Fainites ^barley 08:18, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I was basing my view on a 2005 article in Annual Review of Psychology. It seems that there is disagreement over what can be called 'empirically validated treatment' or, more broadly, 'evidence-based practice.' It says that there is an apparently raging in clinical psychology over what can be "termed 'empirically validated treatment' or, more broadly, 'evidence-based practice.' On one side of this debate are Scott Lilienfeld (2002), David Barlow et al. (1999), and Richard McFall (1991), clinicians themselves, who take the view that clinical psychologists should restrict their professional activities to those that have ample support in the scientific literature" ... "On the other side of this debate are Ronald Fox (2000) and Ronald Levant (2003), both of whom have been recent presidents of the American Psychological Association. Fox (2000, pp. 1–2) has written, 'Psychologists do not have to apologize for their treatments. Nor is there any actual need to prove their effectiveness.'". Faigman, DL., Monahan, J­(2005) "Psychological evidence at the dawn of the law's scientific age" Annual Review of Psychology Vol. 56: 631-659. ----Action potential ^{t c} 11:44, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not arguing that non-evidence based treatments should not be practiced. I'm arguing that a) they should not be called evidence based and b) evidence based is a mainstream, not an extreme position. Fainites ^barley 19:07, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I accept that it is not an extreme position. I also believe that it should there should be clear definitions of evidence based. Now, where does NLP as an approach to thearpy sit in all of this? And what changes need to be made to the article to take this into account? ----Action potential ^{t c} 01:23, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

There is no one exact definition of 'evidence based' but in broad terms I would suggest it usually means at least validated by more than one, randomized, controlled, trial. It needs to be both replicable and replicated. You therefore need either a manual or sufficiently detailed case studies to enable replication. All this can apply to research on underlying tenets, such as the existence of a PRS ascertainable by eye movements, or that eye movements show anything as posited at all. It can also apply to outcome research. Even better is a meta-analysis. Finally, there needs to be a degree of acceptance within the psychology community that soemthing is evidence based, ie validated by empirical research.

As for changes, I have previously through removing all the tags describing scientists as 'evidence based' as if this were something out of the ordinary. This is just research, not 'evidence based research'. What other kind is there? Theories are theories, case studies are case studies and clinical experience is exactly that. Fainites ^barley 16:07, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Wow... 2 weeks with no responses and I leave for a week and stuff starts happening :-/ .

• PRS - this should absolutely be in the NLP article. It should probably be defined based on the original books, einspruch's criticism of research, and current books (are they different? the same?)
• PRS - research should not take undue weight. ie: Make it abundantly clear that the research showed no support, and that NLP said they tested the wrong thing. Then move onto other research
• PRS... I'm interested in the recent manual you say still teaches PRS and whether it teaches it as PRS was tested. Oh, Rep Systems and Primary Rep Systems are still very strong and similar to original books afaik, but I certainly learned Preferred Rep Systems differently.
• Evidence based research - 15 years ago psych research was still the old empirical research that was trying to be like Physics. Isolate aspect X of the system, control all other aspects, then change X, and measure what happens to Y. Psychotherapies and Psychology really didn't see eye to eye. Evidence based research is a more recent tag and has been championed by CBT - and has fewer controls, focusing often on the outcomes. Most other psychotherapies don't have the psychologist members to do equivalent testing. NLP doesn't have many similar tests. How we balance NLP against Psychotherapies against Psych research etc is difficult to do.
• Evidence based research is not an extreme of psychology, but it MIGHT be considered an extreme of psychotherapy - it is something increasingly pushed by psych but apart from CBT there's not much happening. From what I've read, Psychotherapies are mainly trying to reframe themselves as a type of CBT... Personally I want evidence based stuff.

Greg (talk) 11:05, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

• The book I'm thinking of is 'Introducing NLP' which has a forward by Dilts and a preface by Grinder. It doesn't mention research. It does have one of those little eye accessing cues diagrams. I think PRS should be in the article - both as to its historical position and its current use. What about this earlier version ? [20]
• As for 'evidence based', it has a reasonably specific meaning. However, psychoanalysis is not 'evidence based' within that sense but that doesn't stop it being both mainstream and respected in general. Its not the be all and end all. I don't agree with the view often pushed on Wiki that either you are evidence based or you are quackery. We just shouldn't use the phrase wrongly.
• As for psych research, outcome research can produce an 'evidence based' result and I would have thought many psychotherapies could do outcome research. NLPers mainly haven't bothered - but there is some, as you say. Fainites ^barley 22:32, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Even if PRS wasn't used anymore, we still have to define it because it is the focus of much of the criticism. There is a modified version of it that says the preferred rep system diagnosis lasts for 20 seconds only. Basically if someone is using sensory predicates then you respond to them. If they change then you have to respond to that feedback. In this sense it is a calibration drill. It gets the students watching and responding to form of the language rather than contents. ----Action potential ^{t c} 02:37, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Eye accessing queues is absolutely still taught in NLP. It's just that Preferred Rep Systems is not (in my experience and afaik)... hence my interest in your recent book that still taught it. However - agree with you both that PRS has to be defined, if only to relate it to the extensive studies into PRS. Greg (talk) 08:04, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

VAK learning styles is still popular in eduction. Some sales/marketing literature also says you need to sell to the different styles of people. There's a split here because New Code NLP makes it very clear that meta programs are not NLP patterns. Here's a quote from Journal of Marketing Communications showing that it is still alive and kicking (which studies?):

"Studies of neuro-linguistic programming have indicated that each individual tends to have a preferred sensory representational system with which they will internally code these experiences. Market segments are comprised of individuals who, although possessing similarities across traditional segmentation bases, also have different preferred sensory modalities. Therefore, if consumers within any given target market segment do not all talk the same sensory language, marketers are failing to get their message across to everyone within that segment."Skinner and Stphens (2003) Speaking the same language. Journal of Marketing Communications, Vol9.3 pp. 177-192(16) doi:10.1080/1352726032000129926 ----Action potential ^{t c} 00:26, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Here is another example from a management journal/magazine: "Adults also learn in different ways. The principles of neurolinguistic programming (NLP) suggest that people tend to favor visual, auditory, or kinesthetic (physical or emotional) channels ([4] Bandler and Grinder, 1979). Similarly, the research on cognitive styles suggests that some learn better by doing, others by reflecting, and others by calculating and experimenting ([26] Kolb and Kolb, 2005). Instructors who strive for concept stickiness use all of these channels to craft classes that have visual, audio, emotional and physical avenues for participants to travel." Mark E. Haskins, James G. Clawson. (2006) Making it sticky; How to facilitate the transfer of executive education experiences back to the workplace The Journal of Management Development. Vol.25, Iss. 9; pg. 850 ---- I don't agree with the first part, but the last part is in line with my views, that is, it is good idea to use all sensory predicates --- visual, auditory and kinesthetic predicates --- when presenting to a group. That is still part of nearly all codes of NLP. ----Action potential ^{t c} 03:53, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Intro

I think the bullet points in the intro are too long, detailed and jargony. We need a simpler description in a couple of sentences. I also don't understand the point about NLP being popular with its practitioners. Of course it is! They're its practitioners! Fainites ^barley 16:36, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that point in the intro about NLP being popular with its practitioners might be begging the question. It needs to say where NLP is popular (eg. business communications, management training, psychotherapy, teaching, etc.). Those points could definitely be shortened. But someone was complaining that you got to the end of the intro with no idea about what NLP practitioner actually does. Maybe we could keep it to three main points: a) Rep systems (VAKOG, submodalities), b) language patterns (eg. milton model, meta model, reframing), c) state change (anchoring). ----Action potential ^{t c} 00:45, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Originally you had a few sentences in one paragraph. I made them 6 simple points... but this has been expanded significantly. The points aren't perfect, but look at the originals as and compare to what we have [21] Greg (talk) 10:41, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Well I agree simpler is better. But phrases like "sensory specific modalities" are meaningless to people not versed in the language of NLP. Fainites ^barley 22:17, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

We need to strike a balance. I'm working on the modeling, map/territory and epistemology (used to be humanistic psychology) sections. I want to write about the position of NLP. But it is very difficult to do in a short space and simple language. I think it is necessary to use jargon as long as it is defined. The article should be self-contained -- the wiki links are supplemental. Jargon such as anchoring, mental representations, milton model, meta model, submodalities are useful only if they are immediately defined and then explained later in the article. They also linked to related ideas in psychology. For example. sensory modalities is used in the same way as in psychopathology. That said, I do plan on summarising and simplifying those sections if it makes sense to do so. By the way, I'm going to leave the article alone for a little while to let it cool down. ----Action potential 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree we need to use the words that are central to NLP. But we need to explain them as we go along. This makes it difficult to use jargon words in the intro. I think each section should contain a brief explanation of what each concept is. Fainites ^barley 07:46, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

By "each section", do you mean in the article content or in the introduction? ----Action potential ^{t c} 09:04, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Article content. I think in the introduction we should avoid any jargon and try and describe NLP in plain English. Fainites ^barley 22:31, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I've looked at it again and fully agree here. The intro must be plain english compelling someone to read the article. We need the introduction to be as jargon free as possible. Jargon should be used if and only if it is defined first. The introduction should pass the intelligent ignoramus test. Actually the whole article should do that but we can work towards that. The entire article should be self-contained. ----Action potential ^{t c} 12:20, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Outcomes and goal setting

I removed the disproportionately large table and the associated, unencyclopedic prose, from the article. Language such as "In NLP we..." is entirely inappropropiate for what is supposed to be an encyclopedic article. The section was attributed to "Ellerton 2006", yet this reference did not appear in the end notes. That NLP technique/aspect/approach/tool, i.e. MASTERY, wasn't so significant to understanding the fundamentals of NLP such that the section size could be justified. 60.242.37.165 02:15, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

That's fine. The goal setting and outcomes is a big part of NLP. I'm not sure where it is covered. I think that entire techniques section could be moved to a subarticle and replaced with a general overview of the sort of techniques used in the different areas of application. ----Action potential ^{t c} 13:14, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

AP this has already been done once! The entire concepts and methods section was moved to a separate article by an uninvolved editor leaving no concepts or methods behind at all. [22] He went off in a huff when I put it back. We can't keep on doing this. What we have now is an older version of concepts and methods under 'concepts and methods' and then a newer version covering much of the same material in this article.Fainites ^barley 22:39, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Balance

Why have so many of the references and quotations from critical authorities, eg. Drenth, Devilly, Levelt, been removed or twisted? 60.242.37.165 02:15, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

This was discussed at length. It is probably easier to understand it if you group Drenth and Levelt. You can also group Devilly and Lilienfeld (evidence based practise). I've tried to represent their reasoning and evidence clearly. I know it could be improved. The view of the authors are covered in the current article under "Research reviews" and "lack of scientific support". ----Action potential ^{t c} 13:10, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I think we ought to put this[23] and this[24] back. It was all agreed at the time. It divides into psychology research, reviews and commentary in one section, including Devilly, Lilienfield, Beyerstein and Drenth etc, and other scientific commentary from the likes of Corballis, Levelt etc in the other. The one point I recall being made was that Drenth was particularly unnotable, but the others ought to be in I think. Fainites ^barley 22:47, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Editorial comments, cleanup taskforce, good article criteria --> feature article criteria

First, this talk page is getting too big... can we archive it? Second, can we go through the editorial suggestions by FT2 to see if we have satisified. What else needs to be done? I want to submit this article to the WP:GA board to get some more feedback. Do you think it is possible for this article to become WP:FA?----Action potential ^{t c} 12:29, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

It would need to be alot more stable AP. It seems to exist in a state of constant rewrite. Fainites ^barley 23:49, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Failed "good article" nomination

Per the quick-fail criteria of the GA process, any article that contains cleanup banners (such as those in Classifying NLP, Popular culture and media, and Decrease in research interest) as well as those with large numbers of {{fact}} tags, must be failed immediately, and does not require an in-depth review. Please remedy any issues brought up by such banners, and remove them before choosing to renominate. You may also wish to carefully read the GA criteria in order to assess the article's readiness for renomination. If you feel this decision was in error, you may seek a reassessment. Thank you for your work so far, VanTucky ^talk 22:35, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Archiving

I saw a note about archiving this talkpage. I can set up some archiving bot if required. It could for example archive all discussions that don't have any comments younger than 14 days (or any other number). They could be archived to archives up to a certain size, or within a specific date bracket. I would sugest archiving discussions older than 14 days, to archives of 3 months. (which would give 4 archives for now: jan - mar 2007, apr - jun 2007, jul - sept 2007, oct - dec 2007) Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 22:39, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I think that would be a great idea. This talk page takes forever to load when my internet connection is shaped upon exceeding my monthly quota. But there are a few really important comments that I think should stay like the editorial comments and some other posts. Is there a sticky option? ----Action potential ^{t c} 01:11, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

There is a nobots tag that should work, and the sign date could be refactored so that the bot doesn't recognise it. Another alternative is manual archiving. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 11:43, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I think its a great idea. Manual archiving is difficult. I think I'd rather it be automagic and then refer to the archives when needed. But I'm just one of the editors here. I'd like to wait for at least one other regular editor here. ----Action potential ^{t c} 14:39, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Sure, I'll keep my eye on the watchlist. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 14:53, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, I think it is probably ok to go ahead with your implementing your autoarchiving bot. People probably see the current talk page and get overwhelmed by the length anyway. I can't see any reason why it wouldn't be supported. ----Action potential ^{t c} 12:38, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Just indicate which discussions or parts of discussions you want to keep on this talkpage. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 19:32, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Frogsintoprinces.jpg

Image:Frogsintoprinces.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 06:52, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I've started a template on the image page for this but someone else will have to complete it. Fainites ^barley 11:40, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Beyerstein

AP I don't think its right that Beyerstein just calls NLP unproven. He does, in his article, discuss the gray areas between obvious psuedoscience and the merely unvalidated but the section wherein NLP is mentioned is called "Pseudoscience in Psychology" and includes a paragraph on pop-psychology thus;

Pop psychology. The human potential movement and the fringe areas of psychotherapy also harbour a number of other scientifically questionable panaceas. Among these are Scientology, Neurolinguistic Programming, Re-Birthing and Primal Scream Therapy which have never provided a scientifically acceptable rationale or evidence to support their therapeutic claims."

This is more than saying 'its unproven'. Its saying no 'rationale'. Further down in his Box 2 he lists "Kinds of claims considered doubtful by the majority of the scientific community". NLP comes under the section subheaded "Unproven psychological theories and treatments". This isn't a list of all the unproven therapies in the world. Its a list of the unproven therapies that come within the parameters of Box 2. He then does a whole section on what the things listed in Box 2 have in common. He then discusses 'belief' -v- 'research' and the characteristics of pseudoscience. I would agree with you that he does not simply say 'NLP is a pseudoscience' but clearly he must be putting NLP at least in the gray area. He does not specifically state one way or the other. How about:

"While the title Neuro-linguistic programming implies a basis in neurology, computer science, and linguistics and it is often to marketed as a new science, scientists contend NLP is scientifically questionable, an "unproven psychological theory or treatment" and within the realms of pseudoscience." Fainites ^barley 11:33, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm.. i wrote a long reply but it got too complicated... so I tried to rewrite your suggestion ...

"The title of Neuro-linguistic programming implies a basis in neurology, computer science, and linguistics and its developers held it has a basis in these disciplines. NLP is often marketed as a new technology or science for effecting change but it does not have a strong research focus. Its practice in counseling psychology has been criticized by some clinicians and researchers who are argue that mental health practices should be scientifically validated......." ----Action potential ^{t c} 09:13, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Still don't think thats strong enough. Its not in mainstream psychology at all so saying 'its practice in counselling psychology has been criticised by some clinicians and researchers' doesn't, IMHO give a fair view. I also don't think 'does not have a strong research focus' is quite right either. Basically they've done b-all for decades and there's very little now apart from some little studies. Fainites ^barley 21:31, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, is this closer to the mark? It is a rewrite of the last paragraph in the intro...

Sharpley's research reviews in counseling psychology and National Research Council committee published in the late 1980s found little empirical research to support the claims made by proponents of NLP. Few practitioners of NLP have presented their clinical data for peer-review or engaged in further research. NLP is still marketed as a "new science", more effective than existing models of psychotherapy, interpersonal communications and personal change in various areas of application. However, as skeptics contend, in (scientific) psychotherapy it remains an "unproven psychological theory or treatment" (or new age / pseudoscience) and does not have research evidence to support the basis in neurology, computer science, and linguistics as the title Neuro-linguistic programming implies. In other areas of application (short description of other acceptance in other applications with different criteria to demonstrate efficacy -eg. business communications, other schools of therapy/counseling that are influenced by NLP, hypnotherapy, etc.. ----Action potential ^{t c} 10:04, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Psychobabble

Much of this article needs to be rewritten in plain english. Even the introduction needs work. It currently reads:

"Neuro-linguistic programming (NLP) is an interpersonal communication model and an alternative approach to psychotherapy based on the subjective study of language, communication and personal change."

This does not clearly and succinctly explain for the layperson the essence of NLP, and why anyone would want to pursue it. Engleham (talk) 01:02, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

You can't really explain briefly what NLP is all about. No one knows and even if they do, it's all too complicated. I think the explanation above is pretty good unless someone actually has a better suggestion. Why anyone would want to pursue NLP? That's a pretty personal question, and we're not making an advert. This article has been undergoing major changes (by Action potential) since December 2006 and no one knows when it's going to settle. I mean you can try and change it, but it might not stay that way for long. Piechjo (talk) 14:57, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Please let me know what section you'd like to work on to share to load. If you'd dispute or want to discuss any changes please let me know here or by private message. I really want to get this article up to good article status. Any current suggestion. I've cleaned up most of the references, I'll work on general flow and cohesion next and try to reduce the psychological jargon. The opening definitely needs work. ----Action potential ^{t c} 11:27, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Further research

I've started a section called further research under Psychological research and reviews. Many, if not most, of the journals, certainly the more recent journal articles suggest further research. Perhaps ongoing some notable university funded / rigorous research efforts can be mentioned here. ----Action potential ^{t c} 13:58, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

"Extended and maintained eye contact contact has been offered by some psychologists as an alternative explanation for the increased rapport / perceived efficacy of eye accessing cues." -- I read this in one of the major research sources but I cannot remember where. ----Action potential ^{t c} 03:19, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Working on new opening, WP:LEAD

I'm working on a propose new opening that exists as a stand alone summary of the article, it should give a taste of what is to come and not go into too much detail. see WP:LEAD. Obviously the numbers would be dropped in the actual version. Keep it to 4-5 paragraphs. It should stand alone.

Keep current first sentence: "Neuro-linguistic programming (usually shortened to NLP) is an interpersonal communication model and an alternative approach to psychotherapy[1] based on the subjective study of language, communication and personal change.[2]"

Founding

1. Founding It was co-created by Richard Bandler and linguist John Grinder in the 1970s. The initial focus was pragmatic, modeling three successful psychotherapists, Fritz Perls (Gestalt Therapy), Virginia Satir (Family Systems Therapy), and eventually Milton H. Erickson (Clinical Hypnosis), with the aim of discovering what made these individuals more successful than their peers.

Models/Modeling/main ideas

1. NLP Modeling In their studies of Perls, Satir and Erickson, Bandler and Grinder aimed to learn and codify the "know-how" (as opposed to "know-what" [facts] or "know-why" [science]) that set these expert psychotherapists and communicators apart from their peers.
2. Meta model/Milton model The meta model can be seen as a heuristic that responds to the words and phrases that reveal unconscious limitations and faulty thinking — the distortions, generalizations and deletions in language. In contrast to the Meta Model of NLP which specifies information, the Milton Erickson inspired Milton model described by Bandler and Grinder as "artfully vague"[26], allowing the communicator to make statements that seem specific but allow the listener to fill in their own meaning for what is being said.
3. Sensory representation Thinking, desires, wishes, beliefe consist of visual, auditory, kinesthetic (and possibly olfactory and gustatory). Representations are engaged when people think about problems, tasks or activities, or engage in them. Bandler and Grinder claimed that matching and responding the representational systems people use to think is generally beneficial for enhancing rapport and influence in communication. Bandler and Grinder claimed that matching and responding the representational systems people use to think is generally beneficial for enhancing rapport and influence in communication. Christopher Sharpley's review found of PRS found weak support at best in the counseling psychology literature.

Different perspectives/versions of NLP

1. NLP Modeling,
2. Set of techniques (Rapport, Anchoring, Submodalities, Swish, Reframing, Six step reframe, Ecology and congruency, Parts integration).
3. Approach/adjunct to psychotherapy,
4. Interpersonal communications and persuasion,
5. Popular culture and media: Robbins, etc.
6. Business management/coaching, etc.

Reception

1. Then introduce Psychological research/reviews research and reviews, Enhancing human performance study, Lack of scientific validation, further research
2. Classifying NLP: Associations with science, Epistemology, Principles and presuppositions, Technology, by its applications (eg. business/psychotherapy/training)...

---

Action potential ^{t c} 11:45, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Haven't been following this much, but the above looks like a good approach. I would tend to think that the introduction should also be used as a general structure for the rest of the article. Greg (talk) 08:22, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

How about this?

• Neuro-linguistic programming (NLP) is a set of techniques, axioms and beliefs that adherents use primarily as an approach to personal development but also as an adjunct within other therapies. It is based on the idea that mind, body and language interact to create an individual's perception of the world. Perceptions, and hence behaviors, can be changed by the application of a variety of techniquesThese include "modeling" which involves the careful reproduction of the behaviors and beliefs of those who have achieved 'excellence'. The early focus of NLP was the study of the underlying patterns in the language and techniques of noted and successful therapists in hypnotherapy, gestalt therapy and family therapy. The patterns discovered were adapted for improving communication and effecting change. Despite its popularity NLP continues to be controversial, particularly for use in therapy, and after three decades of existence remains scientifically unvalidated. NLP has been criticized as pseudoscientific and for lacking a defining and regulating body to impose standards and a professional ethical code.

Fainites ^barley 21:58, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

RfC: Is the article moving towards neutrality? More eyeballs required.

What are the applications of NLP?

Is it a problem-solving technique?

Is it a learning system?

Does it require a therapist, or can you use it on yourself?

What is the status of the NLP field?

How many NLP practitioners are there?

The Transhumanist 10:04, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Just wondering... are you asking these questions (in which case happy to give you some info) or suggesting that the article doesnt answer these clearly enough? Greg (talk) 20:56, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Epistemology section

I have deleted one section on 'Epistemology'. I did this for my PhD and I don't recognise any of the stuff in there. Moreover few if any of the citations were 'authoritative' in the sense we normally understand. E.g. the so-called Encyclopedia of Systemic Neuro-Linguistic Programming and NLP New Coding is just a collection of cut-and-pastings. I looked at the introduction to this article which makes no sense to me. Plus there is a load of stuff in the boxes on the right. What is all this stuff doing? Peter Damian (talk) 18:41, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Dilt's Encylopedia is just one source, it was added because it is available online and easily accessible. There are other sources which support this view. Unfortunately there is no single 'authoritative' source on NLP. I've looked carefully at the recent literature on NLP including that published in scholarly journals. The section on epistemology appears to be supported by the recently published literature. Here's a quote from a recent article in a fairly reputable journal, The Coaching Psychologist: "Tosey, Mathison and Michelli (2005) suggest that although NLP has been influenced by many fields and disciplines perhaps the most important [influence on NLP is] the cybernetic epistemology of Gregory Bateson… The cybernetic aspect is reflected, for example, in NLP’s adoption of the TOTE (test-operate-test-exit) mode of functioning (Miller, Galanter & Pribram, 1960), which depends on the dynamics of calibration and feedback (Bateson, 1973; Wiener, 1965).’"(Linder-Pelz & Hall, 2007)

1. Linder-Pelz & Hall (2007) "The theoretical roots of NLP-based coaching" The Coaching Psychologist, Vol. 3, No. 1. The British Psychological Society.
2. Tosey, P. Jane Mathison (2003) Neuro-linguistic Programming and learning theory: a response The Curriculum Journal Vol.14 No.3 p.371-388: available online
3. "Bateson was also a formative influence on Neuro-linguistic Programming, one of my main research interests, (see foreword to Bandler and Grinder 1975; Bostic St. Clair & Grinder 2002; Dilts & DeLozier 2000). For me Bateson’s work represents an intellectual underpinning for NLP, providing important epistemological and ethical principles." Tosey, P., "Bateson’s Levels Of Learning: a Framework For Transformative Learning?" Available online
4. Here's another quote from the section of Epistemology and Methodology in reply to Linder-Pelz & Hall, "NLP is clearly anti-positivist and this is exemplified by the core activity of NLP which is modelling." "Time for NLP to get positive" Grimley, B., (2007)The Coaching Psychologist, Vol. 3, No. 2, August. The British Psychological Society.

There are other sources that are in line with this view. I think that there is enough evidence to reinsert that section and possible expand it. Many other publications on NLP talk about the influence of Korzybski and Bateson on the NLP epistemology. It is important to note that some NLP proponents do not support this view, and some take a postmodern or even anti-theoretical stance.

Tom Malloy's recent work in Dynamic systems cites the influence of Bateson/Grinder (NLP) epistemology: "...deeply motivated by epistemological frames (see Malloy, Bostic St Clair, & Grinder, 2005, pp. 105, 113) that place human judgment as the reference point for fields where the patterning being studied is that of humans."(p.9) Malloy, T. E. & Jensen, G. C. (2008). Dynamic constancy as a basis for perceptual hierarchies. Nonlinear Dynamics, Psychology, and Life Sciences, 12, 191-203. ----Action potential ^{t c} 05:21, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Maybe we could combine the epistemology with the section on principles and presuppositions? ----Action potential ^{t c} 08:03, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

It was not just the sourcing I had a problem with. Most of it made no sense at all. Similarly for much of the rest of the article. It makes little sense, particularly the introduction. Peter Damian (talk) 18:02, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

PS I made some further changes to the article. Cleaned up the endnotes by moving citations to 'references'. This makes the source text a little less cluttered. I switched the order of the paragraphs in the introduction to add balance - most scientists and academics such as myself would consider NLP to be pseudoscience, I'm afraid to say. And I added to quote from Sharpley that has been missing since the 'HeadleyDown' days. No, I'm not Headley, don't worry. Peter Damian (talk) 18:23, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Can I assume that given reliable sources, and provided it was well-written, you would not object to some coverage of the NLP epistemology in this article? If you're interested in rewriting that section on epistemology, the simplest easily available summary of "why" NLP has an epistemology can be found here. ----Action potential ^{t c} 00:08, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the link to the U of Surrey site - there was quite a bit of information in there and I read a lot of it (not just the epistemology article). I found it very interesting and very well balanced - he hasn't disguised the problems with academic reception, but at the same time does a good job of explaining what NLP is. The only problem is, none of this article really explains it as well as he does. It's not just the epistemology section. I would have a look at it but you appreciate time is limited. Maybe summer holidays. thanks again for the link. Peter Damian (talk) 18:07, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

PS why just not cut and paste the epistemology section and massage it a bit, then reference it? I'm sure the author won't mind, imitation being the sincerest form of flattery &c? Peter Damian (talk) 18:09, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll try to write in a similar tone. Tosey and Mathison have done their best to be "vendor" neutral, reviewing NLP both critically and fairly. ----Action potential ^{t c} 04:35, 8 May 2008 (UTC)