Talk:Neuro-linguistic programming/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Mediation Requests

1) Can we agree that the framers of NLP used Engrams as per the references provided?

2) Can we agree that the framers of NLP used PRS as per the references provided per "PRS, or the shifty eye diagram is core to NLP even now if you would like to look through a few books including those by Bandler and Grinder"?(any quotes from Bander or Grinder would end the PRS issues)

3) Given the answers to #1 and #2, can we begin drafting how the article will be modified to include this about engrams?(any quotes from Bander or Grinder would end the Engram issues, Sinclair could work too; cult book quotes are not so good though :(...)

4) Everyone should read this link. It mentions quite a bit about NLP and its framers. (and it is well sourced)[1]

very funny - scroll to the bottom of the article refered: it is based on an old version of this Wikepedia page... PatrickMerlevede 4 November 2005, 09:35 GMT-1

5) Can we agree on a draft for the "Pseudoscience claims" as a criticism subsection?

6) The credibility of the old NLP studies should be beifly mentioned, but only by quoting or paraphrasing a reference. This will go in the criticism section.

7) After we have completed #5, should "Pseudoscience" be in the into? What is the consensus for that(don't answer until #5 is worked out).Voice of All ^{Talk|@|Esperanza} 03:50, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

In all my readings of NLP literature have I never found a listing of ENGRAMS as its list of prerequisites for NLP training. Can we prove this is proven only by those who wish to discredit NLP by those who are ignorant to the field after all Soctrates has never been disproven. yet holds highly philosophical results and is only documented and not denounced from hundreds of years ago. assholes! get grip and truly explore before you make a judgement. Non NLPers should not be a part of this exercise. They lack the understanding and the insight into what it implies. Do not say NLP which it is not. Experience will make all the difference.

Engrams

"In many ways NLP resembles earlier controversial self improvement cults, notably Dianetics, which made similar claims, and also retreated from them (while continuing to charge large amounts from the self improvement seekers)."...hmm perhaps Dianetics again ;-).Voice of All ^{Talk|@|Esperanza} 04:21, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Voice of All You are not entirely correct. Just as every person has a individualist approach to life so does NLP opposed to Dianetics Dianetics is to the approach of science fiction as with Travolta's film Battle field earth, Engrams are not mentioned in NLP perhaps you should be tracing down some other form of fictional psychology. Voice of all you are not a voice of all you are a voice of one and should not be represented in this piece. Nlp is a true force in the good of human potential, if you are a NLPer then you know this. Other wise you could be Richard Bandler or some other NLP advocate who is trying to keep the great mystery hidden from greater forces. Either way NLP is a way to help the world in a lasting effort to perfect humanity. ENGRAMS are not listed.

Memories are eloborated on in a different form of psychology in that they are represented by submodalities widely used in NLP literature. Submodalities are the coding processes we go by to which we react and act upon in future events. Engrams is a primitive form of thinking. Engrams do not describe how we as humans remember but that we do and respond. Submodalities show us how and then again how we can influence memory to be a useful resource. So please Voice of All once again you are not the voice of me or many other paractitioners in this wide world, Thius science is to be brought leaps and bounds beyond what is thought conceivable. You halter its influence and then halter life from progressing. Genius has no use locked ina cage Voice of All.

This is not right probably with many other generalistaions of the field. All psychology is individualistic and requires that of an intuitive mind. "Voice of all" are you always goin to be diplomatic or will you take a stand against what is a great psychological resource?

Oh, and I just got a sample text from Sinclair's ABC of NLP book:

"The same four stages apply to the learning of any skill. A patterned response, which has been stabilised at the level of unconscious competence is known as an engram. These engrams are beneficial if they involve automatic activities which are useful, but also comprise activities which are automatic and pernicious, such as addictive behaviour."

[....]snip'd (read WP:NPA)this pattern was developped to incite that there is a communication there by the participant, that it did not originate from a source that is uncontrollable, that is communicatable an d changeable by NLP standards. Voice of all go away if all you =can do is speak truth you know and I know NLP is not about truth it is about what is possible.

Hi again VOA. Yes I agree. NLP uses neuro and engram is core to that. PRS are a core of the origin of NLP and that still holds (any book with VAK will determine this (most if not all NLP books). I will be extremely happy to move on and continue drafting.

The article you present is absolutely great. It shows firstly how NLP is, and then it shows how NLP is promoted despite the scientific findings. The present article is actually quite mildly phrased in comparison, but still encyclopedic. I suggest our article contain more science than the example you posted for the sake of neutrality, and then say what NLP claims and perhaps some idea of what some anecdotes and testimonials claim (as has been done already to some extent), and then say what science thinks of those claims (mostly pseudoscience due to unsupported findings).

The promotional version with "is it a science" as a heading is completely wrong according to the actual references that critique NLP. All the refs that I see assessing NLP do so with a view to clarity (testing the background theory, and claims of NLP effectiveness). This was done because it can be done, and the results were published in academic journals which will accept no nonsense at all. They conclude that NLP is ineffective and pseudo (they use dodgy new age/pop psych theories).

More can be provided about commercialism of NLP. I just found a great new reference that covers this to a deep level (a new book called SHAM about self help charlatans by wosisname).

I agree that the refs state engrams (I have seen too many to change my map of reality into delusion), and prs is what Druckman and all the others state. Plus they measured loads of other stuff such as phobia cures and communication, which turns out to be ineffective also.

Here is one sample from one of Drenth's (an extremely solid prof and researcher into such matters) papers: "Then they take off. With rich phantasy concepts and relationships are introduced (engrammes, nominations, perception types) and conclusions drawn (on emotions, on creativity, on left orright brain dominance) which lack each theoretical or experimental basis." Drenth 2003

(Hollander claimed that he was too critical, but Hollander himself actually writes articles about NLP and engrams:)

And one from Levelt's (a world renowned academic of psycholinguistics with a lifetime of books and publications). een lange beschouwing kunnen vinden over engrammen, 'ruimtelijke en tijdelijke patronen van actieve hersencellen'. Een actief engram, zo lezen wij, veroorzaakt een kettingreactie van elkaar activerende engrammen. Levelt 1995

Here's a rough translation: a long consideration is given to engrammes, ' spatial and temporary patterns of active circuits '. , Thus we read active engram, that cause a chain of responses with each other and activating further engrammes(Levelt 1995)

I noticed there are many other German refs that say similar stuff. They did invent the term though back in the early 1900s:)

Plus the web sources you have seen already, plus encyclopedias plus the rest. I can provide you with more explanations of engrams if you like, but I doubt if you will need more for such a simple concept. ATBDaveRight 04:52, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm still chuckling over the large NLP concern in Eurasia called "Engram Co":)AliceDeGrey 05:15, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Hello VoiceOfAll. As you have constructively requested, we have engrams as the refs have stated, and we have prs as the refs and decades of research have stated, including decades of research on stuff other than prs, the refs on pseudoscience are already being explored, with 3 references (and more to come if you like) covering at least 7 facts on NLP being pseudoscience (because it is unsupported(fact), because it refers to odd pseudoscientific theory(fact), because it is ineffective(fact), because it devotes itself spiritually to holism to avoid the results (fact) because it emphasises pressure on the tester to prove, rather than the claimer of the extraordinary(fact), because it claims that science is generally unreliable(fact), and because it continues to promote using scientific sounding jargon and hype(fact). So what do we have left?HeadleyDown 16:48, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Having studied a lot of NLP courses, and read all NLP "mainstream" books, by the main authors of the field, I have NOT encountered the word engram. It's not mentioned in the NLP encyclopedia neither. In fact, the first time I encountered the word "engram" in the context of NLP as on this page. As a consequence, I think the frequency of the use of this word on this page is overdone. If the editors of this page agree that no reference to Lakoff & Johnson is needed on this page (even if those authors ARE referenced in many of the core NLP books, I think the use of engram should be cut down as well. So I removed two engram paragraphs from the overview section of the page. PatrickMerlevede 3 November 2005, 19:20 GMT-1

Hello Patrick. The references presented have NLP and engrams explicitly mentioned. Lackof and Johnson are certainly not NLP fans, and did not mention NLP according to my search. Regards HeadleyDown 00:59, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Nor did the persons coming up with the engrams theory mention NLP - so according to your principle for deleting references to Lakoff & Johnson, we should delete mentions of the engram model.

Rather than being based on the engrams model (which comes from psychology), NLP's original model for memory came from linguistics - it is the transformational grammar model (see Bandler & Grinder, 1975), which is the "normal" consequence of Grinder being a linguist... I added a paragraph explaining that and my POV remains that an extended use of the word engrams does not fit in the overview. PatrickMerlevede 4 November 2005, 03:53 GMT-1

Hi Patrick. I actually believe that the TransGrammar-NLP link needs more of a mention and I am actually working on that. But during mediation, it is a pretty bad idea to go deleting multiple cited and well researched facts that have been verified by other NLP certificated practitioners. People cooperatively provided extra references on the use of the engram in NLP books and articles as a result of a mediation request. It would be very uncooperative to remove them. This article is supposed to represent the sum of all human knowlede on NLP (concisely). NLP theory does state engrams, and ALL NLP books talk albeit inexplicitly about engrams throughout. Best regards DaveRight 03:12, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi Dave. First of all, I agree that psychologists might use the concept of engrams and that it might be a good model to explain something mainsteam NLP leaves as unexplained. However, as other persons pointed out, the references used on this page to link engrams to NLP are "obscure" at best - none of NLP's core books (defined as books written by the persons the NLP community sees as its core "developpers") mentions the term engram. By contrast, most NLP core books mention Lakoff & Johson, so deleting references to Lakoff and Johnson is very uncooperative, too. Here is what I propose as compromize: as far as I'm concerned engrams can stay if I can mention Lakoff and Johnson... PatrickMerlevede 4 November 2005, 06:23 GMT-1

Patrick, can you give a couple of refs of core books mentioning Lakoff so I can check out the context, etc. Other than that, I think that any compromise should not be an averaging or trade-off, but rather an agreement on how to phrase 2 alternative points of view. Am I missing something? GregA 06:06, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Hello PatrickMerlevede. I think you may be onto a reasonable compromise there, as long as you make sure you don't make the line say that Lackoff and Jonson are NLP books, or that they are really into doing NLP on each other:) Regards Bookmain 05:36, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Core books (those published while the NLP community was still "embedded" in the UCSC) mentioning Lakoff: Structure of Magic I, Patterns I - they especially refer to his book "Linguistics and Natural Logic" (1970). The "core books" also contain many references to works dating from the 1950 and 1960s of other people now seen as amongst the "founding fathers" of cognitive science: Miller, Pribham, Gallanter, Searle, Shank, Newell & Simon, Ashby, ... Hence my point (see NLP Reserach page on jobEQ's website that in these days NLP was pretty much like a cognitive science research unit (but that stopped after Grinder left the university, and certainly after the core group fell apart around 1980 - and that's where I start joining the criticisms against NLP...). PatrickMerlevede 4 November 2005, 09:15 GMT-1

Thanks Patrick, that's some good extra info on the birth of NLP (including your criticism when Grinder left). I know that Grinder worked in the corporate world for several years before coming back to NLP - and that he felt that subsequent trainers had missed certain crucial parts of the processes he and Bandler had been teaching. Which was the birth of the New Coding of NLP (he went back and recoded older processes to more explicitly show the differences between the process and what was now taught... and he added some new processes). I know we're not talking Wiki here, but have you read John's book "Whispering in the Wind" and if so I'm interested in what you think. GregA 09:02, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

In my opinion (today, 11 november 2005), John Grinder mainly re-appeared on the NLP scene because the money is good and because the settlement of the lawsuit made that possible again. Probably NLP pays better than what he earned in Business between 1990 and 2000: He once showed me a list of "references" for his work in business and I was NOT impressed. He is now making at least 5000 USD for each day he is training (probably more, that figure was what we paid him a day for training in Paris between 1997 and 2001). As long as Grinder can give some sense of "exclusivity" to people "getting a chance" to hear him speak, income is guaranteed. It's a "win-win", the repputation of the NLP institute becomes "better" if they can put Grinder on the "poster". In that sense, calling him a "guru" is criticism that makes sense. Of course, after getting complaints from his sponsors for years in a row that he had nothing new to tell, he finally wrote a book. That was a very good marketing move. Of course, as soon as it was available I read Whispering in the Wind. I think it's badly written - it's a shame it was self published - Grinder should have hired an editor and someone that knows something about layout of a book. The book cannot be considered as "the NLP book" neither. Many people disagree with him and no "serious" discussion is possible (I'm talking form personal experience, I wasted enough time trying). In other words, I'm waiting for a 2nd edition... As long as he doesn't publish the "epistemology book" he claims to be working on since 2001, it's unlikely my opinion will become more favorable. PatrickMerlevede 11 November 2005, 09:35 GMT-1

Voice of All, can you give us a time frame on the above requests? I need time to check the references provided and prepare a response. best regards, --Comaze 05:48, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Take your time...but not too much..:). As long as we are working on an issue, then the timeframe is not too important, but the order is--lets keep this neat.Voice of All ^{Talk|@|Esperanza} 05:53, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Here is a computer translated version of the French NLP author's. (http://www.ressources.be/articles/34emotions.htm) "It is the way of the action reflex which activated before even you have really perceived anything. If the started emotion is sufficiently strong, the stimulus associated with the emotion is the engram (association V=K). The training, concerning the reflexes of survival, is a function of the importance of the state of the system." RegardsDaveRight 06:16, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Actually, the "french doctor" is a Belgian NLP trainer without any academic credentials - in the article that is being cited, he is translating the concept of V/K association (which is NLP jargon) into "readable french", understandable to the non-NLPer and in that context uses the word engram for that, because of his background in Gestalt-therapy. Moenaert has been trying to link NLP back to other therapies, in order to get his training recognized by the European Therapy Association. So either this is an effort to translate an NLP concept, or this in an example of an NLPers looking for some theory to back up "NLP". In other words, it's not a high-quality reference... if you enter any combination of words in google, you will find someone to back up your claims. PatrickMerlevede 4 November 2005, 06:32 GMT-1

The Belgian chap seems very reasonable to me, and he corresponds closely with what all the other NLP people are saying about engrams with experience (vak) and neurology. Considering the corroboration, and that the link provides a lot of clarity and a diagram, it seems to be very relevant. I understand there are a lot of attempted association between science and NLP by promoters but the engram ref is just as appropriate as the LR brain stuff, and the trans grammar stuff that Chomsky ditched. (actually do you know, was that because the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis was debunked?) ATB 144.214.228.130 06:39, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

• Chomsky ditched his own deep structure - surface structure distinction, don't have the Lyons book at the office so can't look up when exactly - but that being said, much of current linguistic models owe a lot to the work of Chomsky.
• Core NLP books mentioning Chomsky: Structure of magic I, Structure of Magic II, Patterns Vol. I, Patterns Vol II (always the orginal "Transformational Grammar model - Chomsky 1965-1968) PatrickMerlevede 4 November 2005, 09:15 GMT-1

Yep, I also have more refs on engrams I can post if need be. Looks well covered already though, especially the encyclopedia one (which I have also seen elsewhere on the web).Bookmain 07:19, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

NLP does not use the term "engram", nor is the concept used under another name. The closest is the hypnosis term of "ISE" (Initial Sensitising Event), which is often used as a description of the first traumatic event assumed to be causing a phobia. I have not come across the term at all during several years of tracking NLP. "Engram" is not used by the general NLP community. One way of seeing this is by searching for "NLP engram -wikipedia" on Google (616 hits total), another is by checking the NLP encyclopedia (http://www.nlpuniversitypress.com/indexE.html) - Engram isn't even listed. The same goes for the five first NLP dictionaries I find with a Google search for "NLP dictionary" (skipping the Natural Language Processing dictionaries and dictionaries with just a definition of NLP). Any attempt to put this into the article is in my opinion introduction of false information. NLP has enough weaknesses without introducing disortions. Please stick to the truth. Eivind Eklund 07:53, 31 October 2005 (UTC).

Hi Eivind and welcome. The mediation request has already been satisfied. Tons of refs have already been provided that put engrams at the centre of NLP (neuro), and those sources come from far more neutral encyclopedic and non-promotional sources, plus the written word of NLP trainers on the web, therapists on this discussion page, and scientists who refer explicitly to engrams in relation to NLP, and these are views from multiple countries and cultures. I'm sure even more reliable refs will come sooner or later. Regards AliceDeGrey 08:12, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi Alice, did I miss something? When was Engrams resolved. An engram reference from a french doctor, plus some links to german websites were provided. You still haven't provided any primary NLP sources, and at best Engram is a minority view (though it could easily be less). You and Headley gave some English websites to which I responded to... one (for instance) said that Engrams was a way of explaining what NLP said... which is quite different to an NLP theory. GregA 08:38, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes Greg, I believe you did miss something. VoiceOfAll appeared to me to be in agreement that engrams exist in NLP and are core according to the refs. We have a long list of references showing scientists placing engrams at the core of NLP, with encyclopedias putting engrams at the core (Neuro and unlimited resources) and on top of that, a respected French trainer has diagrams on his page showing how engrams work, labeling them as engrams using VK symbols, and the diagram is exactly the same as diagrams in core NLP books. You seem to be deliberately missing things.AliceDeGrey 08:49, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Now now, I don't appreciate being accused of this, lets not get personal. A lot has happened in the last few days and I've been on a boat :)... You are still saying that Engrams are not referred to in any primary NLP text. A connection between "Neuro" and "Engram" is a dubious one (I'm sure many neuroscientists would dispute that Engram is key to what they do). As I said above you had a french doctor... okay so a french trainer... that's fine... he's allowed to explain NLP however he wants right?? So what if he uses the same diagram? Are they the only new 'facts' you've brought? GregA 09:08, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Greg. Hilgard's INtroduction to Psychology states that engrams are the memory trace and are central to psychology and neuroscience. They have as yet not been located in the brain, however their existence is not an issue. Engrams are still a major research concern of neuroscience and neuropsychology. That is probably why the more educated trainers, theorists and promoters of NLP write their view that the engram is core to NLP. They actually bothered one day to read up on some neuroscience. But remember, when a real MD wants to check neurology, they go to hospital and do a proper brain and nerve scan with machines that go beep! When NLP preachers say "check your neurology" they mean look at your reflection in the shop window.!AliceDeGrey 09:36, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Alice, You are wasting time saying what Engrams are, it doesn't matter, nor does their existence matter. nor whether they are a major research concern of neuroscience or neuropsychology. What matters is your claim that "more educated" trainers etc write that engram is core to NLP. Note this is different to "primary NLP sources" too. It also doesn't matter whether somone bothered to read up on neuroscience (ie, outside of NLP), nor the corresponding accusation that trainers who don't write that engram is core couldn't be bothered to read up on neuroscience (which is quite a leap considering NLP's focus). And your final comment that an MD checks neurology via a brain scan but an NLP preacher (introducing bias again?) says "check your neurology" (I've never heard that said ever... any source)... and that that means "look at your reflection in the window")....

I have to wonder.... what have you actually said that's relevant in the whole paragraph? The single line... you claim that "more educated" trainers etc write that engram is core to NLP. You've quoted some of them earlier where the quote was more "Engrams explain the NLP process"... which is not an NLP claim. And you haven't addressed whether primary sources say anything, which may neatly shift them into "uneducated" in your book???? GregA 23:04, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Yup! This has been sorted already. Some people are in denial. Hard luck for them. HeadleyDown 15:35, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Headley, I asked when this was decided. I've seen no announcement just general comments. I'm also trying to find if you've ever given the Dilts page number you claim as a single primary source to your theory... I can't find it above, if anyone can tell me... that would be helpful. GregA 23:04, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Greg. The announcements were made and you are in fact in denial. If your definition of "primary" is any NLP book with fairy tales in the title, then in my view you are wrong.HeadleyDown 01:52, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Psychoanalysing me? :) As I said - I would like to know when this is decided. Or where. Give me a time and I can look it up in the history. Maybe Voice-of-All will make it easier and let me know. GregA 03:02, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Headly, Alice, what announcements? If they "are made", you should be able to point at them. I cannot see them. Alice, if the references are to have any validity at all, they would have to be as a fraction. In this case, single referenced claims just isn't enough. Do you personally claim to have been in the NLP community and have observed the discussion using engrams as a core point?

Hello Eivind. Please, look further. VoiceOfAll states that NLP is a broad subject with many facets and pronouncements towards science (in terms of accepting that engram is part of it). He placed engram in the opening because that is where is fits. It is a core theoretical part of NLP. We have diagrams showing engrams and the diagram is exactly the same as other diagrams throughout the literature that show the same thing. Information comes in through the senses, and goes through the brain in an engram circuit and can be manipulated using VAK by the NLP user. You are talking about your view of NLP. I am using a world multi-view of NLP.HeadleyDown 00:34, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

The article also includes specific connections between Fritz Perls, engrams, and scientology, which to me reads like an attempt to muddle the separation between the two definitions of engrams: The neurological definition after Pavlov/Lashley, and the scientologist definition "a moment of unconsciousness containing physical pain or painful emotion and all perceptions." This again seems an attempt to muddle NLP with scientology.

if you want to delete facts, don't ask me to do it.HeadleyDown 00:34, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I will actually say that for the use of "engram" throughout the article: It makes the article confusing and pulls NLP towards scientology. I read this as an attempt to manipulate the reader into mixing up scientology and NLP, and trying to make the reader mistrust NLP on the basis of mistrusting scientology. Alice, Headly: I'll make this specific (in an attempt to be fair): Are you trying to make the readers mistrust NLP on the basis of associating with scientology? (Yes/No answer please.)

Engram is a common psychology term and is in wide use today. It is clarifying and is explicitly used within NLP texts and diagrams. If you understood neurology you would see no confusion at all. The picture is clear.HeadleyDown 00:34, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

-- Eivind Eklund 1 November 2005, 17:11 (UTC)

I am checking references -- I am not able to find a copy of the Drenth article. Where can I access this? However, I did find this criticism of Drenth published in NLP World. --Comaze 08:36, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Comaze. Look at the reference in the ref section, go to a library and look it up. AliceDeGrey 09:53, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Pseudoscience

NLP as a pseudoscience as criticism will depend on how it is framed. Currently it seems to be very neutrally framed (a neutral scientific assessment of NLP due to no support from science, plus pseudo theory, plus criticism or no regards for scientific testing of NLP, plus trying to immunize against testing by claiming wholism and so on). I believe it is just a neutral statement.DaveRight 06:28, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Pseudoscientific is definitely right up front. This article is definitely going to become far more scientific. It needs it because people keep chucking in lots of pseudo terminology that is designed to confuse. Also, there is no need to put so many refs on the statement. I could demand that the word "programming" requires 20 refs also, but that would just be as pointless and unproductive as asking for refs for pseudoscientific when they are all over the place already.DaveRight 06:34, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Here is a ref for VAK or PRS (which of course is about primary rep system visual auditory or kinesthetic) http://www.selfleadership.com.au/neurolinguistic2.htm. It explains prs as Bandler and Grinder state. Very accessible!DaveRight 06:39, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Well Request 2 is satisfied. Here is a quote from Dilts_1980 Dilts, Robert B Dilts R, Grinder,J. Bandler,R Cameron-Bandler,L, DeLozier J, (1980). IN their highly overblown title: NLP: The Study of the Structure of Subjective Experience., Cupertino, California: Meta Publications,. "Eyes up and to the left = eidetic (visual) Eyes up and to the right = Constructed" Page 80. They talk about prs and VAK in the same breath and they provide a nice diagram like the one that Comaze keeps irritatingly trying to hide, even now. The diagram has 6 faces looking to the six different directions and they seem to be frowning quite a lot (the 6 face article graphic is richer and happier than the one provided by bandler and folk). The same stuff is all over the place in NLP books, including other tomes by Bandler and Grinder, and recent publications also include this set of informationAliceDeGrey 07:04, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Are they talking about primary rep system or preferred rep system? Bandler (in Frogs) says that the primary rep systems are the VAK experiences (so of course they're in the same breath). I've been checking into it and PREFERRED rep system is the term used in the US army study, it's separate to the primary rep system. The Primary rep systems (now called "First Access" by Grinder) are certainly core to NLP and still taught. The "preferred rep system" as a single system ("I'm an auditory person") is not taught (see "strategies" as an example of multiple rep systems), instead a preferred rep system can be calibrated and reflected in short bursts of time (eg the sentence immediately following may match a previous sentence, but not longer term). We may do well to clarify this in the article. GregA 23:16, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Satisfied request 6. Can put it in criticism section also if you like.AliceDeGrey 08:04, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

How did you satisfy the request? To answer whether to include it somewhere would require knowing what you're saying, right?  :) GregA 23:16, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Oh Nice work folks! I feel more like chipping in now. I also believe the pseudoscience section is quite neutral as a statement about the nature of it's nature and promotion.HeadleyDown 10:35, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi VoiceOfAll. Its interesting what you say about Dianetics. It has been suggested that NLP become a religion in order to gain more income (similar to Scientology). The NLP concern has fallen into disrepute in many countries, including France, where it recently narrowly avoided being labeled as a cult. China also has it on the same list as FalunGong. I have only just started exploring the French databases, and there is a great deal of deep thinking there and plenty of scientific views there calling it pseudoscience and even new age proto-religion. I have enough to introduce it here.HeadleyDown 10:47, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

My god I've never heard anything like that... who suggested NLP become a religion? Madness. Interesting that you note France does not list NLP as a cult - have you got a specific source for us to use? GregA 23:16, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't have a reference, but can confirm what HeadleyDown is writing. Around 2000, the French government was assembling a list of all movements that should be considered cults. The French NLP association could refute the claims that NLP should be seen as a cult. I remember reading some articles (but they were in French). User:PatrickMerlevede 12:15, 1 November 2005 (GMT-1)

Greg, the evidence is in the research. Do the research. And please stop trying to NLP twist my words. It is obvious and incriminates you as somebody who does not want to face facts.HeadleyDown 01:56, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

I am not going to research each of your claims any more (if previous research had supported them, I would). If you have a claim to make, back it up, or drop the claim. Continuing to claim something without evidence and demanding that others prove you wrong is a pseudoscientific characteristic that you are well aware of. GregA 03:02, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

I see what you are saying FT2. Dianetics has had some very damning reviews and it is certainly not attractive to the biz world. But practitioners (such as Platt), and papers about the use of dubious therapies and techniques (Von Bergen et al) all say that it is entirely nonsense. In fact people explicitly state that it is pseudoscience. The pseudoscience label for NLP has a great deal of support. Remember that NLP promotes in a pop psych way, using jargon that is stolen from other areas of psychotherapy and psychology, but used out of context and hyped up to the further ends of the universe:) NLP has been the flavour of the month in some multinationals (some of them would not touch it with a barge pole). The world view takes it as a bunch of fluffy banal trite truisms designed to get you to do what you do not want to do (empowerment during downsizing usually:) and other people state that it is a kind of religious conversion at work (Singer 2003). As far as psychotherapists see it (the world view), it is right there alongside dianetics, energy therapy, and flakesR'us. It is discouraged harshly during the first year of psychology study along with all the other appealing brain myths that get people into trouble all the time. NLP started of as theraputic magic (Bandler and Grinder 1975), and has become remote kahuna seduction pseudoscience with some empowerment banalities thrown in. I personally see it as a kind of substitute for religion or spirituality that people seem to want to cling to in the postmodern world. None of my business though really. I just report the facts.HeadleyDown 11:26, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

The problem I have with pseudoscience is that core NLP (and I mean the roots of the subject 1960 - 1980's, not whatever junk may have come into it in the last 10 years) seems credible. For example, I am not aware of any multinationals that use dynetics as a management coaching tool, or engrams to improve their staff effectiveness. I am aware of global corporations that use NLP technologies for these. I'm not aware of a major professional body of psychiatry that treats homeopathy as a serious means to heal, but I am aware that there are such colleges that treat the grinder-bandler derived ericksonian model in NLP as a serious methodology. There are sufficient concerns here over thepseudoscience label that I have one question: might part of the problem be, that NLP started out as one thing and over the years acquired other aspects that are less solidly founded and more pseudosciency? If so, perhaps that is how the article should approach it. Can someone with more knowledge of the history of development of NLP comment? FT2 11:07, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Sure, FT2. It was pseudoscience even when Bandler and Grider wrote their magic book in 1975. They spoke of linguistic relativism when it had already been debunked in 1968. RegardsHeadleyDown 15:37, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Please elaborate. A few weeks back you said that nominalisations had been disproved and I asked for more info and you gave none. Your above sentence lacks any meaning or purpose without some more info. GregA 23:16, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Again, Greg. Do the research. If you do not understand a basic linguistic concept then you should not be doing anything with linguistics.HeadleyDown 01:56, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

The nominalisation stuff is currently of interest to me and I am exploring - when you claimed there were articles disproving the effect etc I was interested as I haven't found them... if you can't find them that's fine. And no I haven't studied linguistic relativism per se, though I've studied the concepts behind it, largely through the cognitive science area (in contrast to linguistics, psychology, or NLP). I do see relationships to NLP mainly in the "map is not the territory" area, and the links to the premise that what goes on in our heads is important (ala Chomsky's critique of Skinner). For other readers - our language and limits of our language are theorised to affect our interaction and understanding of the world. Headley - I see no evidence of anything being debunked, it seems to still be an important part of cognitive linguistics [2]. Stop mind reading and answer a question - what are you saying was debunked (and what are you saying Bandler/Grinder said?)? GregA 03:02, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Hallo. Here is something that you posted below Voiceofall, and I copied it here: "Pseudoscience is any body of knowledge, methodology, or practice that is erroneously regarded as scientific."

Science is both:

"The investigation or study of nature through observation and reasoning, aimed at finding out the truth; and The organized body of knowledge we have gained by such investigation."

Here is a science view: A lot of people erroneously regard NLP as scientific, and even Dilts and Grinder say it in the article and I have read it in many central NLP books and trainings also. Plus, NLP books also say that NLP is not interested in truth. Plus NLP does not use the organized body of knowledge at all (scientific investigation).

So according to your posting, Voiceofall, surely NLP is most definitely a pseudoscience! What do you think we could do with this common representation of pseudoscience in the article? HansAntel 03:27, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

NCAHF News, July/Aug 2001

It seems that NCAHF News, July/Aug 2001/Laso, 2001 reference is incorrect. This source lists NLP under a subtitle under the subtitle, "Dubious mental health related methods summarised", citing [Sorting out junk science (Raso et al 2001 http://acsh.org/publications/priorities/1301/coverstory.html] as the source, this article is not about NLP at all. I've removed the NCAHF statement. --Comaze 08:01, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

PRS or representational systems (RS)

I also noticed that PRS gets very gew hits on Google, and I didn't even type in NLP+PRS. PRS seems to be yet another minority view.Voice of All ^{Talk|@|Esperanza} 23:18, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

I think, and I'm sure some knowledgeable NLPers will correct me if I'm wrong, the concept of rep systems shifted early in NLP.

Grinder (& Bandler?) said that in their earliest experiment with representation systems, they listened to people talking in their group, and allocated each person a card which labeled the representation system they used. As a test, they paired everyone up with people who were of different systems, then paired everyone up with people who were of the same representation systems.

They found from this brief experiment that when rep systems were matched, the rapport was higher. This is exactly the result that early studies (see Druckman, and Heap) said was unsupported (and they called it PRS). People didn't report better rapport if someone matched a single rep system to the system they were judged to have. The studies do have certain flaws (Druckman says they were all of female psychology undergraduate students, for instance) but lets ignore that for now.

I don't know if Grinder and Bandler ever called this "Primary Rep Systems" or "Preferred Rep System". In Frogs into Princes (79), they mention primary representation systems three times. The first is to describe a signal from the body

• now that's a really elegant non-verbal response. In doing reframing we strongly recommend that you stay with primary representational systems: feelings, pictures, or sounds. Don't bother with words, because they are too subject to conscious interference. (pg 141), and
• There is always a slippage between primary and secondary representation. There's a difference between experience and the ways of representing experience to yourself. One of the least immediate ways of representing experiences is with words. If I say to you "This particular table right here has a glass of water partially filled sitting on top of it," I have offered you a string of words, arbitrary symbols. We can both agree or disagree about the statement because I'm appealing directly to your sensory experience. (he's pointing to a table) (pg 16)

This sounds alot like what is now called "First Access".

In talking about representation systems he describes people as either being flexible or rigid - some people are "stuck" or can't use some systems (they don't say what proportion "alot" is).

• A lot of school children have problems learning simply because of a mismatch between the primary representational system of the teacher and that of the child. If neither one of them has the flexibility to adjust, no learning occurs. (pg 40), and
• I made my entire approach fit their model of the world rather than demanding that they have the flexibility to come to mine. That's one way to go about it. When you do that, you certainly do them a favor in the sense that you package material so it's quite easy for them to learn it. You also do them a disservice in the sense that you are supporting rigid patterns of learning in them. (pg 40)

The rep system is now taught as dynamically changing, and to be matched on a short term basis, constantly recalibrated. Strategies were also introduced in the 80s, which involve a combination of representation systems in a given order that people tend to use - different for different contexts.

I don't know if the attitude towards a solely preferred rep system ("I'm a visual!") changed as a result of the PRS studies, or whether John and Richard noticed it themselves (either of which still shows one example that NLP theories do change when results don't support them). I also haven't got the original (pre 1979) books so I can't see if they ever taught it as people having a single system or if that was just their initial foray - I would assume an early book must say it or else all the early studies wouldn't have tested that (later studies may have just got their understanding from earlier studies or early books) - does anyone know? GregA 07:40, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes Greg, the studies measured that focused on rep systems treated them as dynamic. In fact from my assessment the experiments were quite sophisticated and certainly passed the rigor test to get into peer reviewed journals. Pre 80 and post 80 the VAK prs stuff is really very simplistic as is most pseudoscience.AliceDeGrey 07:54, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Hang on! Did someone delete the dilts/bandler/grinder ref I posted in order to completely satisfy this request?AliceDeGrey 07:57, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Alice, what do you mean dynamic? And how does that link with you saying VAK prs stuff is very simplistic?

Please remove judgements "as is most pseudoscience"... it's a weasel phrase GregA 08:22, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes Greg. THis request has been satisfied. So whats the deal? Get a request satisfied and then keep on badgering? OK. The PRS or as it is more wideley known in NLP lit and the research that debunked it as RS or representational systems has been debunked. Constant recalibration was taken into account in experiments. Even so, relatively recent books on NLP still teach RS as "this person is primarily a visual person" (Alder in the Right Brain Manager). It varies as always as is the norm with snakeoil. Snakeoil is not produced to a uniform quality. You get really sophisiticated snakeoil with a fancy label, and you get really cheap snakeoil where the people do not even bother to read the label.AliceDeGrey 08:31, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

I think we're going to have to be clear on PRS. The term is used too loosely. For my part, let me say that I believe eye-accessing cues to be taught very commonly in NLP, along with training in perceptual acuity and calibration etc. I also believe verbal predicates "I see", "I hear" to be very common - I was taught that people use multiple systems and the patterns of those rep systems is useful for matching. Frogs into princes (79) actually uses PRS as a general description of our visual/auditory/kinaesthetic/olfactory/gustatory senses (as quoted above) - I believe we all agree they are our 5 senses?. We need to clarify what NLP is accused of saying, what NLP says, what the studies tested, what the results were, etc....

Oh, Alice - you said did someone delete your ref - sorry, could you tell me which I've found an earlier ref by JPLogan but not you.... I haven't been online more than briefly for a couple of days and I'm sure I've missed some stuff. GregA 12:30, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, the link you provide Voice_Of_All is very good. It shows the way the promoters frame the subject using very boosterist phrasing such as - NLP has been criticised due to its powerful communication techniques being used for sales, seduction etc. Of course, this misses the point entirely in that NLP is actually criticised for simply encouraging this sort of thing through the promotion of dubious techniques such as seduction power, remote influence and confrontational (synonym = attacking or aggressive) therapy etc and the promotion of "the unfair advantage" in bookstores etc. On the other hand there is a nice wooly line of comfort that it gives to new agers by talking about spirituality and ecology:) I agree that a midground be taken as has been achieved on the present article. Of course I agree that engrams are encyclopedically central in explicit and implicit use throughout NLP, and that NLP is scientifically unsupported to put it mildly. Looks like progress already!HeadleyDown 11:13, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

One thing I find interesting is that PRS was suggested as a search for web and through books. It does not appear that much. Of course experienced NLPers know why. Because it is not always called PRS. As mentioned previously today, it is also known as RS. If you do a search now, you will find the same stuff as has been written throughout the books on NLP. Some say you need to calibrate, some say that people are either v, a or k, most of the time etc. This is pseudoscientific nonsense because NLP is making money by spreading mind myths. If the NLP promoters here really wanted to clear up the PRS or RS issue, they would have suggested to search for RS. However, that would be too incriminating, wouldn't it!HeadleyDown 10:11, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Let's get his clear (all these terms are almost synonomous):

• Representational systems (VAKOG) = 4-tuple (Grinder & Bandler ,1975) = primary access (Freud)

I do not think PRS is used widely anymore in NLP, certainly not by Grinder or Bandler. I did however, find this Marketing journal article (2003) which uses tests PRS in television advertising. I don't know if it is useful. Skinner & Stephens, Journal of Marketing Communications (Volume 9, Number 3 / September 2003) [3]

Hello whoever... sounds like comaze? You may note from my quote from Frogs into Princes, that Grinder and Bandler were actually defining PRS almost identical to First-Access. This is unlike the experiments, which refer to matching Rep systems. Take Morgan's article as an example of misunderstanding [4]

• Specifically (Heap) was looking into the idea of the Primary Representational System (PRS), which is supposed by NLP to be a very important concept. It is claimed that people tend to think in a specific mode: visual, auditory, kinaesthetic, olfactory or gustatory, of which the first three are the most common. NLP claims that it is possible to determine the PRS of a person by noticing certain words that she or he uses which will reveal the mode. It is also claimed that the direction of eye movement is an indicator of the PRS.

Now what I was trained was that we use all systems, sometimes favouring one or two but still using all regularly. The ones we favour can change depending on context and timing (we may favour systems in a sequence... a strategy). I've also read NLP books saying eye movements are an indicator of the internal representations currently active (which is quite a separate claim to revealing "the mode" (ala "I'm an auditory!").

Frog into Princes also contradicts Druckman's explanation of PRS (which in this case is "preferred representation system" - we probably need to clarify this from "primary representation system"). He says "Cognitive processes are represented by sensory systems or imagery that is visual, auditory, or kinaesthetic"[5]. I wonder why he didn't say "represented by sensory systems that are visual, auditory, AND kinaesthetic... (and there must be a source, I think Druckman/US Army study did this properly). Anyway... there are other more important things for now. GregA 12:30, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Raja (research on mulitple modalities in learning contexts)

Dr. Radhi Raja; and Norman Tien have been researching NLP and its application for multi-modal learning.

• Dr. Radhi Raja; Norman Tien (2005). "National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University". Exploring multi-modality tools of Neuro-Linguistic Programming (NLP) to facilitate better learning among Primary School students. p. 8. {{cite conference}}: Unknown parameter |booktitle= ignored (|book-title= suggested) (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

This paper also cites:

• Tosey P.; Mathison J. (September 2003). "Neuro-linguistic programming and learning theory: a response". The Curriculum Journal, Routledge, part of the Taylor & Francis Group. Volume 14, Number 3: 371-388(18). {{cite journal}}: |volume= has extra text (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

Sorry, a Brit Prof from London University has already debunked VAK learning prefs just last month plus the past 5 years.HeadleyDown 15:39, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

I'd like to question the quality of your reference here. :) A little more info perhaps?

Note too that the above mentioned paper is also a 2005 reference. GregA 22:26, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

GregA. I'll give you the refs when I feel like it. I am busy. In the meantime stop nagging and do some research, and stop denying that the research is out there.HeadleyDown 01:58, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

No worries - sometimes what you claim and what you reference look very similar... you have strong beliefs. If you don't have time you don't have time. GregA 03:02, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

no Engrams

HeadleyDown. I trained in NLP under John Seymour and Joseph O'Connor, the first two major UK trainers, in NLP, in 1990. I worked on NLP training courses 1991 - 1997. I trained for what is called the "Master Practitioner" under Robert Dilts and Judith Delozier in 1998, in Stanta Cruz, where NLP all began. And I had to look up what an engram was, because despite nearly 10 years training under several world-class NLP trainers, I had never heard the term or seen that viewpoint. Core NLP is not concerned with the biological mechanism of memory, but how it subjectively, functionally, works and can be worked with. This conflicts disturbingly with the above comment as to what is "core NLP". TBP 11:24, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Great TBP. Well tell that to Alain Moenaert, Sinclaire, Drenth and all the other people who know psychology and neurology. You do stuff with NLP but you will not talk or recognize neuro? Sounds perfectly like pseudoscience to me.HeadleyDown 11:30, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

HeadleyDown - that is a very neat "put down". But it is a very weak argument. I say, this is what the founders and root source teachers say, and you quote second tier people who have views that suit your perception and give a dismissal that is unfounded. I don't plan to get into personal argument. I will simply say, I have studied this, under world class teachers, for some ten years, and been using it a further five beyond that. I think I'm slightly competent to know what is core after that time, and what isn't, considering those who taught me were those who actually popularized and taught the field initially, 20 or 30 years ago.

This is what you need to know about classical, core NLP: Its core subject matters are observables that can be objectively verified on the one hand, and consistent patterns within and between them that are experientially found to be useful to notice, on the other. Subjects beyond that are for the most part, fringe. It doesn't matter if some people use it for sales, or others associate it with spirituality or engrams. Classical, core NLP is none of those. It is a methodology for communication and psychological structure detection based strictly upon observation, feedback and utilization. This conflicts disturbingly with your offhand dismissal. TBP 11:41, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

OK TBP. You have just presented a fabulously woolly concoction of pseudoargument. Observables (does that mean empirical?), that can be objectively verified (does that mean like the scientists verified it?), and useful (useful for what? Making money? Recruiting devotees?) Then you talk of fringe! Fringe to what? Fringe to fringe? NLP is a fringe practice! It is classed as a dubious therapy, and a therapy to avoid according to consumer protection bodies and according to science. I notice your use of second tier is similar to how the NLP promoters are promoting on this article. Some have written books and they are in the know. Some have been accredited (payed for the course therefore get through), and have some cred. This is an encyclopedia. It reports the facts with science as a major organizing force. Because that is a force for clarification. NLP is pseudoscientific and designed to confuse people, recruit them to pay money, then get them to repeat buy. It is a commercial self help system. Just tell it as it is.HeadleyDown 11:58, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Excuse me Mr Headly down which implies you are looking down are kinesthetic and maybe clinically depressed but the NLP course I encounterred was run with the intitiative that If I wasn't getting the results I wanted then I would be reimbursed. NLP is an entity unto itself. any mention of other psychological ideas concepts ideas or beliefs ie. engrams is not in NLP literature and are deemed not useful or are improved upon with ideas that would take it further into the future by NLP developers. It does not relate any of it's teachings to Dianetics or any other kind of religion science or religion because what it uses is most useful and top form for bringing about change in belief, behaviour, values and progress. The entities you describe with terms or vocabulary that do not reconcile NLP's meanings are fringe which is what TBP means. NLP has it's own integrity and holds it gracefully. What you consider fringe seems to be on the outer of modern thought and isn't fringe at all but barely considerred. NLP considers potency of language toward action that is different from Dianetics or any other type of thinking. In other words NLP literature is specific and conveys a specific learning to the student and does not use two words where one would be more effective. Meaning other institutions or schools of thought have little to do with the foundations and teachings of NLP unless outlined by the creators as being useful. Your findings are not findings at all they are at best rhetoric. Please if I wanted this kind of barbarism of the human language I'd read Comic books. Dianetics is not discussed in LP literature either. So please stick to the subject. How is it designed to confuse people mr Headley? If all the happiness was made available to the world to achieve it's outcome would it choose monetary gain? including the creators? We all know happiness is not bought. Idiot. It is more likely that the creators thought of an affordable price for someone to learn the skills and then implemented it into a course which would ensure the growth of the industry and the reaches with which the knowledge could span ie: the world. Other instances don't make sense in the article Headley Down. For instance if it is widely uneffective why is there an office devoted to monitorring mind control? and if it is uneffective why was there going to be a section on people it has helped and people it has burnt in this article? Answer this Mr Headley everyone wants to know.

Hi, um, not sure who you are. I noticed an interesting delusional effect in your appraisal of my name (or was it just an insult?). A lot of NLP enthusiasts like to claim they can understand people's deep psyche just by looking at their language. I can let you into a little secret. The reason they seem convincing sometimes (if you remove your brain for a while) is because they are delusional and they strongly believe it. Headley Down is actually where I come from. It is a very pleasant place in the south of England. The very word is full of positive associations for me and wonderful life. I am a really happy sod. I am generally so cheerful and positive that I regularly depress other people. So you can go ahead and use loaded scientology/NLP phrases such as "mismatcher" or "bipolar" or whatever on me and it will not make a bit of difference to me. You will only convince yourself that you are right when you are wrong.HeadleyDown 13:13, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

An overview argument usually excludes detail. So ignoring the dismissive tone again, quick answers are: observable and objectively verifiable as in, two people standing side by side, or watching a video recording, would be able to observe them and agree on them. That is the usual meaning of the terms. Useful means, capable of use. Mathematicians have the same concept of usefulness, some information and methods have more "usefulness" than others to them, because it encompasses more cases, or are more common, or more widely found to be good tools for common problems. Fringe means literally, the edge, as in, speculation or non-core developments that are not a necessary or core part of a field, often included by people who are trying to develop ideas that may or may not prove to be well founded or widely adopted by others.

(That said, we agree on this one point you make: NLP has become highly commercialized and is used like a "buzz word" by some "trainers", who have taught it selectively and inappropriately. Your point there is accurate. That is important to state, but does not change its core approach, nor are all NLP trainings of this kind. In fact we do not have scientific knowledge if it is a majority, minority or small minority of trainers of this kind)

I believe that is twice now that your reply has been dismissal when you could with ease have understood the point being made, and addressed it in a constructive manner. But be that as it may, your points have been answered twice. Now please respond to mine, by addressing the consideration of classic, core NLP, as documented by its founders and core developers, rather than focussing exclusively on fringe NLP and the worst kind of commercializations. TBP 12:12, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry TBP. I must now work with fact. This is an encyclopedia and there are some requests that have been satisfied, though I want to satisfy them some more. Let's just work with the most reliable and corroberateble version of what NLP actualy is according to verifiable and observable reality.HeadleyDown 14:21, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, VoiceOfAll, responding to your first request, NLP uses engrams as a core neuro concept, as does psychology and neurology, and is included in the majority of NLP theorist litrerature, and as such is a great brevifying and concise making concept in the article. It can be discussed elsewhere as a concept (ie the engram article). ATB.HeadleyDown 14:57, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, thats not an adequate response. Its called a cop-out. Your first answer was weak, your second tangential, your third avoidant. I say to you again - you asked, quite dismissively, expecting "pseudoscience", for answers. You have had them. It seems on the surface that they are good ones, because you don't seem to have rebutted the definitions I have given, or questioned if they apply. Indeed, a sceptic might note that you avoided the questions I asked, choosing instead to try and question the wording.

Now I ask for you to address my question. You do know what classical, core NLP is, I hope? I would not like to think all this criticism in which you set yourself up as a judge of whether other experts are right or not, and whether I know what I am asking and bringing to your attention, is based merely on partial understanding and guesswork about classical, core NLP.

There are many original source books on classical, core NLP. You claim to follow science. The scientific method does not ignore, or even tolerate, but actively requires consideration of possible conflictory information that may call previous belief into question. I expect you to be scientific. I repeat my previous request, which was very specific and not at all "woolly":

Your points have been answered twice, now. Now please respond to mine, by addressing the consideration of classic, core NLP, as documented by its founders and core developers, rather than focussing exclusively on fringe NLP and the worst kind of commercializations. If you do not know what these are, or appear not to by your answer, it will be obvious. TBP 15:02, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

I am truly sorry, TBP. But I know the point of wikipedia was to provide neutral fact in encyclopedic terms. If you have any fact to offer, please do.HeadleyDown 15:10, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

HeadleyDown, wikipedia isn't a family social event. "I'm truly sorry" doesn't cut it here, as an excuse not to know the core of the field you are summarizing. You either have considered and learned about the full range of the subject before writing, or you have not. I am asking you if you have such knowledge yourself, and I am noting that your attention seems focussed on fringe, and the worst of commercializations. I have asked if you consider that an article on NLP should address the consideration of classical, core NLP, and your thoughts on it. And your response is dismissal, then avoidance, and then "I'm sorry" and ultimately refusal. I think, having answered your questions, twice now, you might have a go at mine.

The issue is a simple one. On the basis of some 15 years experience training under various people who are universally recognized as world class NLP trainers and who actually over 20-30 years ago developed and publicized much of its core material, I feel that your characterization of it is in fact a characterization of selectively chosen aspects.

My evidence for this is that I have now asked four times for you to respond and discuss classical core NLP. Your first response was a smokescreen, well these names who aren't central to NLP use these things, and to ignore the question. Your second response was to try and pick issue with the summary wording and avoid the question. I notice you didn't try to pursue that or deal with the questions though, once it was answered. Your third response was to state your belief and using that as an assumption, conclude that that's all there is about it, "lets just work with" one view, and again to ignore the question. That is called circular logic. Your fourth response is an apology for still refusing to discuss classical core NLP here and instead just asking for more facts. If you understood classical core NLP, you would answer the question and demonstrate your evidence for how classical core NLP stands, and not merely try to duck the important issue that has now been asked four times.

I am starting to suspect you do not in fact know much of classical and core NLP. My concern is this would imply that you are setting yourself up as arbiter in a field where you are not even close to having core knowledge. So I think we cannot sidestep the question this throws up:

Will you, or will you not, address and discuss fully, as much as you have discussed other aspects, the consideration of classic, core NLP, as documented by its founders and core developers, rather than focussing exclusively on fringe NLP and the worst kind of commercializations. If you do not know what these are, or appear not to by your answer, it will be obvious. If you need a helping hand to know what the founders and core developers (and not some random trainers that you heard about) consider classic and core, then ask. TBP 15:34, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

I doubt that engrams are currently core to NLP, but the compromise here will have to do with what the framers said, Grinder et al. I will check this at the library soon(Griner, Frogs to Princes...ect).

Quite frankly though, I am willing to have engrams mentioned or not mentioned since it does not really matter. You do not "need" engrams for NLP, they are just a micro-concept used to desribe memory. For the sake of history though, I will look into books by the founders. Modern NLP is not what is used to be in every way.Voice of All ^{Talk|@|Esperanza} 18:14, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi Voiceofall. Take a look at that useful French link with the brain diagram posted the other day. It shows what people have been saying all along about engrams. Certainly when I first read Bandler and Grinder I saw engrams throughout each book. Whenever you read stuff about V-K or VAK, they are talking about engrams. This follows throughout each book or journal article on NLP that I have ever read. Some are more specific about it (Dilts talks about Hebbian engrams) and other simply talk about the imaginal aspects of engrams (the experienced images/feelings in mind and so on). Neuro and engrams are extremely closely linked.JPLogan 01:51, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

I have tried to do something to fairly represent some of the points mentioned above, namely how NLP's development has led to a divergence and its current preception as more "new age" when its roots are so well established. Its a tricky question to sum up and there are few formal sources, please edit or comment but I think until we have consensus that's a good starting point to recognize the truth within both "sides" of the debate. It seems NLP started off strong. Due to various explained pressures and developments, it later veered towards new age. What are being discussed as "classical core NLP" and "new age pseudoscience NLP" are basically the two present extremes of that development. FT2 20:29, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Anyway, I have altered the intro, what do you et al think?Voice of All ^{Talk|@|Esperanza} 22:07, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

VoiceOfAll, You do realise that is [6] is just a mirror of the wikipedia article. So is the other URL you provide (34). This is one of the problems of not excluded engram from this page. It is going to start alot of misinformation about NLP. People could latch onto this neologism and it might falsely end up in NLP training. --Comaze 08:44, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi Comaze. Did you know that people can read this article - but it is pseudoscience! You are trying to promote NLP. That is unethical according to certain psychologist's code of conduct (you should not use methods that have not been empirically supported) at least according to Beyerstein. Therefore, this article should be deleted altogether:) On the other hand, realise that engrams are already taught as part of NLP. Just get used to itHeadleyDown 10:18, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

HeadleyDown, Can you please stay on topic. This thread is on engrams. --Comaze 11:11, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

I removed these two links: [7] [8] --- Media13 is a site than anyone can post to, and online hypnosis is not related to NLP, and not written by a notable author. --Comaze 07:39, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Ethics

Hi Comaze. Did you know that people can read this article - but it is pseudoscience! You are trying to promote NLP. That is unethical according to certain psychologist's code of conduct (you should not use methods that have not been empirically supported) at least according to Beyerstein. HeadleyDown 10:18, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Headley, we're attempting to write an article that shows what's claimed and also what's been tested (whether proven or not). You are focussed on what's not proven, which is probably ethical but certainly not scientific. Also, you are applying an ethical code of conduct from a field that we haven't said NLP is applied in - are you saying we should represent that NLP is applied within Psychology? And if so, have you got any evidence that NLP processes applied within psychology are not accurately portrayed by registered Psychologists (who are also NLP practitioners)?

The APA ethical guidelines says psychologists

• will not falsely promote "the scientific or clinical basis for, or results or degree of success of, their services". Also
• "When obtaining informed consent for treatment for which generally recognized techniques and procedures have not been established, psychologists inform their clients/patients of the developing nature of the treatment, the potential risks involved, alternative treatments that may be available, and the voluntary nature of their participation"

http://www.apa.org/ethics/code2002.html#10_01

The question here is "techniques generally recognised by whom?". Most NLP processes are generally recognised within NLP. An NLP practitioner should certainly not advertise themselves as a psychologist (which should make clear that any claims refer to recognition within NLP, not psychology... and it'll protect them from legal ramifications!). Now if an NLP person is a psychologist they should not say that an NLP process is scientifically validated unless it has been... I think that's a good rule generally for all NLP practitioners, though I've seen a couple of NLP websites making broad unspecified claims to scientific support (I don't like that). GregA 23:41, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

GregA. Consumer bodies and authorities criticise NLP for being unethically used and promoted. That is represented in the article.HeadleyDown 02:00, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

You're not reading what's said Headley. You said comaze was promoting NLP, and also that for psychologists this was unethical. I questioned that, and why you bring in psychology. GregA 03:02, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

the new intro

Hi VoiceofAll. Sure, we really have moved on! I can live with that intro. I do have some qualms about the "modelling" being in the first line as it is not actually considered the heart of NLP according to a lot of views I have read, but I think it can stay there for now. I think the extra clarifying section (NLP 2000) needs some work, especially to take the filesize down and NPOV it, but the work put into it already is much appreciated. I have quite a lot more fact over the last few days that I can add to it as concisely as possible. RegardsHeadleyDown 00:12, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Headley, before you "NPOV it" according to your POV, please discuss what you feel would need changing, here, so it may be agreed by other editors without repeated reversion. I would not usually say this, except previous posts and edits make it likely that your POV should at least be discussed and agreed, rather than edited first and then fought over. Please therefore, if you feel the new section is not in some way neutral in its representation of NLP, list the aspects where it does not give a balanced representation of the development and standing of the field. (I accept that small wording improvements are always possible) FT2 00:47, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Hello Voiceofall and FT2. The opening looks fine to me also for now. Engrams are definitely core in the light of the polyglottal searches that people have been doing lately. I also found the engram in European texts, and it is stated as core (as a clarifier for the neuro part plus the imaginal aspects).JPLogan 01:30, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

POV intro

The tail end of teh intro has a POV problem:

Scientific research on specific NLP processes generally concludes that NLP is scientifically unsupported (Heap 1988; Sharpley 1987; Lilienfeld et al, 2003). This has led to NLP being classed as pseudoscientific (Eisner, 2000; Lilienfeld et al, 2003).

This should be rewritten to attribute "scientifically unsupported" to a source, either a group or an individual or someone. i.e. "so-and-so states that NLP is scientifically unsupported. So-and-so classifies NLP as a pseudoscience." FuelWagon 01:25, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi FuelWagon. I disagree. Wikipedia requires most that a name is attributed. That is enough. There were so many really irritating disputes by people implying that "only this person thinks this in the whole world of 6billion other people who think it is rubbish etc" Ok, well you know what I mean! We are trying to represent views here. You will probably find that a lot of people who have picked up a NLP book will have come to the same conclusion as those bodies of scientists who test the method and found it lacking. Except that they use the words, US BS, nonsense, trite etc. And some people really want to promote it and say that it will allow them to find the mate of their dreams and walk on water. The easiest way to solve this is to simply quote the source.JPLogan 02:20, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

JP, you're saying you disagree and then agreeing .... he doesn't ask to restrict it to one person, just (as per Wikipedia NPOV) that if 2 or more groups have different attitudes/thoughts on a field, you fairly represent multiple sides. Perhaps you mean "All Psychologists view NLP as a pseudoscience"? (which I'd dispute... but I'm also wondering which groups classify it that way). GregA 04:44, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

JPLogan, yes, quote the source (or paraphrase the source), but you must also attribute the quote to the source, and provide a URL if possible to verify. The format basically boils down to:

Source said "quote" (URL).

Where "source" is a notable source (individual or group), "quote" is what they said or a paraphrase of what they said, and a URL to verify their quote/paraphrase. FuelWagon 22:08, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

You say NPOV but did you assert a POV from aprofessional who opposes the claims. In all are there any favorable articles to balance the NLP article with counter aguments. One might say the editors are choosing their articles with this piece of writing. I know I would. Justin

Modeling

Hi Greg. That modeling the mind stuff in the first line really is a bit silly. I'd have it as it was. A method proposed for programming the mind is totally clear and disambiguates the NLP subject much more clearly from nat-lang-programming computers and NationalLawParty etc.AliceDeGrey 06:53, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

My thought is that since modeling is distinct from NLP-processes it should be treated as such. I agree that there is a better way than what I wrote. I don't much agree with the opening at all ... GregA 07:00, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Sure, the modeling word is confusing the way it is placed in the first line. It is very arguable also.Bookmain 07:16, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

As I said, I think there is a better way than the way it is placed in the first line. This, to me, implies we should look at a better way of saying it. Any suggestions (see mine below in 'suggested openings') GregA 21:08, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

suggested openings

The opening should tell what NLP is without multiple POV. Multiple POV have a place in the article, just not in the Opening. I have Introducing NLP, by Joseph O'Connor and John Seymour and am proposing an opening based on the opening of that book.

Neuro-linguistic programming (NLP) is a way of studying how people excel in any field and teaching discovered patterns to others. NLP considers personal excellence in terms of both art and science. Art because everybody brings their unique personality and style to what they do, and science because there is a method and process used to discover patterns used to achieve excellence. Hackwrench 15:35, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm playing with an opening like this (trying to make one that everyone can agree to... not easy!)

• Neuro-linguistic programming (NLP) literally means "brain-language programming". People have ways of doing what they do - and NLP claims to teach how to discover these processes (these programs) - and how to change them. Their stated goal is to model how high performers excel in any field (and teach this to others), and also to simply help people improve what they are doing (to learn a new process which may be effective for them). NLP has been described as "The Study of the Structure of Subjective Experience". NLP teaches verbal and non-verbal communication patterns - which they claim are useful to gain insight into how people do what they do, and for working with people. The first processes of NLP were modeled from psychotherapists working with clients, and NLP is often associated with the fields it is applied to most often - self development, therapy, and spirituality - to the extent that some believe NLP actually IS part of those fields. GregA 13:21, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

A high performer? Jimi Hendrix?HeadleyDown 01:33, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Headley, please elaborate if you have something to say GregA 06:36, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Any comments on the opening I suggest above. I'm sure it can be improved and I'm sure people will want some changes to it. GregA 11:03, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Hello GregA. Your language is designed to hype NLP. I am not going to elaborate. I am going to continue straight talk.HeadleyDown 15:42, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Headley, your language is designed to disparage NLP. It is nothing to do with straight talk.

GregA. If my language is ever disparaging, it is completely understandable considering the unqualified desire to promote NLP on this article. A great deal of criticism of NLP and NLP promoters is also disparaging, and those views will be presented.HeadleyDown 02:03, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree it's quite understandable that you're disparaging. Still, when you start perceiving things in a disparaging way and then looking for supporting articles, it leads to more bias in the page - it's understandable but needs to be avoided. GregA 03:02, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

• Neuro-linguistic programming (NLP) literally means "brain-language programming". People have ways of doing what they do - and NLP claims to teach how to discover these processes (these programs) - and how to change them.

I've clearly said what NLP means, and what NLP claims.

• Their stated goal is to model how high performers excel in any field (and teach this to others), and also to simply help people improve what they are doing (to learn a new process which may be effective for them). NLP has been described as "The Study of the Structure of Subjective Experience".

I haven't said they DO model high performers, just that that's their goal (really, it's the basis of the whole field). The NLP description "Study of the Structure of Subjective Experience" is factual and fits well with the description above.

Their goal is also to help people improve what they are doing (I assume this is what you object to?)

GregA. Your statement is vague. Nurses help people, poliecement help people, doctors help people, that is their goal. It needs to be specific. HeadleyDown 02:09, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Ahh.. good - so my guess at your disagreement was correct. You'd like me to be more specific. Could you tell me why a nurse wanting to help people is an okay goal, but NLP practitioner wanting to help someone is not specific enough?

The NLP goal is mostly to do business by selling psychotechnology that is scientifically unsupported and pseudoscientific.HeadleyDown 02:09, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunately that's a rather biased description and combines many judgements, and lacks an understanding of motivations of why someone would model, and why someone would apply their skills to therapy or coaching. There's a general interest in helping people. GregA 03:02, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree with GregA on this one. NLP started out as a valid research project at the UCSC between 1972-1980. Most of NLP dates from that period. Valid criticism is that it doesn't do "research" as expected by current psychological research standards (e.g. using statistics) and that today most NLPers are indeed doin business (theraphy, training or whatever), basically using NLP models on which very little research has been done since 1980, and which tend to be have disproved by many research projects. In other words, scientifically speaking, much of NLP is outdated and can be considered "dead". PatrickMerlevede 4 November 2005, 09:45 GMT-1

Hi patrick. The early research seemed highly focussed on Preferred Rep Systems, which aren't taught anymore (not as a single 'preferred' system anyway). Core patterns more-or-less came from before the trainers went their own ways... which makes sense, anything made since then may or may not be called "NLP" (depending on politics). Since then we have things like Cameron Bandlers "Structure of Emotions", Dilts "Neurological levels", Metaprograms (Dilts?), "Perceptual positions" (Grinder?), SCORE model, and several modifications to earlier patterns. NLP has done itself a disservice in research by not being centrally controlled, there are many patterns and there are bound to be patterns that really do not work - but who controls how they are taught etc? Anyway... I'm rambling, too tired GregA 09:13, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

• NLP teaches verbal and non-verbal communication patterns - which they claim are useful to gain insight into how people do what they do, and for working with people.

Do you dispute that NLP teaches this? I'm again bringing it back to a CLAIM that the patterns are useful...

• The first processes of NLP were modeled from psychotherapists working with clients, and NLP is often associated with the fields it is applied to most often - self development, therapy, and spirituality - to the extent that some believe NLP actually IS part of those fields.

We all know that NLP was modeled from psychotherapists. I think we agree that NLP is associated with the fields it is applied to. ... Perhaps you object to the fact that some people believe NLP is those fields.

And to what is already there:

• Neuro-linguistic programming (NLP) is method proposed for programming the mind,

Most NLPers don't refer to programming as people get too many mechanistic ideas about the mind - it is misleading. BUT, it is part of the name, so I think if we're going to use the name itself, we should define the whole lot to be fair.

• often promoted for the use of self-help, therapy, NLP modeling, new age spirituality, and occasionally remote ESP influence (James and Shepherd 2001).

James book doesn't say anything about remote ESP. Modeling is not an application of NLP, it is NLP, so things get very circular. It also doesn't make it clear that NLP can be USED for therapy etc (an application), so the reader might not realise that.

• NLP promotes the use of body language and NLP language to find the patterns of how someone performs(whether to model them or help them change).

What is NLP language? Never heard of it.

I find my paragraph fairer and more clarifying. I suggest if you object you clarify why.GregA 22:39, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

By NLP language, I am referring to the way NLP promoters keep using inaccurate phrases stolen from linguistics and twisted into a different and completely inappropriate context in order to make them sound like they know what they are talking about.HeadleyDown 02:09, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Then saying "NLP promotes the use of body language and NLP language to find...." is rather off the mark. GregA 03:02, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

I have worked on the intro:

• Started (like articles should) with the straight definition of NLP, "this is its definition" - in this case Bandler's definition.
• Followed that by what it does, ie its field of study.
  Both these are from RB's NLP website)
• Changed "It is a commercially promoted method of" to "It is often used as the foundation of" which is more accurate and less likely to be a controversial statement.
• Replaced "NLP language", a term that doesnt exist, by "careful questioning".

I also changed the next paragraph "NLP is based primarily on the communication patterns of three psychotherapists" to "NLP is based primarily on detailed study and analysis of three psychotherapists" because the resulting books cover far more than communication, they cover their beliefs, behaviours, working presuppositions, clinical goals, etc.

FT2 14:28, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

The new 2000 section

The new 2000 section is really far too promotional. There are some very presumptuous statements, such as - "that is probably the strength of NLP that blahblah". The only strength I see in NLP is for confusing people. Its definitely far too big. World renowned experts is really over the top. Tight model, discipline, insightful etc make for a very overblown first para there. Bandler definitely actively encourages magic, and writes that way also. "Just use what works" is totally pseudoscience (Hubbard taught exactly the same thing). The NLP comming of age para is really OTT I believe. I see no dichotomy with NLP. The stuff taught in commerce is just as shaky (unscientific) as the magick and remote mindf%$#@* that goes on. From a scientific perspective, they are both as fringe and dubious as each other. Even core Grinder material is full of woolly nonsense. Considering the scientific clarity that this article has developed, I believe a lot needs to be done with that 2000 section (mostly cutting down).JPLogan 01:30, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree that NLP is eclectic (mixed up holist pseudo to immunise against testing). I agree that it is said to be a "psychotechnology" developed originally by a mathematician undergrad and a linguist. I agree that it is totally focused on commercialisation with zero or negative attitude to scientific verification (just like all the other pseudo energy therapy kind of treatments). I agree that the whole thing is pop psych, and completely pseudoscientific. And I agree that it is impossible to seperate NLP charlatans from the NLP misguided who think they are doing star wars science or therapy.JPLogan 01:30, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

FT2, I've added a couple of peer-reviewed journal references that support the view that NLP (classical NLP?) is primarily based on Cybernetic epistemology of Gregory Bateson (If Price, 1995, Tosey, Mathison, 2005; Grinder, Bostic, Malloy, 2003; Malloy, Sing et al 2005; Tosey, Mathison, Michelli, 2003). Yes, Bateson was a proponent of Holism in science (1972, 1979). Can you please incorporate this into the draft section. All of these are published in reputable journals so they are easily verifiable. --Comaze 01:49, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

User:JPLogan: I think there is ignorance here. Quick answers:

1. "world renowned experts": virginia satir, milton erickson, for example, were indeed world renowed experts in their fields. NLP was built upon modelling of world renowned experts. Disagreement?

Yes, I disagree. They are more accurately described as a spiritualist family therapist, a dianetics practitioner, and an anthropologist.JPLogan 10:50, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

• "Coming of age" - the italicized paragraph is a quote. It gives both the "pro" and "anti" views. That seems a reasonable description to me, of what was going on, "To some people it seems unacceptable. To others it is wonderfully creative." Thats how NPOV works. It seems a good description of the development of the field.

• "I see no dichotomy". Apparently some others do. I do too. Are you aware just how widely the principles and lessons of early NLP have influenced and pervaded other fields, until people are no longer aware that what they are learning started in part as grinder/bandler models in the 70s?

OK, what techniques and what other fields? Provide citationsJPLogan 10:50, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

• "The whole thing is pop psych"... "completely pseudoscientific". All of it? Or how much? Can you quantify even vaguely that statement? Do you even know? Your phrase There are some very presumptuous statements... is not inapplicable to your own words.
• You mention NLP charlatans and NLP misguided. What about NLP teachers who were teaching the material in "frogs into princes" or "reframing"? Is that all pseudoscience junk? I hope not because chunks of that have been grandfathered into a variety of other fields and approaches, as recognized valued tools and attitudes.... hardly "charlatanery" or "misguidedness".

I am quoting the British Society of Psychologists.JPLogan 10:50, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

could you give a link please? I've gone to their site and searched for NLP and found nothing related. GregA 03:02, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Logan, in your own way, like the "pro"s, you are being fanatical. You make grandiose statements, only yours are how none of it's valuable or useful. That is a generalization, a meta-model pattern. In generalization, words like "all, every, none, never" are substituted for the more common experience of "most", "some", or "a few".

Doubtless you'll disagree. So here's a small test of your statements and viewpoint, for you. Would you like to find me a source -- just one considered, credible, recognized source that says the meta model (to take one example part of NLP) is "pseudoscience", that these linguistic patterns are not in fact accepted as serious models by linguists, and that the meta-model as part of NLP is "completely focussed on commercialization"? FT2 02:08, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

OK, I'll admit I was in a slightly bad mood. But I was still correct. Even Carroll (2003) criticises the NLP muddling. My view does not matter to the article, but honestly I am coming to the conclusion that at the heart of NLP is "muddling". NLP muddling, twisting reality and denying objectivity.JPLogan 10:50, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi FT2. Actually, I am going to have to agree with JP. He may talk really straight in discussion, but in additions to the article JP is well balanced and encyclopedic. I see you like the meta-model, and that is your view. I can offer two highly credible source out of many that says NLP is pseudoscience and it includes a very critical review of the linguistic aspects of the meta-model. Drenth 2003 critiques this as does Levelt 1995, both stating that is is pseudoscience. I suggest that if you want the 2000 section not to be culled down to a few key sentences, you had better go and find a collection of very solid references to back up the views. I have read most of the refs posted by Comaze and they are speculative to say the least (especially Tosey). Comaze keeps wanting to post things about epistemologies and really the general view (especially from psychotherapy) is that it is another smokescreen to make NLP look like science. It will definitely be balanced as suchHeadleyDown 02:24, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Comaze is continuing to screw around with images and irritate. Therefore, I am far more inclined to take an extremely hard line against his activities and suggestionsHeadleyDown 02:31, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

HeadleyDown, Please direct personal issues to my talk page. thanks --Comaze 02:58, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Headley, you are mistaken - possibly willfully so. JPLogan made a large overstatement. His overstatement is likely to be in error. So are many of his other statements. I've picked one, related to meta model, simply because its an example his words bring to mind. I could have picked any of a few dozen NLP models. I'm indifferent which, as many of them could have been chosen. I chose that one for JPLogan. He has asserted that "all" NLP is "completely" pseudoscience and "focussed on commercializm". All I'm asking is, evidence to back his view to a high standard. He either has it, or he's puffing air. My guess is he was puffing air. I await his response to it. The section added is a view that is quite commonly held and sourced, about how NLP developed, and how some aspects came to be one way, whilst other aspects are widely used clinically and in other serious applications. FT2 02:38, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

I would agree that JP is comming down NLP a bit to harshly. NLP is about fast recognition of correlations, which create working models. Models that don't or no longer seem to word are discarded. This is very useful for social issues, where "how to act and be liked" is such a ridiculously complex and random equation that one could never make a good solid derivation of the "right answer"/"the correct, derived model". Basically, you need to just do what works, as a scientific analysis of social situations is often inconclusive and therefore useless. The downside to quick models, is that they can be woefully wrong.

Anyway, it is pretty Pseudoscientific and commercialized, cultish, and unverifiable, so I am not the biggest fan, but I would also not consider NLP's core ideas to be useless junk necessarily; such statements are usually the result of reactionism to its down sides, without seeing other possibilities. Plenty of NLP practitioners are likely full of it, but not necessarily, and we need to represent both cases by making a NPOV article that does not overly-characterize NLP as "total trash".Voice of All ^{Talk|@|Esperanza} 02:59, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Um, I havn't seen anyone say NLP is total junk. Remember that cults work, as do charlatans. There is also this neat concept called misconception and misattribution in psychology. The one interesing thing about NLP is the claim to broaden one's perspective, but its actual effect doing the opposite. NLP offers rituals. Rituals involving imagery, eye movements, standing in magical circles, mirroring as a cause rather than an effect (it is the chameleon EFFECT in reality) and so on. So you learn NLP and do wierd things. FOr example, I read a hillarious account of a woman who went to see a NLP therapist and found him wierdly dressed in black, and all he did was copy her:). This is recommended in a large amount of NLP and done in an incredibly simplistic way. Research has even shown that mirroring reduces trust during experiments (80s NLP research). It is not trash, but it is great for making money out of gullible people, and it is superb for thinking your new improved map is actual reality. Cults use it because it encourages manipulation, and is full of confusing nonsense that is short term gratifying and ultimately wrong. It has been covered by business and training/ HR practitioners (eg I think Von Bergen wrote a great exemplar on that) and the conclusion is that it is ineffective, baseless, and the associations between its baseless concepts do not actually exist. It offers a quick fix and in general, any positive theraputic effect that it may have is placebo or completely not attributable to NLP at all. So it is indeed a useful entity of the new age. Great for gaining money for old rope.DaveRight 03:43, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Anyway, back to the article. I think its ok to have a specific 2000s section. It needs some serious condensing though, and there are loads of stuff missing. For example Eisner 2000, Lilienfeld 2003, Carroll 2003, and many more people reiterating that NLP is pseudoscientific and scientifically baseless, ineffective and unsupported. Then there are quotable lines about it being daft and dangerous, banal, trite, fadish, an amoral psychocult and so on. The SHAM book is also a good entry for that section. There are some very funny passages about Bandler and Grinder being unable to negotiate their legal way out of a paper bag, and T Robbins promoting NLP for marriage and then getting divorced:). Should be fun!DaveRight 03:51, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree that 'some' NLPers combine uncritical topics with their applications of the subject. However, let it be noted that there is an effort to restore (or insert) some academic rigor into the field of NLP. Two universities are current researching NLP (Grinder-Bateson) epistemology and it uses; headed up by Tom Malloy (University of Utah) with Dynamic Systems Theory and Paul Tossey director of research project `Neuro-linguistic Programming: Theory and Applications for Teachers and Learners' [9] (University of Surrey, School of Management). In Australia, there is a government accredited postgraduate qualification (333 hours fact-to-face contact hours) [10]. On a lesser note, University of Southampton offers advice to students for study skills based on NLP [11], and The University of Sydney offers short introductory courses in Neuro-linguistic programming as part of their continuing education program [12]. Some in the field are really trying to clean it up, and distinguish themselves from the flakes, short "practitioner" training, and New Agers. I realise this just one POV, but it is a valid one, and verifiable. --Comaze 04:04, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi Comaze. In the UK, one researcher from Guildford Surrey teaches a single module and 1 eighth of it involves only some aspects of NLP. He has written a discussion paper saying it could be tested. We know it can, because it already has been:) I think he's a little slow off the mark! The same goes for the other institutions you mention including Portsmouth. Out of all the thousands of institutions in the world the weight of this view is tiny. And the research you mention makes no difference at all on the research that has been done already. More recently people have been dissasociating with NLP as much as they possibly can, and moving into other areas. Platt, Patrick Melvede and many more. Prof Carroll wrote his 2003 book with a view to warning undergraduate psychologists and business people about the misleading silliness of NLP and similar subjects. The world view on research into NLP? There was research, but since it is full of nonsense and empirically unsubstantiated, the research stream has dried up! Only a couple of hard core NLP devotees are researching and that is probably only because the funding body did't realise that its pseudoscience.AliceDeGrey 04:27, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

The University of Glamorgan is another university that is currently researching NLP: [13] [14]

Hello Folks again. Just to keep the ball rolling, I have made changes to the 2000 section, removing excess claims and confusing jargon. Also backing up views using references. I'm certain it can be condensed more. ATBAliceDeGrey 05:29, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes that's far better. Your crackdown on hype is also a fine idea. Science is the clearest way forward here.JPLogan 10:53, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Looks far better to me. I will have a go at condensing it further. I am also coming to the conclusion that there are so many terms in NLP that are just designed to hype, that it really is hard to see the hype sometimes. I mean words like "embedded command" sounds really powerful, but the psychology I know just calls it a suggestion. Anyway, yes we seem to be getting somewhere.DaveRight 06:01, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Hey! Those French refs you gave are great. The French seriously don't like NLP. It is still in the process of being labeled a cult by the govt there. Also one of their professors says NLP is "a lot of blowing wind, but no result". He also says the authors are megalomaniac fraudsters (I guess he's been talking to the British Assoc of Psychologists:). He classes NLP as a cult or proto-religion. I think they treated dianetics the same way in the 70s. Now its just a cult, and scientology is the religion. Can anyone think of a good new religious name for NLP? How about The Church of New Rolling Wizdicks?DaveRight 06:24, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Oh behave!:) Yes there are more to come also. They seem to collaborate a lot. Some of the studies are very in depth meta analyses about NLP (according to the lit). I would say they generally belong in the scientific findings section, but they all seem to state pseudoscience also. Anyway, we can introduce them anytime.AliceDeGrey 06:49, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

I see what the aim is (I think), and what Alice and Dave have reduced it to. It really misses the whole point now in their edit.

Anyway, I'm thinking, overall, "NLP 2000" (which I interpret to be "Modern NLP"... is that right?) - this should be what the article is all about. Anything not currently applicable is history. Oh, and changing it to "NLP 2000 Background" is a little stupid ... like "background to the present". GregA 08:27, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Grinder's contributions since 2000

This was also reverted without discussion. It simple states the movements Grinder in recent years. I think it is appropriate for the Recent developments section.... "With the publishing of Whispering in the Wind in 2001, John Grinder and his partner Carmen Bostic St Clair made explicit their intention to set up the field of Neuro-linguistic Programming as a legimate field of human endeavour. The working title, Red Tail math promises to further explicate the epistemology of NLP, including refinements of cybernetic epistemology of Gregory Bateson (1972, 1979) using discrete dynamical systems (Malloy et al 2005) and the inclusion of ecology and emergence (Malloy, Grinder, Bostic, 2005)." --Comaze 00:14, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

2 POVs

I wonder, with the 2 distinct POVs we have here, whether we should try something totally different. I don't think this is working at the moment. I have no idea what might work but if anyone can think of something... put it here? Voice-of-All might have a cool suggestion too, having been through this before.

One thing I'm thinking is that for EVERY section we could write 3 parts - start with agreed description, then to Group A, Group B. A would be the NPOV version ala Greg/Comaze/FT2/TBP/Andy/whoever. Then we have the NPOV version ala Headley/JP/DaveRight/Alice/whoever. I put my view first since sometimes there will be claims that headley's view will wish to respond to, it avoids duplication... though maybe that's not right. Anyway, over time, we find the commonalities and move them slowly to the Agreed section. We can also change our own section to account for quotes presented in the other section. BTW, I suggest we avoid naming groups ";;;pro-NLP", "anti-NLP", "science", etc... since we're all claiming this is Neutral.

That idea mightn't work. At best it should be temporary. At the moment we just overwrite each other and I can't think of a way of representing clearly what both sides are saying in a way that will allow us to bring this together. Maybe someone has a better idea. Maybe some people prefer a mess. I don't know. Your thoughts? GregA 07:00, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

ps. There are many POVs of NLP... but I think in our situation we have 2 POVs of it all... pps. I'm not suggesting this as a "debate" (we're not presenting sides of an argument). I'm suggesting we both be as neutral as we can and back it up with evidence. GregA 07:02, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Hello Greg and people. Actually I would have to disagree about the various POVs. I have taken a back seat for a while and I noticed that there are many distinct POVs in the promoter team, and a more or less agreed POV in the scientist/psychologist team. Seems to me because they choose a useful scientific perspective. Also, the article seems to be getting along fine also. At least, promoters are not removing cited facts 10 times a day each like they used to.Bookmain 07:14, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi Bookmain... I only have a second. Please note I'm not talking about POVs of NLP, but rather our distinct POVs here on this group. There is currently more and more low quality research mixed in with high quality stuff (Morgan is an example - but we can discuss him below). The article does not express what NLP claims, but rather what you want to say it claims - there is no point removing the unrepresentative, misframed, or unscientific stuff you're adding when you just re-add it. It's a broken record (I'm not saying it's all bad, just some). The only way to like the current situation would be if your goal was to present NLP as a mess... and I'm sure none of us want that. I'm suggesting 2 POVs as one way of at least presenting what we've found, and gradually bringing agreement together. I would welcome another option do you have one? GregA 22:49, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Hello GregA. I believe the problem is that NLP is a mass of disagreeing tribes and sects. There are only 3 or so sects here represented by a few "shamen" and not only do the not agree with each other, but they simply don't communicate with all the other sects at all. Just doing a web search you can see all the different types and it is far more than 3, more like 30 or 40. Anyway, it really doesn't help agreement or clarity. How about we (not you) don't bother looking for NLP promoter's (dis)agreement at all, and just stick with non-promotional editor's views based on researched fact? HeadleyDown 15:50, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Headley.

1. you are assuming there is a problem related to disagreement within NLP.
2. you are calling groups within NLP tribes or sects, and people representing them "shamen", please don't hype your view, how about a little rationality?.

GregA. I have given a lot of rationale and rationality. The view I was representing is the view of some sociologists who use the tribe metaphor in order to clarify some aspects of new age movements and cults.HeadleyDown 02:15, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Then you are presupposing NLP is a new age movement or cult, it'll prevent you objectively reading info on NLP. Be careful. GregA 03:02, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

1. I'm glad to see that you do consider a web search valid for inferring some general trends (which contradicts what you said earlier when it showed no support for Engrams), and there are certainly lots of different trainings - I'm VERY interested in what you consider key differences in what they teach (and I'm sure it would help the article) - because from what I've read they share a great amount of core teachings (principles, presuppositions, approaches, processes), though they often apply it in different ways.
2. yes there are also disagreements, it's a weakness of the field that I agree wholeheartedly with - some groups probably make wild claims (though no-one has found a link to show it yet - except via secondary sources), others are quite academic, and training quality varies.
3. there are no non-promotional editors at present (except perhaps Voice-Of-All?) - you are promoting against NLP probably more strongly that we're promoting for NLP, and
4. the research often focuses on a wild claim... it would be a shame not to represent what NLP groups claim in common (plus noting differences) ... instead just working with the pieces that have been researched so far... people wouldn't realise that PRS is a small component, nor that it is not taught as researched :)

GregA 22:52, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

GregA. You are still denying the views and research of scientists, psychotherapists, and psychologists. PRS is only one term or acronym for the core tennets of NLP. The core tennets have been tested, and they were found to be unsupported and pseudoscientific.HeadleyDown 02:15, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

lets discuss PRS in the PRS section.

How does the meta-model fit with your world view? It came before rep systems. How does the CBT support of meta-model language patterns fit? GregA 03:02, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Morgan

I don't know if anyone's actually read the articles. But for example given the citation of Morgan (1993), has anyone actually read Morgan's work? Its basically just a restatement of Heap. Morgan did not undertake any actual research into NLP whatsoever, according to his own writing. [15]

Morgan states that NLP is unsupported. That is his view. It can be in the article.HeadleyDown 10:12, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Morgan did no research. He also uses and references NLP derived methodologies himself constantly, and advertizes himself as "Your number 1 hypnotherapy site!". His statement of what Heap said has as much use as if you or I or any lay-person merely reported Heap's view. It's certainly not academically founded or "research" and it has no standing except reflected standing of heap, who is already cited. Removing from article. TBP 11:59, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi TBP. I am getting tired of NLP promoters twisting the facts. Please learn to research properly.

Here is the Australian Hypnotherapists page version (copied from Dylan 1993) http://www.mindmotivations.com/article1-nlp-assessment.shtml

This is framed “A scientific assessment of NLP”

There is a conclusion section. Here is the conclusion:

Sorry headley but to be scientific is not as simple as labelling your study "a scientific assessment", and having a conclusion :)

Everything you write below is a true quote of the article. That is not the same as being 'true'. He cites heap, he does no research, it's his opinion piece (I'm unsure if it was published?). GregA 22:49, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Hello Greg. Morgan, Dylan A (1993). Scientific Assessment of NLP. Journal of the National Council for Psychotherapy & Hypnotherapy Register Spring 1993: -. Question answered.JPLogan 02:13, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

“The present author is satisfied that the assertions of NLP writers concerning the representational systems have been objectively and fairly investigated and found to be lacking. These assertions are stated in unequivocal terms by the originators of NLP and it is clear from their writings that phenomena such as representational systems, predicate preferences and eye movement patterns are claimed to be potent psychological processes, easily and convincingly demonstrable on training courses by tutors and trainees, following simple instructions, and, indeed, in interactions of everyday life. Therefore, in view of the absence of any objective evidence provided by the original proponents of the PRS hypothesis, and the failure of subsequent empirical investigations to adequately support it, it may well be appropriate now to conclude that there is not, and never has been, any substance to the conjecture that people represent their world internally in a preferred mode which may be inferred from their choice of predicates and from their eye movements.”

It states “and these conclustions”

On his own site [16] Dylan Morgan states after the article:

“I know that some members of the NCP are enthusiastic users of NLP techniques and I would be interested to know their response to this article. On the other hand if you are a member who has tried to use the indirect ways of deducing a person's PRS andfailed, or have tried to pace the presumed PRS and not gained noticeably greater rapport than usual, then you may find comfort in the thought that the fault may not lie in you.

In my own experience a simple question such as, "When you say that do you mean that your actually picture .... to yourself?" is answered happily and openly by people, so that there is no need for devious, indirect or doubtful ways of finding out in detail how their minds are working.”

Dylan Morgan presents it as a Scientific Assessment. Then he infers that if NLP does not work, it is because NLP does not work. He is stating that NLP is:

“Devious, indirect, and doubtful” (Morgan 1993) Journal of the National Council for Psychotherapy & Hypnotherapy Register, Spring 1993. RegardsHeadleyDown 12:47, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

PS. If you want to know Heap’s final word on NLP, believe me it is extremely damning and a harsh one indeed. He read Sharpley’s 1997 paper (that Heap had not taken into account for the prior 1988 report due to timing problems in publication (they take ages)) that irrefutably placed NLP as scientifically unsupported, and then said that NLP is indeed scientifically unsupported, and the conclusion is that NLP completely fails to qualify for clinical testing due to baseless theory, unsupported efficacy, and highly dubious promotion. (Heap 1989).

I assume you mean Sharpley 1987 (not 1997), which you have continually referred to here (and on the main page), but give no further information, study name, etc. You asked if I wanted more information a few weeks back I said an abstract would be great... come on - give the study name, journal at least, or stop referencing it. GregA 22:49, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Drenth, Levelt, Platt, Morgan, Lilienfeld, Eisner, Carroll, Singer, and many others follow this evidence and scientific thinking.HeadleyDown 12:47, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Once again, remember what they wrote. Cult books, Pseudoscience books, skeptic dictionary. QUality independent sources? GregA 22:49, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

I also find it interesting - and not a little suspicious - that Morgan's own website, whose author is supposed (I gather) to be against most of NLP's findings, promotes himself as "The UKs No.1 hypnotherapy site" [17], and if you read his books, Morgan constantly uses Ericksonian Hypnotherapy techniques -- as modelled in NLP by Grinder and Bandler.

I'm also still waiting for your reply, HeadleyDown. NLP is not just "VAK" or "PRS". It is a methodology, and an approach, which has spawned models empirically. Your approach is unscientific. I've asked you to consider my question, five times now. I did so for a very good reason: basic NLP epistemology and models have been widely enough used that it becomes possible to say "in the hands of skilled practitioners, they work". Whether the theoretical explanation of the creators is correct scientifically I don't know. But assorted NLP models are taken seriously and used in other fields. You seem ignorant of that. I think you need to address that aspect - and you should not need to be asked. TBP 09:36, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Oh yes TBP. and exactly what models are you referring to when you say that they are used in other fields? That certainly does need to be askedHeadleyDown 10:30, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi TBP. Also, it is not enough to say that "in the hands of skilled practitioners" because NLP is sold to the general public and hyped to ridiculous levels. Here is a good clarifying statement:

"pseudosciences are characterized by non-reproducable findings that are allegedly mediated by forces unmeasurable by scientific methods. Critics failure to validate these claims are frequently dismissed with the self-serving assertion that the results are obtainable only by those who share the pseudoscientists belief and arcane skill".

Distinguishing science from pseudoscience. (Beyerstein 1995) in Sala et al 1999. Department of psychology Simon Frazer University Canada.

IN short, you seem to be alluding to some arcane skill that cannot be reproduced. But the seminars are so expensive and promise so much! I conclude from your statement that NLP is pseudoscientificHeadleyDown 10:30, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

When I get a chance I'll write up a response to each pseudoscience claim - sometimes to question it, sometimes to agree. Lilienfield makes it quite clear that sciences sometimes do have pseudoscientific aspects and it's a natural part of the process - but when you get lots of the pseudoscience elements the line is not so blurry. GregA 22:49, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Hello TBP. Over the years, NLP has been studied empirically (because it can be tested) and overall it has been found lacking (false in theory, in associations of concepts, and in efficacy). The views of the scientists/psychotherapists/psycholinguists and HR practitioners in the article are that NLP is scientifically unsupported. I know there are subtle differences that NLPers will talk about and they will vary a lot. The science does not vary. The same scientists/psychotherapists/psycholinguists and HR practitioners also say that NLP is pseudoscientific partly because it is unsupported, but also because of other reasons, such as NLPers denying that science has any relevance (even though they claim science half the time and make hypotheses (if you do this, then that will happen).HeadleyDown 10:11, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Those are reasonable questions. Here are some answers for you. I'm sorry if they are a few lines long:

• As regards models that are widely used or respected in other fields, let us pick one example. I think thats a valid approach: If NLP methodology is shown to have validity or be empirically valued in one major case, it becomes difficult to sustain that it is "completely" pseudoscience or "snake oil". Here is one example. The work of Milton Erickson and his professional standing even posthumously, is not in doubt internationally (although interestingly during the 1950s he too was accused and professionally investigated for pseudoscience - and deemed cleared - by the medical profession). His work is the subject of ongoing study, and the foundation of much modern hypnotherapy. It is not considered pseudoscience so far as I am aware, by anybody of serious medical standing. I would have to look up my reference texts next time I'm home, but Erickson himself credited at one point, "I would like to thank Grinder and Bandler, who have explained my approach and methodology so much better than I could have done". This suggests that the classical, core NLP methodology, spawns models and information that have lasting value and insight, and which had not been up until that time identified by other schools of study. (Do you want a source for that?) That in turn conflicts fundamentally with your categorization as "complete pseudoscience".

Heap himself a hypnotherapist talks negatively about Erickson. He uses words such as "if empirical evidence is not used, then practitioners may fall foul of the Erickson/NLP cult".

And concernign NLP: original interest turned to dissolusionment after research and now it is rarely even mentioned in psychotherapy.

Hypnotherapy : a handbook / edited by Michael Heap and Windy Dryden.(1991)HeadleyDown 12:21, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

• Your other point, I find off-target. Most disciplines require skill and practice, and many disciplines (mathematics, medicine, microchip design) are capable of producing results in the hands of knowledgeable experienced practitioners that lay-people cannot reproduce. To take an example, the fact that a thousand amateur mathematicians found Fermat's Last Theorem comprehensible and believed it accessible, and were incited to try and achieve a proof by prizes, and produced myriad flawed "proofs" in both amateurish and subtle ways, does not say anything about whether mathematics, or a proof of it, in skilled hands, are valid. So to argue that because NLP is hyped to the public, therefore it must be ineffective in the hands of a skilled experienced practitioner, is a logical fallacy.

That is not what I meant. I said NLP is hyped to the public, and says if you simply do this, then such and such magic will happen. In addition, the empirical tests on NLP included highly trained experimenters fully capable of conducting NLP.HeadleyDown 12:21, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Not according to Druckman, one of the flaws he gave was not using quality NLPers. How do you determine if your highly trained experimenters are capable of conducting NLP? I would have thought you'd be better off having a highly trained psychological researcher working with highly trained NLP practitioners, if you wanted validity. GregA 22:49, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

• Your third point is misconceived. I have specifically indeed stated that core NLP is objectively verifiable by a third party. In other words, the use of good NLP, in the hands of a skilled practitioner, and the additional impact it can have in a therapeutic or other context, can be recorded, seen and discussed as a case example on video tape, and has been. Another test of its efficacy (though less so because of the placebo effect) is the client's perception of the impact of skilled NLP use, and that too can be tested. However the placebo effect is less likely to be a major factor, because by the nature of the field, good quality NLP can be retrospectively reviewed eg on video, and a commonsense connection discussed even by non-NLP practitioners between action and effect (unlike most pseudoscience). So I think it is a misunderstanding on your part. The skills are not arcane. They are skills which everyday people use daily, but which can be identified and then used very powerfully, rather than used haphazard and poorly as they are usually.

I did not say the skills were arcane. I am merely saying that you are saying the skills are unattainable and untestable by good rigorous and peer reviewed studies into NLP.HeadleyDown 12:21, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

• A final point, important to be aware of: It is not always certain which exact part of NLP may be critical, so practitioners as a rule use many methods combined and in parallel, so there is limited clarity which specific aspect of their work is "responsible". Probably all of them contribute to some degree. This is the most complex aspect of the "skillset". For example, a practitioner with even basic skill may be using combined and simultaneously:

Now we are back to wholism again. Pure pseudo thinkingHeadleyDown 12:21, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, some psychologists argue that you have to isolate the variables entirely to be scientific. Even then, the hard sciences call it the soft science. Other psychologists (particularly those practicing forms of psychotherapy) argue that the variables can not be isolated so easily. I really don't think we should have that argument in the NLP area, but if it's nowhere else.... GregA 22:49, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

• Crossmatching (as opposed to mirroring) in body movement or voice,
• Watching skin tone, micromuscle movement, and eye motions for unconscious responses or other potential nonverbal communications,
• Listening for critical metamodel or other recognized patterns,
• Forming precise hypotheses as to what might be important unconscious or unstated factors in the client's own behavior and ways of thinking, promising directions that will benefit the client therapeutically, or other neuro-linguistic patterns, and carefully testing these with the client's own observed and heard feedback as a guide,
• Structuring their own choice of language to keep the client exploring their own inner experience rather than "jarring" or moving away from productive internal discovery,
• Incorporating in their communication at the same time as all the above, specific techniques (examples: metamodel, milton model, reframing, dissociation, multiple points of view, time reorientation, metaphor) which for some clients facilitate the reduction of more difficult or established emotional or conceptual limitations and other problematic conceptual hinderances in the client's world-view and thus make more self-awareness available to the client,
• Ensuring that their entire language use avoids imposing their own preconceptions of what "must be" or how the world "is" in favor of working within the client's own viewpoint,
• Considering broader goals such as ensuring the client is considering unexpected consequences of his wishes to choose the best all-round outcome, ie that the impact on or influence of others involved is being duely considered by the client,
• Structuring their approach so that the work done is constructed in a way so as to be synergistic with existing belief if appropriate.....
• ... And these are all dynamic, thus at any moment an observation of client action or behavior may suggest a completely new approach or aspect to be checked out. It's said that good NLP should be 90% skilled information gathering (of client verbal and non-verbal communication), and only 10% action.

That's just the start of basic skill level for professional use of NLP, and it's a bit like driving a car or truck: good NLP is constant awareness, pure learned neutral observation, constant conscious and unconscious working with objectively verifiable feedback - and never quite predictable. That is classical NLP in action, and a lab test where an unskilled reader uses word type A rather than word type B and concludes that NLP is ineffective as a result, doesn't even start to come close. To be honest, it's a testing methodology I'd expect to be inappropriate.

TBP 11:55, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Again, it makes no difference what I think. With respectable scientists/linguists/psychotherapists/and management specialists stating that NLP is pseudoscience, because it is scientifically unsupported, and because of the kind of pseudoscientific arguments you have just put forward, plus the incredibly pseudoscientific arguments that others put forward, it is clearly pseudoscientific. These views carry great weight, especially next to the pseudoscientific views of those who have absolutely zero regard for verifying their own assertions, and go on with the infomercial as if they have the answers to everyone's problems and the key to the universe. So we are back to scientology again!HeadleyDown 12:21, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Of course it makes a difference what you think. You are looking up articles to support your theory. It SHOULDN'T make a difference, but if that were so we'd be discussing things entirely differently and not quoting some of the more dubious sources (the good sources should be good enough for the article). Remember we are not saying that there are not some clearly pseudoscientific arguments put forward by some people - we are saying that the majority of NLP practitioners do not (which is entirely different). Your generalisation that NLP claims to have an answer to everyone's problem is sad and unrepresentative. Also no matter what you said previously, where do you get "back to scientology".... you're implying a link that's not there at all. GregA 22:49, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

And again you appear to willfully misread my words.

• Erickson: First, the question is, is Erickson's work snake oil? I think you'd have a hard time selling that view. Note that Heap is not referencing Erickson's work so much as the cult-like following it attracted. Erickson himself was a clinician of international standing and recognition in his lifetime, and his work has been clinically deemed to be significant. Citations available if needed. Or see the article on his life and work for more. Unless you want to present a case (despite the evidence) that Erickson's work has no validity, I think you have to acknowledge that Grinder and Bandlers methodology, analysis and models drawn from it, which he acknowledged were better than he himself could have done, were also significant.
• Fallacy: Your original statement was (summarized) "its not good enough to say genuine practitioners can achieve results, because it's hyped to the public too". That is a fallacy. Especially, I have never come across good quality NLP saying A will always cause B. It's always "this is a rule of thumb but always check it in each individual case".
• Arcane: 1st quote "In short, you seem to be alluding to some arcane skill that cannot be reproduced", 2nd quote "I did not say the skills were arcane". Make your mind up.
• Misreading: My comment: "core NLP is objectively verifiable by a third party... by the nature of the field, good quality NLP can be retrospectively reviewed eg on video, and a commonsense connection discussed even by non-NLP practitioners between action and effect (unlike most pseudoscience)". Your comment: "...you are saying the skills are unattainable and untestable by good rigorous and peer reviewed studies into NLP". Is it just me, or are you reading the exact opposite of my words?
• Wholism: No Headley, saying that a skill is complex and has many aspects, and it is not always clear in any one circumstance which may have been the critical one, is not wholism. Gods sake man, learn what these words mean. Wholism is saying that something cannot be understood analytically by examining its parts. I bullet pointed some 10 parts to look at, and observe that because it is multi-faceted in this way, it is more complex to design a good test for it, but that (as stated above) none the less, the parts and their impacts are objectively separable.

The problem with your viewpoint is, it is becoming more and more obvious that it is circular and POV: "NLP is pseudoscience, therefore any clinical evidence to the contrary must be unscientific and any statement suggesting objective verifiability can be safely ignored".

One of your "evidence" citations (Morgan) turns out to be using NLP and not to actually be any form of researcher at all, but merely a relayer of others research which was used to make it appear (incorrectly) there were two sets of conclusions. Another (Heap, 1988) you have selectively quoted to avoid disclosing his full view on NLP. His full comment even on the limited scope of matching, if you had read it, included:

"On the balance the findings have been negative but a number of positive outcomes have been reported, enough to suggest that there may be some beneficial effect of matching, perhaps not specific to predicates but to more general linguistic and non-linguistic behaviour, as indeed NLP writers themselves have suggested."

That's quite a far stretch from snake oil and complete pseudoscience.

Don’t ever, ever, quote scientific research that way, Headley, without checking sources, citing the critical caveats, and giving a neutral view of their findings. When I ask you to justify something, in a reasonable factual tone, I do not honestly expect dismissive hyperbole back.

TBP 12:55, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

OK TBP. So far I hear you telling me how to behave - ever ever! I see you removing fact (Morgan's contribution to his 1993 paper includes the words devious, indirect, dubious attributed to NLP). I see you wanting to misinterpret my own words towards your point of view. I see Heap is scathing of NLP, and his final words conclude that NLP is completely unsupported and do not even qualify for expensive clinical studies. People looking in will come to their own conclusions. I want to move on and focus on the cited facts.HeadleyDown 13:23, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Just to clarify and simplify proceedings. Lets focus on baseline conclusions please. The article is supposed to be encyclopedic. It is not a work in itself so much as a report of findings of what NLP actually is and does, and science gets a lot of weight, especially in relation to the enormous amount of fog inducing commercial hype. Best regardsHeadleyDown 13:28, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

You hear me saying several times that you need to answer questions not just assume you have the answers. To consider not condescend. To not take my words and then tell me I said the exact opposite or make up straw man responses. To not include a research source plus a published personal view on that source, and cite them claiming they are two different researches. Not to take research that includes important qualifiers that suggest those you think of as "opponents" are in fact not wholely rejected by those you think of as "scientists", and suppress it when it doesn't suit you.

Your call to "just focus on facts" and "baseline" and "encyclopediac" is one I support, but not in the same way you do. Your idea of these is "I don't want to be bothered with the possibility that there could be merit in both sides' views". You already know what you want the article to say, as witness your selective concept of "neutral reporting". A good call to "focus on facts" covers all facts, good "baseline conclusions" are not predetermined, and a good question right now would be "what is a balanced wiki-neutral view that fairly represents the other information too".

Yes, Headley. I am telling you how to behave. So is WP:NPOV, if you had read it. And so is the scientific method, if you hold any respect for it at all. I have indulged your bias and ignorance with courtesy and patience. I've asked you questions, and watched you quibble and throw up fallacious specious dismissals, and when answered ignore the question anyhow by effectively saying "Let's treat it as agreed and settled and I want to move on". It doesn't seem that you made any dedicated attempt to pursue NPOV by verifying whether there was in fact formal research or other academic papers contradicting your view or broadly supportive of the various NLP methodologies. Wikipedia is a co-operative venture, with the goal of representing what's known on topics, and – so far as NPOV is wikipedia policy – you need to learn to work within it, however much you might want it not to (or feel it shouldn't) apply to you.

TBP 18:03, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Really everyone. Stop with the pointless arguments. All mediation requests for citations and refs have been honoured in a very prompt manner, as far as I can see. Job done!JPLogan 02:13, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Platt

A Note from the peanut gallery....(please forgive the lack of formal Wikipedia formatting I just signed up the other day - I've been following this for a week or so now and I've noticed a tendency for the "antiNLP" group to consistantly ignore "ProNP" arguments. The only comment I can make on this (we all have our own viewpoint) is this example:

The Platt article is constantly cited throughout. Yet the article published in the same magazine the very next month as a reply by Susan Knight was never mentioned anywhere.

And for the record I am a Chemical Engineer, with a MS degree in Industrial Chemistry (so I know more about "science" than most). I also am an NLP Trainer (trained by Tad James) and hypnotherapist. User: JohnStrasser (john@lifetranscendent.com)

I agree John Strasser. Platt ref should be balanced with the reply, and given equal weight. Be bold, if there are no objections go ahead and make the change, by adding the Sue Knight reply to the references with a paraphrase or direct quote of her opinion. You can post here as a draft. --Comaze 02:05, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi JohnStrasser. Believe me a week is nothing here. I have had to put up with the same old argument and deletions of fact and twisted accusations for months. The arguments presented today are simply reiterated and oversized nagging that has been dealt with many times over. It will probably continue, but I don't care. The facts remain. Scientific views say that NLP is unsupported, pseudoscientific, and those views will be heard. The other info is about NLP devotees such as you saying that they don't like the facts. BTW Tad James is the remote influence ESP Huna guy isn't he? I believe he taught John LaTourrette, another remote influence guru in the US! I think that answers Greg's ESP question. RegardsHeadleyDown 01:44, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Headley... the "scientific views" say, when you do research that includes reviewing and summarizing other research in a field, you review both papers that show the view you incline to, and those which tend to support or suggest the opposing view, both, neutrally. I see no evidence you have dont this. Your view is nicely summarized, one couldn't summarize more honestly if one tried: "I don't care". But NPOV means caring and checking both sides... and reporting a balanced article on the field neutrally. I don't see that your logic or knowledge justifies a claim to be competent in the field to do that.

How hard exactly have you looked for scientists and science not concluding NLP is pseudoscience, or whose papers included indicators such as qualified interest, recommendations for further research in the light of suggestive but not conclusive results, or out and out positive findings? If you found any, shouldn't you include them? And if you didn't look properly, then by what right are you trying to say what NLP is or is not? TBP 03:29, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

---

Hello I am Hans Antel an occupational psychologist

I studied NLP under Grinder's teachings. Luckilly for me and unlucky for my employer, I did not have to pay for the expensive study. I stayed open to the teachings and tried to apply them wherever I could during my job for months afterwards and found them to be lacking compared to the other techniques and applications that I had learned throughout my undergraduate training in traditional scientific methods. I also attended conference meetings with other NLP enthusiasts in Europe (especially France Denmark and Germany). I could still not get any real knowledge or effective technique from them, and they seemed to be very good at telling stories and explaining away their failures. I did make further studies and (well I knew already the theories were highly wrong because I have a Master degree in psychology), and I then found that the methods did mainly not work in experimental testing also. Regarding the engram term European NLP enthusiasts do find it useful and one of them explained to me that the word (as a nominalization) was useful for getting people to believe that words can make permanent changes in the brain. He said that engram was useful because it is convincing. I have also heard asian NLP enthusiasts talking using the engram term as central to neurology. Its a neurology word, so why not! I have also been watching this discussion and really NLP users do not have anything to add apart from stories. That is the way NLP has developed. Testing gives a very negative view and that is how my psychotherapy friends see NLP. Its actually turned out to be quite a comedy system of therapy, but not intentionally. I am grateful for the studies presented here, and I think Platt and I have a lot of experience in common. I also found the Von Bergen reference to be extremely useful. I wrote a report on NLP for publication at my local training authority and I also emailed it and other research to Alice De Grey. It is negative in conclusion, but the research is balanced according to the guidelines of my professional body.

If you like NLP, then fine for you! Just don't expect your stories or opinion to be published in an encyclopedia. Hans AntelHansAntel 03:33, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the ref Hans. To be fair though one should not conduct one's own work for wikipedia, it is about other views. To be sure though, the other information and the refs provided are really super (especially the mainland European ones) and will be very useful. ATBAliceDeGrey 05:54, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Personal research can be included in wikipedia as long as it is published by a reputable publisher or academic journals (for academic subjects). --Comaze 11:34, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi Comaze. Alice forwarded me a copy of the euro references. Believe me, you do not want to go there:)HeadleyDown 12:09, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Morgan and Heap

I added "Morgan, 1993" to all areas the do not already have Heap.Voice of All ^{Talk|@|Esperanza} 02:41, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

I'd accept you quoting Heap. Morgan himself does not appear to be a researcher or a source, merely a commenter on others reviews. He isn't encyclopaedic in the "cite your sources" reference sense. I've changed those additions to "Heap 1988"s since citing what are really Heap's findings as being "Morgan 1993" as if Morgan did research, is inappropriate. Morgan merely wrote an opinion on them. This does not change the impact in terms of information. TBP 03:17, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

OK, thats fine with me. Actually I considered doing that, but thought it too bold.Voice of All ^{Talk|@|Esperanza} 03:26, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Hello VoiceOfAll. You are right about being too bold. I believe that reference (Morgan, Dylan A (1993). Scientific Assessment of NLP. Journal of the National Council for Psychotherapy & Hypnotherapy Register Spring 1993) is going to have to go right back up there. Morgan is a PhD in psychology and has published many times over. I have the article right here with me, and it has an abstract that says Dr Morgan conducts a scientific assessment of NLP as a follow up to Heap's negative study on NLP. NLP continues to gain an increasingly negative assessment from clinical practitioners of hypnotherapy. Remember that the article states that "the verdict will be a harsh one indeed". Well, Morgan does further studies and action research and finds that NLP fails according to his scientific assessment and research. So he calls it Deceptive and dubious. This is a follow up. I would always second check web refs if I were you. They often snip important parts. Also, just for a little perspective, if you go to a good academic university library, NLP's contribution is puny. Next to psychology, psychotherapy NLP is incredibly fringe. In hypnotherapy books, NLP is becoming less and less mentioned and never even got much mention in the first place. Considering how little regard NLP gets from reputable sources, Dr Morgan's scientific followup and final word assessment is entirely relevant. It is also the view of a world renowned clinical hypnotherapist. ATBBookmain 04:23, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Dylan Morgan... "world renowned clinical hypnotherapist". Let's see.

• Dylan Morgans Bio [18] which if he was "world renowned" would presumably say so, lists no signs opf world renown. he was "editor" on a Psychotherapists journal, and lists his work gained due to his qualifications as: These qualifications enabled me at various times to be: Road Manager for a Rock Band; Civil Servant at a Government Research Establishment (the Official Secrets Act limits what I can say about this); one of the Paparazzi - I still have a collection of informal pictures of the Royal Family and the Scottish aristocracy; Lecturer at Universities; Photographer for The Edinburgh Tatler and Horse and Hound; Private Tutor; Winner of the Flowering Scythe Award for my Gardening; a Telephone Samaritan; a World Expert in noise generation by jet engines and high speed helicopter blades; and I have travelled to Russia, Germany, Denmark, Holland, Ireland, Norway, Yugoslavia and Sweden for Conferences and other purposes. (!)
• Morgan cites his skill area as Ericksonian hypnotherapy. Erickson's methodology is the one unpacked within NLP which Erickson himself credited for explaining it "better than he could". Grinder and Bandler were the people who initially made Milton's skills - the ones that Morgan uses - accessible to the world, in "Patterns in the Hypnotic Techniques of Milton Erickson, Vol 1 + 2". Before then Erickson's work was renowned, but not well understood and close to unreplicable by third party therapists. It doesn't sound much like Morgan's calling their work "pseudoscience" if he bases his career on it.
• Morgans works are (apparently) not peer reviewed. I could not find academic approval for any of what he called "Morganic" hypnosis. If an NLP trainer labelled his personal development "Morganic NLP", I think we'd hear "pseud" faster than you can say "hypnotic handshake"...
• Erickson has a Wikipedia article. Gilligan has a wikipedia article. Apparently Dylan Morgan doesn't. The only single reference anyone has made to this "world renowned" expert is here. Not conclusive, but noteworthy.
• I have looked on Google for dylan morgan hypnotherapy. There is not one significant credible link in the first 100 that indicates any professional reference other than that one might expect from a practitioner who has a practice, has published books, and has a website with reference material. (By contrast, a search for stephen gilligan hypnotherapy -- a genuine "world renowned clinical hypnotherapist", and protege of Erickson -- has within the first page many references to interviews, conference speeches, pages referring to him as an expert, and the like)

Changes reverted, Morgan appears to have no especial standing to qualify him to make a statement any more than any other individual hypnotherapist. He is not evidenced as being especially academically reputed, nor apparently were the views you quoted academically (much less formally peer) reviewed, they are in the form primarily of an opinion regarding Heap's work. Morgan is most assuredly from the look of it not a world renowned expert, and his own self-written bio does not especiallly reflect the usual evidence of lifelong world renowned clinical expertise. His article is posted, apparently in full, on his own website [19], and clearly is a mere discussion and opinion of Heap. Last but noteworthy, his hypnotherapy site contains enough hype to more than qualify for labelling as "hype", in the manner you label and dismiss NLP.

Like I told HeadleyDown. Don't invent facts (in your case, an attributed standing) to support a POV source, Bookmain, if that source is not in fact anything like the person you claim. What part of "neutral" and "scientific method" do you not understand in WP policy? Reverted.

TBP 05:06, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't particularly see Morgan as having done much NLP research, although he does have notable degrees and did review words by Heaps. Lets just stick with having Heaps instead of Morgan.Voice of All ^{Talk|@|Esperanza} 05:25, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Just a word, VoiceOfAll. The alternative is to quote Morgan specifically as a published follow up verification of Heap with additional conclusions (NLP is devious etc). I noticed that Morgan is actually quoted as a review by other sources including the Carroll book 2003 and others. regards Tim Brooks.

If Morgan has done anything much more than opined informally on Heap, then it doesn't matter who cites him. His work is then just the opinion of a random hypnotherapist around the world, not especially skilled at the rest of NLP perhaps, with no particular qualification, giving a personal opinion on a paper. Its that simple. if you can find evidence he himself added original research, and that his standing as a researcher is such as to be a reputable competent original researcher, and that the research added by him was done to that standard and with the usual quality control expected of any academic review or testing, then please point me to it. Namely, please show me the original research Morgan added to Heap that's not on Morgan's own copy of Morgan's own article on Morgan's own web page as linked. This is what Morgan wrote:

• Para.1: I am sure we have all read something about NLP. But not all of us have had the chance to study and test it.
• Para.2: Heap did some research
• Para.3: What Heap studied
• Para.4: Why what Heap studied matters
• Para.5: The assertations can be tested. Heap reviewed the literature to summarize previous results.
• Para.6-7: Summarizes Heap's entire findings in 6 sentences. Morgan omits a critical qualification in which Heap stated cautious supportive evidence found for the NLP phenomenae.
• Para.8-9: Quotes three chunks of Heap's paper
• Para.10: If you want to know more, this is where Heap's paper can be found
• Para.11: Soliciting views on this
• Para.12: adding his own opinion "In my own experience [note informality], a simple question can be answered openly and happily, there is no need for devious, indirect or doubtful ways of finding out in detail how their minds are working." Pure personal opinion.

That is the entirety of Morgan's "paper". Its an editorial publicizing Heap's review, nothing more.

TBP 05:55, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi Tim. Right, I think this is a fair compromise (though I also see it as an acceptable scientific review especially since it is quoted by others). Actually we did have Morgan's conclusion that NLP is devious and dubious in the article before, but it got lost during one of Comaze's deletionfests. I'll post it back in. ATBAliceDeGrey 05:50, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

TBP, read the actual paper. It contains far more than the web ref.AliceDeGrey 06:04, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

The quote you have inserted is clearly marked as personal opinion. "I don;t see the need for X". Morgan is an everyday hypnotherapist of apparently no especial standing, who uses Milton Model in his work, and markets himself with hype. This should not be a difficult one to handle..... should it? TBP 06:07, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

TBP. Also read around the subject of NLP more thoroughly. I have several other refs that state and even categorize officially, NLP as a dubious therapy, a pseudoscience, a pseudoscientific subject, and daft:) Are you goint to place "personal opinion" on all the scientific viewpoints?AliceDeGrey 06:07, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

No, but that one especially, was. Separately, I would like to ask the same as I asked HeadleyDown. Did you also review the research literature for articles to check that there were not equally, a variety of papers that concluded supportive (or cautiously positive) to any of NLP's claims? What did you check, and what did you find? Honest answer please, I don't mind if its "I didnt look hard", I just want to know what you did and what you found. TBP 06:10, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi TBP. I can't speak for everyone, but the amount of refs on this article is astounding and I certainly can supply more. Nearly all of the refs I have were collected from libraries and photocopied. I can check them all. I have looked at many papers (similar to Platt's efforts) and overall they fail to support NLP. For the sake of this article we only have space for reviews of those studies. All of the refs I have on Lilienfeld, Levelt, Drenth, Eisner, Carroll, Singer, Heap, plus all the follow up books by heap and others state in clear terms that NLP is scientifically unsupported. I see no reviews that say NLP is supported.HeadleyDown 07:32, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Just as an aside, I have done my best to phrase the research neutrally (eg, scientifically unsupported, pseudoscience etc), but the more that supporters and promoters will try to delete and deny, the more likely it is that the fact will come back with the actual harsh words attached as happened today (devious and so on). Cooperation is important here as there seem to be newcomers who simply want to strip the article of facts and science, and replace them with the confusing hypelanguage that is present throughout NLP books. I just want to keep the article in good orderHeadleyDown 07:32, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

"Pseudoscience" reads to me (as a sceptic) as a very strong condemnation, on the line with "devious". "Fails scientific tests" and "Is often too vaguely formulated to be testable" or similar would seem neutral to me. Eivind Eklund 09:49, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Lilienfield (2003)

I don't know where to post this so please move it if you need to ... I've added a link to the google print text of Lilienfield (2003), and fixed one of the attributes. The interesting point I want to make is that Lilienfield defines NLP as a unvalidated "therapeutic method" that claims to cure phobias in a few minutes. Firstly, therapy is just just one application of the NLP. And secondly empirical testing of a phobia reduction process without a well-formed outcome, or trance work or dealing with secondary gains is not fair testing. Thirdly, Lilienfield's definition of NLP is extremely biased toward apply mechanistic research methodology to natural systems. This goes back to the holism in science argument, and Gregory Bateson's influence on NLP. This is the problem with trying to test NLP with an outdated (but still popular in psyhcology) behavorism test. Bateson would be turning in his grave. Also note that Discrete Dynamic Systems (Malloy 2005) and other chaos/complexity theories and tools that John Grinder is now using, is argued by some mechanistic scientists to be pseudoscientific. Also, engram (although it is not common in NLP) is another example of attempting to import a mechanistic concept to test NLP, it is simply not part of NLP. Lashley, actually was instrumental in proposing distributed representation when he was not able to find an engrams (1957). The idea of distributed representation and emergence (Grinder, Bostic, Malloy, 2005) is more in line with NLP epistemology. --Comaze 04:16, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Hello Comaze. I think its time for you to focus on the issue.Bookmain 04:29, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Could someone else please check this revert by Bookmain [20]. The comment description does not match the changes made. --Comaze 05:05, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Mechanism

Bookmain, To be fair, a reply to why NLP (especially Grinder & Bandler) does not use mechanistic behaviorism is relevant POV. This will sort out alot the current disputes in one hit. I urge to actually read Bateson (1972) if you want critically review NLP. This relates to chomskyan revolution that sparked the creation of Transformational Grammar which had a huge influence on NLP foundations. For example, A guide to transformational Grammar, Grinder & Elgin, ~1972 really sets to foundations for NLP's first book Structure of Magic, which also has an introduction to Transformational Grammar. --Comaze 04:53, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Relevence of TV Marketing?

Also, your ref on TV NLP is irrelevant in relation to all the other research presented. Firstly, if you can present that single study, then we will have to paste in all the other refs done by Platt. Secondly, it is not a study conducted using people as therapists. It uses TVs. TVs do not do constant recallibration.Bookmain 04:29, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Check the peer-reviewed journal Bookman, the article is NLP application to TV marketing, not therapy. This is a separate POV. NLP application in marketing is everywhere, yet there are not many journals about it. But this may be outweighed by hundreds of non-academic books on the subject from reputable publishers. --Comaze 04:53, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

HeadleyDown

I am getting a little tired of Comaze's antagonism. Please VoiceOfAll, tell me exactly whether you consider my actions vandalism. Comaze has just placed one of these labels on my page:

<test4>

I just think things could be done with a little more respect for those willing to do actual good research, and perhaps just a little more control of those promoters who seem overanxious to delete facts and add add confusing hype and who seem unable to contribute anything clarifying or concise.HeadleyDown 07:46, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

User:HeadleyDown, I have a problem with this comment. Good science is, you say what you know, and make clear what is likely, possible or unknown fairly. Pseudoscience you make claims which are not in accordance with reality regardless. Thats the whole point being discussed. Your comment here is in that sense "pseudoscience". It is a threat or promise, that you have no jurisdiction over, no power to fully enforce, no place to make. It's a sham. It's hyperbole, not fact. Comaze may or may not post some things on a page, but you lack the authority to state that "the next time" he will or will not be "blocked from editing wikipeida". A system wide ban? You know that would take quite a bit more than one person's (especially your) upset. Ungrounded threats of that kind, are inappropriate on WP, and to that extent you too place yourself fully in the wrong. FT2 09:37, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi FT2. I did not suggest that anyone be banned. I am stating that Comaze's brand of persistent antagonism is entirely unhelpful.HeadleyDown 10:51, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

I put that we move this discussion to a personal talk page. --Comaze 11:19, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Headley, this is the text that you placed on Comaze's talk page: This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize a page, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. That is exactly the opposite of your later claim "I did not suggest that anyone be banned". FT2 12:09, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

FT2, I did warn formally HeadleyDown on his talk page. It is not cool to bring it up in a public discussion page. --Comaze 13:16, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Hello FT2. I believe there is some confusion here. I seriously do not ever remember writing anything on Comaze's talk page. Please post the link, and we can sort this out.HeadleyDown 12:14, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

OK FT2 I have located the confusion. I actually posted this on the article discussion page, but then Comaze decided to post it on his own page - "Yes, thats true Comaze. But first I think we should explore options for getting you banned for your persistent misdeeds and antagonistic goading.HeadleyDown 05:39,"

I was exploring options. This was after months of Comaze deleting over 10 cited references at a time, posting nasty messages on reasonable and non-vandalizing editor's talk pages, and making stated commitments to promoting a Bandler/Grinder only viewpoint throughout the whole article. Anybody behaving such as Comaze has, will no doubt recieve far less tolerant treatment on other pages. The view was clearly shared among other constructive editors also.HeadleyDown 12:22, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Hello VoiceOfAll. I would like to enquire here, what would you regard as blatant disregard for NPOV policy? (banning action)HeadleyDown 12:22, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

(I have updated the section on principles and presuppositions. It's now factual, in the sense that 1/ it does not, so far as I am aware, claim anything that is not commonly understood to be the case, 2/ it describes NLP neutrally, 3/ No claims or statements are made that are unverifiable as far as I can tell, 4/ It explains both terms. Any criticisms please bring here, do not full-revert as I am unaware of anything controversial or disputed written in that section. FT2 16:01, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Accusations

Putting up "test4" tags when you are unable to block people generally should not be done unless perhaps, it is a vandal, and you want other admins to be able to see how many severe vandal actions the vandal comitted. Blocking people because you disagree with them is disgraceful, and his lead to the arbitration and de-adminship of SteveVertigo.

Both of you have put up threats that you cannot enforce against each other, in addition to the fact that noy only did nobody commit vandalism, but that punishment is not even appropriate for the first instance of vandalism(if there was any). I don't know who put up the first tag, but however put up the second one is not better than the first. Thoughtlessly mirroring other people remarks that you felt offensive/and or disagreed with is used by A)People who can't control their temper or B)Experienced trolls; so both of you are in the wrong here, as previously stated.

Unless their is true vandalism/trolling or 3RR violations, then admins will not block people.

False "test" signs must be promptly removed.

Lets try to keep warning signs off the discussion page; and if you have a conduct issue, then tell me first.Voice of All ^{Talk|@|Esperanza} 16:41, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Thank you VoiceOfAll. That clears things up. I would like to point out that Comaze broke the 3RR rule for weeks, and did so multiple times a day, and also made a statement of commitment to continue in this way until a Bandler/Grinder view only was presented on the article. This is the main reason for intention to seek for banning of Comaze (because his behavior was persistent and entirely uncooperative). As I said, today I made no suggestion to ban. However, Comaze has been placing warning labels on any non promotional editor for weeks and not removing them dispite having zero evidence to support the posting. He also "caps" edits that he likes with his own minor multiple edits whenever he possibly can in order to make it very hard for anyone else to make changes without reverting them. It is irritating, although the only real solution is to ignore him and revert regardless of whether his edits are good or not. I noticed that it has also been irritating other NLP promoters and has possibly led to different opinions there also. I wish to keep things constructive, and Comaze is deliberately irritating. How can anyone assume good faith in the face of months of this kind of nonsense several times a day?

Anyone editing an aspect of the article that is being debated in the talk should edit as a single, exclusive, edit, as opposed to mixing it with spelling corrections/ect...Also, edit summaries should mention such edits. Thank you.Voice of All ^{Talk|@|Esperanza} 17:07, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, we all know the conventions, VoiceOfAll. But how are you going to get Comaze to stop irritating hard working editors?:)HeadleyDown 17:19, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Comaze has been doing it again. [21] RegardsHeadleyDown 02:51, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm not going to take your bait. Contact me on my talk page if you wish to resolve this.--Comaze 03:19, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Hello again VoiceOfAll

I must point out the continued harassment and vandalism from NLP promoters. I will remain tolerant, as usual. I have not heard of any reports of any nonproNLP editors posting this kind of negatively destructive or antagonistic slur on blatant NLP promoter's personal discussion pages. My first reaction is to simply put it down to NLP being a cult, yet it is more than that. Promoters seem to be doing their utmost to slur and defame non-promotional editors as far as they are possible, as well as recruit damage from other newsgroups. I realise this harassment will probably continue as it has been a constant so far. I just wish to point this out. I fully understand there is not much you can do about it.

81.151.13.17 = Andy Bradbury an NLP author (with vested interests in promotion and hype) working with other promoters (also with vested commercial interests) on the alternative page and was vandalising my personal article.

evidence:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:HeadleyDown

RegardsHeadleyDown 15:17, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

To non-promotional NLP editors

Hello non nlp promotional editors. Progress has been good as regards mediation and they will continue to improve as long as we all stay cool.

• Since the article has been well covered and cited, and those citations have been verified multiple times even in mediation, it is time to accept the facts. The mediation requests have been satisfied as regards citations, and there are clearly more to come that can satisfy them further. However, it is clear that some NLP promoters are using whatever tactic they can to antagonize even after statements from the mediator, they try to make it appear that questions have not been answered, to add hyperbole and jargon, and generally confuse conclusive scientific findings by adding minor single and irrelevant speculative NLP studies. They also seem to be attempting to break the 100Kilobite barrier on file size.

• The solution is to stay cool, take a harder scientific line (exclude single minor speculative studies) and do not stand for any self-desctructive NLPpromotional behaivor. NLP is about neuro, linguistics (neuro linguistics) and programming. It uses scientific sounding jargon and misplaced concepts in a confusing way, and therefore must be clarified using scientific studies, neurology, psychology and other reliable and neutral sources.

• The solid evidence presented has indeed been covered in the archives multiple times. If an NLP promoter insists that they have not had their question answered when it has been covered before, simply stay cool and refer them to the archives.

• If an NLP promoter insists that the scientific studies are wrong, or that science is wrong in general, then they are using a pseudoscientific argument, and can be directed to the archives.

• If an NLP promoter makes multiple edits in order to make editing harder then simply revert. If it is convenient, try not to delete any valid edits in the process, but if it is not convenient, simply revert the lot.

• Do your best to help the mediator as NLP is deliberately very confusing. Provide help with seperating obscurantist jargon from real neurology or psychology, and help with the identification of hype and pseudoscientific argument and NLP excuses.

• Considering the rigor of the present article (though the 2000 section still needs checking and making concise) it is clear that further NPOV clarifying and brevifying can occur. Stay cool and use science and scientific terms and thinking to clarify and brevify. Best regards JPLogan 04:29, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree if something has already been said, we should refer to what's said (from any POV). Unfortunately the archives are huge and saying "see archives" is a waste of time - I propose we simply cut the relevant quote from the archive as a response, keeping the date and who said it. This can avoid any misunderstanding of what someone has asked and what has already been said. GregA 20:59, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Splendid ideas JP. I will help VoiceOfAll as much as possible with searches. ATB AliceDeGrey 04:42, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Principles and presuppositions

I have just reinstated a correct description of this section. I have re-read this section and find that everything in it is extremely common NLP knowledge, and fully in line with the coverage of these areas in standard NLP texts.

Correct according to who? I believe it needs to be reduced in size. It also needs to be framed from a linguistic perspective especially as regards the actual meaning of "presupposition".JPLogan 04:40, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Headley, if you wish to revert please first mention here exactly which statements you feel are inaccurate. Rather than mass-reverting the entire definition. This is in compliance with wiki standards that say a dispute over wording should be hammered out on the talk page rather than repeatedly reverted.

I agree to some extent with this FT2, but under these circumstances (Voieofall's recommendations) Headley is justifiedJPLogan 04:40, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

I find the other implication of your revertion, namely that you do not in fact understand the difference between a principle (core NLP assumption) and presupposition (meta model linguistic pattern), and are so unfamiliar with them as to need a reference source to be sure which is which of these two very different things, disturbing, especially combined with previous ignorance and high-handedness shown here.

As NLP is about changing presups and using the metamodel, to go into such detail is making the article a "how to". NLP is about HOW TO change beliefs. It is not necessary and it makes the article oversizedJPLogan 04:40, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

If you do not understand the subject, Headley, you are not an appropriate person to be editing what are fundamental common basics of definition written by those who do. It's like reverting an edit in an article on logic and then showing you do not know the difference between an axiom and a predicate. Discuss here before editing stuff you don't understand the background of. FT2 21:39, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Headley, when your read FT2's comments as above, just stay cool as you normaly do:)JPLogan 04:40, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

While we're about it, I asked User:HeadleyDown "How hard exactly have you looked for scientists and science not concluding NLP is pseudoscience, or whose papers included indicators such as qualified interest, recommendations for further research in the light of suggestive but not conclusive results, or out and out positive findings? If you found any, shouldn't you include them? And if you didn't look properly, then by what right are you trying to say what NLP is or is not?"

It seems he didn't like being asked this, because he never answered. I'd like an answer headleyDown. Ignorance is not a credible qualification for editorship here.

TBP 22:05, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

TBP, refer to the archives. Your question is answered there.JPLogan 04:40, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Please provide question more clearlyHeadleyDown 02:53, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

You claim you have a scientific approach. And that you have cited papers and therefore are certain there is nothing of merit in NLP and it is all complete pseudoscience. I am concerned because from here, I see you deleting competent edits and avoidjng genuine neutral discussion, brushing it off with dismissal. That may not be how you see yourself, it's how you appear at the moment here.

Referring to my claim to scientific approach. For the past months NLP promoters have been working hard to remove cited facts from this article, and even recruiting vandals from newsgroups in order to do it and asking each other to do it. Messages have been placed on my and other non promoter's talk pages warning us to stop vandalising, and threatening to block (Comaze). This slur campaign has been conducted by a long standing fact deleting NLP promoter with a commitment to push a Bandler/Grinder viewpoint only. Considering that other proNLPers have followed some of Comaze's actions, I consider him the ring leader, and you a follower of his activities. I have no time for that kind of long term and highly work-intensive uncooperative activity. If I am taking a hard line, it is completely understandable considering the uncooperative activities continue even after VoiceOfAll's instructions to stop.HeadleyDown 11:33, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

A good scientist is a doubter, a sceptic. He even (especially) doubts the side he feels is right, looking for caveats and counter evidence. Thus Heap, who is quoted as being hostile to NLP, none the less in 1998 comemnted that some NLP results might none the less appear posiitve and merit further review. That seems neutral. My concern is, I have not seen a single attempt in my visits here, from you, to discuss the issue. You revert, delete, ignore, insult or dismiss.

So my question is this. Did you actually search for "NLPpro" articles and research like you did for "NLPanti" articles, to check there were none? Did you look specifically for articles that supported NLP's claims, or which showed qualified interest and recommendations for further research in the light of suggestive but not conclusive results? Did you find any? If so, why haven't you moderated your view based upon them? If there are none, where is discussion of this?

TBP. I searched all references and found that the overwhelming majority of scientific findings were negative, and the pro-NLP ones were feeble (according to the 95% readings you are supposed to obtain in empirical studies). Other non promotional editors have done similar according to what I have gathered from discussion. Further research is promoted in most academic papers I have ever read in my career as a reviewer and writer of empirical studies. It is irrelevant. The conclusion is that the results are negative and that is the conclusion. The reviews also say unsupported, and they may contain other words such as; cult, fad, statistical illusion(when talking about other positive studies) and so on. This is in the archives already. It really makes no difference because we have many psychology psychotherapy and linguist books and papers coming to the conclusion that reviews giving negative results are correct according to them. This is their view.HeadleyDown 11:16, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

A good researcher would look for NLPpro too, and document how NLP sees itself as well as possible weaknesses in his stance. It worries me that i see no evidence of you doing that.

If you have discussed these things in the talk page, already, please point me to a time or an edit, or where to look, thanks, and I'll check. But for clarity, I would like definitive (short) answers anyhow here, for my own clear understanding. Did you, or did you not search for research supporting NLP, and if so what was the result and where is the citation? And why do you so often full-revert when people edit the text to correct the statements relating to NLP's "view of itself", instead of trying to improve and collaborate? TBP 06:15, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Hello TBP. There is no significant pro view of NLP from scientists as far as I see. They all state that it is wrong in theory and application. The only pro stuff is from NLP promoters who state that it leads to excellence in all activities and is backed up by neuroscience and spiritual intuitions and enlightenment. I have just been sent some really very balanced German reviews of NLP and will present them. Their balance includes words such as "pseudoscience, mixed up, confusing, devotee recruiting, commercially promoted junk, and so on". The present scientific findings on the article have been very mildly put, to put it mildly:) We actually have some professional researchers here who use mild language as a default. ATB AliceDeGrey 04:49, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

(Afterword: I have also updated "Goals". You will notice there, Headley, an example of NPOV. In the Goals section I deliberately detailed the NLP view specifically to highlight the rational reasons why exactly there are such deep risks and concerns some people have with the NLP view. I am quite content to see both sides views fairly represented, because both sides have viewpoints that belong in the article. You'll notice I didn't have to ask for a source from you to do so either. Please note. FT2 00:52, 30 October 2005 (UTC))

Hi FT2. Your opinion is that the goals section is not balanced. Please explain.JPLogan 04:40, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. Some discussion would be good. I get the impression this article has had some extreme editors. I'm not one. Ilike to think I can hold a rational discussion, and I'd like to see others do likewise. So lets see. I can find citations for any facts in doubt, but as I don't know what is common ground on this, I'll list what I see, and you can always ask for a source citation on any points raised. Would that work for you? Anyhow, here's NLP goals (as I see it):

To start defining a "goal" for a subject by saying basically, "A person may want to change their state. To do this a practitioner can look at skin color and use this to see how someone relates identity" etc... [in brief thats how it starts] is at best misleading. It isn't an approach that any NLP textbook of repute would use to describe its goals. It confuses means and end. Goals are an end. Skin color and micromovements are a means of information gathering. These are profoundly different. (To take a religious analogy, "reaching God" or "gaining salvation" is a goal of religion, "reading the words of a prayer by pointing rods and cones at a book and reading the dots" is not). I hope you can see the problem in the current version. To my mind the goals of NLP are poorly explained and therefore it is not clear the real reasons why NLPs goals are a problem or how it got that way. This is how I would tentatively approach it instead:

1 The goals of NLP... what is it trying to achieve? NLP is notionally saying that it's trying to assist people to gain skills, abilities, self awareness, understanding, or solve problems. Thats pretty much true in all NLP, its the starting point of all NLP goals.

It is trying, and it fails according to clear evidence. It also does it in dubious ways, and the majority of NLP books and sites hype NLP to ridiculous levels (the levels of hype are ridiculed by psychologists, psychotherapists, journalists, the public at large and Dave Barry.HeadleyDown 05:42, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

2 What does NLP see as the kind of goals it's after? It does not see a defined "this is what people should want". It is very open ended. It says what a good goal usually looks like (outcome model), beyond that it is silent. It does not consider itself (at least in its original form) as a panacea, it solves problems, but the choice of problem and the choice of solution is ultimately left in the hands of the client, whose exploration can be helped by the use of language and other NLP methods to move beyond the "problem" and begin to find solutions.

My goodness, if NLP is not a claimed panacea then nothing is, even from the beginning. The nlp books claim that NLP will allow you to attain the excellence you deserve in life, and master all aspects of your life to high states of excellence, and that is in the text, not just the adverts. It says it is about form and therefore can be applied to anything. I read the dilts 1980 book and he gives a section of all the applications of NLP. It covers everything from business to psychotherapy, to self development to communication to spiritual stuff. Considering the later inroads into the occult, seduction and so on, it is claimed that nlp improves or cures anything and all things even spiritually, and caters for everyone from saints to sinners to everyone in between. The word PANACEA should be clearly stated in the opening. This can be compared with Dianetics for the sake of further clarity.DaveRight 03:38, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

It says it is all form and no content, therefore it is universaly applicable (Dilts et al 1980, bandler and grinder 1975(1) etc)HeadleyDown 05:42, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

3 NLP books emphasize and lean towards, on the whole, a "generative" (client creativity) approach, where the client learns to be more creative and question his assumptions about things, and thus is helped to generate his own answers. So therefore NLP focusses on the process of "helping get the client out of his own way" rather than suggesting where he ought to go.

Look at the actual definition of creativity by scientist. Creativity takes 10 years to achieve on average, and requires hard work (not NLP modeling guesses)HeadleyDown 05:42, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

4 In this sense, NLP is quite utilitarian in nature. It sees itself as a tool, but is silent as to how that tool is used, save that in its original forms it emphasizes consideration for all effects on oneself and others, known as "ecology".

It involves tools that do not workHeadleyDown 05:42, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

5 That said, NLP skills are often "packaged" and targetted at specific goals, such as health, business, management, sales, or self-development, and in that context individual books and courses could have any goals the practitioner may choose. * Examples *

Yes, they are promoted to some specific audiencesHeadleyDown 05:42, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

6 Over the course of the development of NLP, there has been a greater and greater tendency for new-age type goals and commercializations promising unlikely miracles to become suggested applications of NLP. Basic models of cognitive processing aside, many leading figures in the NLP community now routinely explore concepts such as shamanism and ESP, and attempt or claim to be able to use NLP to replicate these abilities. Following this lead, NLP trainers worldwide tend to focus on hype-promoted courses offering guarantees on everything from breast enlargement to seduction.

It was always new age (stared in Esalen seminars)HeadleyDown 05:42, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

That is just one POV. Other POV says that NLP challenges flakey New Age thinking, such as the importation of energy into the discussion of communication (Bateson, 1972, 1979; Grinder & Delozier, 1986). Bandler (Therpeutic Metaphor, Gordon, 1979) basically says that spirituality and shamanism, etc. are simply powerful metaphors. HeadleyDown's argument here seems to be straw man or biased towards New Age ideas (not science at all).. --Comaze 06:18, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

7 This raises both its strength and weakness: proponents say that it can be applied to any goal one wishes, and that the rest of NLP is methods to achieve that and balance it with wisdom. Critics say that it opens NLP to abuse, fraudulent claims, mysical forumulae and pseudoscience that are untested. At best it changes lives for the better. Unfortunately it can also be used unscrupulously to manipulate and destroy too. Proponents recognise this, but argue you cannot not influence, and therefore it makes sense to learn to do so with wisdom and for good reasons. Critics say that there is no control over this, or over any aspect of its usage whether sensible, harmful, or even empty and fraudulent claims of magical results.

Proponents do recognise this, and they continue to act fraudulently and manipulatively.HeadleyDown 05:42, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

That is what I would think a reader needs to know about NLP "goals". In wikipedia style, it is clear, it describes and explains without advocating, and gives both views, but ultimately a balanced view at the end.

The most balanced view is that of science. It will be emphasized (unsupported, pseudo, hype, etc)HeadleyDown 05:42, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Thoughts? FT2 04:59, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

FT2. As we all know, NLP is a confusing subject. It is also one long excuse. Your latest additions to the article are huge, and they are mostly pathetic excuses. They are also quite straw man. Dilts 1980 presents a straw man argument in saying that "we are not after truth" (he is implying science is after absolute truth). The fact is, NLP sets itself up as a pseudoscientific subject to make excuses for when it doesn't work. It was sold from the beginning as "theraputic magic" and promoted mainly by using stage hypnosis (not hypnotherapy). You are making a confusing subject (that has been clarified by science to be ineffective) by writing excuses as if they are philosophy or epistemology. You seem to forget that NLP claims to use observation to test it, (use what works), but constantly avoids multiple observations of science. You are burdening the page with exagerated claims. I could move the argument to the article page if you like, and state in as much detail as you have done about what a bunch of lame nonsense your statements are, but if we keep doing that the article is going to be huge. From book 1 NLP sets up excuses and cop outs, and those continue until even recently where Grinder realises that the science of NLP is feebly pseudoscientific and decides to tries to make a convincing change of theory. We have had an extra 30 years of added empirical knowledge in neuroscience theory and associate tech. So what does he do? He bases NLP new code on the new age teachings of Carlos Castaneda:) Please, this is an encyclopedia, and science has already clarified what NLP is. Do not keep messing up the page with NLP excuses. The pseudoscience section already shows that NLP tries to immunise against testing by using adhoc hypotheses and referring to jargon that has no relevance or accuracy in its NLP application. Lets keep the filesize to a reasonable level.HeadleyDown 02:12, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

I stand by my previous comment. Please, just for me, could you pick one non-trivial example of a statement I added, that you feel is not supported factually and inaccurate. Thanks. FT2 05:37, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi FT2. Goals 1. The line is very vague and the article needs to be specific. NLP states; excellence, the unfair advantage, magical skills even from the start. That should be represented specifically.HeadleyDown 01:29, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

The ESP evidence has been presented so many times. NLP (aka the structure of magic) is used for remote seduction and influence all over the web and in books such as those by Tad James and others involved with the occult including Bandler who teaches groups of people to remote bless trinkets and artifacts in order to make them "shine" and keep them from harm. This has been dealt with before ad nausium.HeadleyDown 02:59, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Comaze. Bandler and Grinder talk about lrlrlrlrlrlr hemispheres in the patterns of Erickson aswel as the book you mentioned and including other books. The "right brain manager" by Alder, and books by Dilts and many more talk of LR simpleton pseudoscience, and they do it to excuse the PRS and eye accessing cues failures that are presented whenever you try it for yourself. I notice again your desire to narrow the views specifically to Bandler and grinder as per your stated commitment a few months ago. NotedHeadleyDown 03:05, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Patterns of Milton Erickson is 1977 dude. And Yes they do talk about left/right hemispheres in that book. This is imported from the work of Milton Erickson (hundreds published papers by Milton on this subject. --Comaze 03:16, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Hello Comaze, you have not dealt with all the other refs that talk of left right brain dichotomy nonsense. The stuff is all over the literature and this has been dealt with many times over the past months with citations as you very well know but continue to ignore nevertheless just as you ignored VoiceOfAll's direction not to make mutliple edits when editors are trying to consider balancing. You are the main cause of FT2's edits being completely reverted. You are not only irritating me, but you are irritating everyone else who wants steady progress.HeadleyDown 03:20, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Headley, two requests, amicably. First, if that is so, then please take care to rveert only what is incorrect, and to carefully allow to stand what is not. Fully reverting as a shortcut and timesaver is not appropriate asif edits contain some good points and some poor ones. Second, could you look at Homeopathy, an agreed pseudoscience, and how such a conflict is treated in a mature article. That's how NLP should be, in my view, and what I am struiving towards. A description of NLP with critical or opposing views where appropriate, and a strong criticisms section, all supported by references. Can you look at that article and see what you think? FT2 12:41, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Left/Right domiance side from Milton Erickson

Ok, I checked up at the library. This puts the left/right dominance into historical perspective. The left/right eye movements actually originated from Milton Erickson and Baleen (The American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis, January, 1976, 18, 153-171.1969). Here is an example from section on Two-Level Communication and the Microdynamics of Trance and Suggestion, (Erickson & Rossi, 1976) "At such moments people experience the common everyday trance; they tend to gaze off—to the right or left, depending upon which cerebral hemisphere is most dominant (Baleen, 1969) — and get that 'faraway' or 'blank' look. (p.114)". Milton Erickson gave Grinder and Bandler full access to his work around 1975/1976. --Comaze 04:52, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Additionally, the left/right lateralization and eye movements is still ongoing. A paper appeared in PubMed, just a couple of days ago, see [22]. I've only read the abstract. --Comaze 05:13, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Comaze. Scientists criticise NLP for using the LR brain myth. That is represented and citations are available.HeadleyDown 01:29, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Even if the L/R sidedness (1977) is criticised in 2000, it still needs to be put in historical perspective and balanced. --Comaze 06:23, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

JLogan warns Comaze

Comaze. You need re-warning. You have also not removed warnings to block from other people's talk pages. You need re-warning again about that. You continue to antagonize. I wish to hilight this for everyone to see on this page because some NLPpromoters follow Comaze's "unconstructive and tedious" (VoiceOFAll 2005) antiNPOV example.JPLogan 04:40, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Did you just cite me :-)? Seriously, all of these warning need to go, as they are personal and anti-productive, and they all refer to vandalism, which no one has done so far. Lets try to actually comprimise the Comaze et al and the Headly et al version, as the result would likely be better than any single POV; whether it is anti-NLP or pro-NLP.Voice of All ^{Talk|@|Esperanza} 17:02, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Really VoA. I believe I, and other non promoters are being extremely tolerant. Comaze is still accusing me and has not provided any evidence to back up his claims. I consider that my tolerant actions should be recognised as such, especially while Comaze keeps up his weeks or months of slur efforts.DaveRight 03:52, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

To be fair, VoiceOfAll, Comaze keeps making unjustified and antagonistic accusations towards multiple non-promotional editors even during mediation. I saw no move or threat to ban Comaze recently from the non promotional editors even in the face of Comaze's recent multiple "capping" edits and fact deletions. RegardsJPLogan 02:12, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Notes

Can we all start using notes where appropriate to clarify. I propose we use standard citation notes as per the tradition in NLP (eg. Structure of Magic Vol 1, other linguistics texts). I just posted a sample here: [23]. --Comaze 23:30, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

The notes were reverted by HeadleyDown, without comment, so I'll add them again in the next edit. Please comment if you object. --Comaze 12:54, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi Comaze. At the top of the article it says how to use footnotes... and says "It is important to add footnotes in the right order in the list! "... I'm kinda worried that if we start doing that, there could be a few slip-ups with the ordering and well thought-out references could point to the wrong thing... which makes me think we should be overly verbose while lots of changes are happening, then simplify it once things start getting sorted out. Am I misreading something?GregA 13:36, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

The references are automatically numbered. I do not think you need to put hem in any order. Just see my sample, above. --Comaze 14:15, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Recent copyedits

A recent revert removed all these simple copyedits, grammar or simple corrections:

• [24] - copyedit: television (not TV).
• [25] - copyedit: reduce ambiguity (especially overuse of it). minor content changes.
• [26] - grinder and bandler do not use the phrase 'psychic energy' in 1975 or 1979. They say energy (collateral) can be freed up by resolving inner conflict - there is a big difference.
• [27] - Dilts neurological levels
• [28]- minor changes: they, it, etc. resolved some ambiguity.

. regards, --Comaze 00:09, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Neuro-linguistic Programming to improve AI and human/computer interaction

<snip --- reworded computer industry section and moved to article (Draft) [29]>

Put into the NLP Applications section. It will not be long, but it definetely seems to belong there. I can see how NLP's fast and rough and mainly results orientated(no theory) models could be used for social programing, since it is so vast and impossible to effectively analyze analytically.

As a side note, I do not want people to keep trying to use my quotes against others, so as to make it look like even the mediator took a side. I did call Comaze's old reversions tedious, and noted that some of his edits have serious changes mixed in with scatter grammar changes to make it hard to revert; However, I also noted how absurd and unproductive the "list of reasons why Comaze should be banned" was. When I modified Comaze's Morgan references deleteions, not only did I comprimise, but I left in the spelling/grammar/stlye edits.Voice of All ^{Talk|@|Esperanza} 21:14, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Hello VoiceOfAll. When posting negative assessment of NLP, I word the lines in a mild way deliberately to avoid problems with people wishing to remove them. It is already a compromise. Does this mean I should word them as they are cited exactly including words such as "banal, trite, daft, etc"?HeadleyDown 01:22, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

A better compromise is to have quotes, like:

"X said NLP is unsupported and scientifically baseless"(X 19yy)

Rather than:

NLP is unsupported and scientifically baseless(X 19yy).

. The second choice further asserts the claim as fact, which sets itself up for a high burden of proof. The first version is definitely a true statemnt(unless you misread or made up the book off course ;-)...).Voice of All ^{Talk|@|Esperanza} 01:36, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

This is interesting VoiceOfAll. Surely the burden of proof has been well catered for in this case? NLP is baseless according to many scientists and journalists, it's claimed concepts do not even associate scientifically in the way that they claim, and the methods are ineffective also. I would say the proof clear in the article. RegardsJPLogan 02:05, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

uses of NLP

Associating NLP with "New Age" whatever unduly colors its perception of being scientific or not. NLP might even be used to treat people who claim to have been abducted by UFO's, but listing UFO-Abductees clearly is intended to imply guilt-by-association on the part of NLP. If NLP is pseudoscientific, it is pseudoscientific based on how it is claimed to work versus objective studies of how it actually performs in producing results. Clearly, there are some strong anti-NLP editors on this article, but that doesn't give you carte blanche to modify this article to the point of such biased tactics. The article must remain neutral. FuelWagon 01:34, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Hello FuelWagon. It is only based partially on exagerated claims. For the most part it is based on normal claims. NLP was tested with normal expectations, but those were not met. Taking into account exagerated claims, NLP fails abysmally. The new age label is used throughout scientific studies, journalistic classifications, bookstores, online shopping and many other sources including NLP promotional sources. It is a neutral label and perfectly accurate considering the nature and philosophies of NLPJPLogan 02:09, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

FuelWagon. In the Druckman article, NLP is referred to as a new age technique, and indeed as I have just checked, many other published books and web pages call it new age.DaveRight 03:48, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, this doesn't fly. Unless you're saying that all users of NLP ascribe their techniques as "new age", insert nice quackery description here, etc, then this is POV bias. If you wish to skewer NLP, that's your choice, but you will not do so by misrepresenting it in the article. FuelWagon 05:15, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi FuelWagon. New age is not a skewer, its a neutral and categorical term widely used in science, anthropology, history, and other social sciences. It is also a commercial term that NLP uses and advertises itself under. NLP promoters choose to use the new age term to promote their products. It is new age.AliceDeGrey 06:00, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

AliceDeGrey, You (and HeadleyDown, JPLogan) have continually made reference to "NLP promoters", who specifically are you referring to? --Comaze 06:32, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

It seems that NLP applied to Business is twice a popular as applications to New Age Movement. Do a quick google test, or search amazon to check out the huge volume of books about NLP applied to business. NLP applied to sales training is alos more popular than the application to New Age. --Comaze 04:03, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Computer Industry

Various computer science journals (eg. IEEE) and conferenes (eg. ICCI'03) have featured some applications of Neuro-linguistic Programming, including Sensory Representational Systems (Slater & Osho 1994; Craft 2001) and other communication tools such as the meta-model (Grinder & Bandler 1975) to enhance communication between people and machines (Janvier & Ghaoui, 2004; Janvier, 2005). Other projects include applications to enhance virtual reality (Slater & Usoh 1994) and requirements engineering (Goetz & Rupp 2003; Rupp 2005). E42 a set of Java tools developed for testing complex systems (Malloy & Jensen [30]) have also been used to test and refine Batesonian epistemology (Malloy 2005).

External Links

• E42 a set of Java tools for Discrete Dynamical Systems (University of Utah)

References

• W A Janvier. Can Human Interaction make the Computer more effective? (Annual Postgraduate Research Conference, 2005). (cites Craft,2001)
• W A Janvier & Claude Ghaoui, journal: Interactive Technology & Smart Education (2004) 1: 55–66 [31]
• Suzanne Robertson. "Learning from Other Disciplines," IEEE Software, vol. 22, no. 3, pp. 54-56, May/June, 2005. [32]
• Rolf Goetz, Chris Rupp. "Psychotherapy for System Requirements," icci, p. 75, Second IEEE International Conference on Cognitive Informatics (ICCI'03), 2003. [33]
• Chris Rupp. Linguistic methods of Requirements Engineering (NLP). SOPHIST GmbH, Nürnberg. 2002 [34]
• Slater M., Usoh M. (1994) NLP and Virtual Reality, NLP World, 1(2), pp23-32. [35]

Hello all. I reverted this section after reading the articles last night. None of them actually say anything about whether NLP is used in AI, virtual reality, or in systems development. I am assured by and information system's professor that NLP is never used in requirements elicitation for building computers or systems. The articles are completely discussional and speculative, and do nothing to talk of actual effectiveness of NLP. They are produced for minor (grade d) conferences and the mention of NLP is a minor part of the majority of the papers. In fact one might suspect that they mention the term NLP simply to make their paper sound like natural language processing (I don's suspect that because I am really generous:). Anyway, it is a large piece of writing with refs in the middle of it, and seems to be virtually unrelated to the field of NLP.JPLogan 02:28, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Actually, gathering specific information, noticing what is not said, or skimmed, or generalised, and so forth, is really valuable in requirements gathering. My company originally sent me on the NLP course for that purpose. Also a focus on how something is done, and for what purpose, is more useful than the historical reasons for a process. Never say never :)... your I.S. professor probably isn't aware of the metamodel patterns and how they can be used. GregA 06:41, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Hello JP. I might add that I have several large tomes and encyclopedias on programming, VR and HCI (human-computer interaction) and NLP is not mentioned once in any of them in application, theory, or otherwise. I might make a compromise with a minor addition to the research section though. RegardsDaveRight 03:27, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

JPLogan and DaveRight, On second thought, these are valid objections. NLP was not a "feature" of the IEEE conference, it was a minor part of one paper. I will rewrite it and resubmit. Thanks for your input. Also, here is another conference (2004) paper that proposes the use of Neuro-linguistic programming for teaching in computer science[36]. . --Comaze 03:57, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Hello Comaze. You didn't quite manage to satisfy the criticism that NLP is not actually a significant application of the computer industry or computer usage. From my perspective as a computer user, NLP is really not there at all.AliceDeGrey 04:39, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

ESP

NLP is being associated with Remote Sensing? i.e. ESP? Give me a break. What source are you using to say NLP has a major association with claims of ESP? This article is being written by obvious anti-NLP editors who can't seem to grasp the concept of "writing for the enemy". I'm sure if you dig around on google, you'll find someone who says they use NLP techniques to treat people who claim to have been abducted by UFO's, but that doesn't mean that NLP is about treating UFO abductees. You guys need to learn to write for the enemy and you guys need to sort out your own personal biases and find some pro-NLP sources to write the pro-NLP section of the article. As it stands, this is simply an anti-NLP article written about how NLP is wrong. Again, read "writing for the enemy". FuelWagon 05:24, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi again FuelWagon. Clearly you have not read enough about NLP. There are whole trademarked new age therapies that are actual branches of NLP (eg time line therapy) that promotes remote influence, and promotes past life therapy (yes, going back through your multiple past lives (and Bandler actually claims to have made health improvements by accessing his past lives). AliceDeGrey 06:04, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

I just noticed this:

NLP has been applied to a variety of contexts including business, sports performance, the development of psychic abilities, covert seduction techniques.

so, you already mention the applications at the end of paragraph 2. Mentioning them again in the first sentence of paragraph 1 is giving them undue weight. (similar to the approach someone used of having two sentences that basically said the same thing, that NLP is pseudoscience). List the applications once in the intro. the end of paragraph 2 is a good spot. FuelWagon 05:29, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

I think you are being overly-picky. People are actually researching the stuff that Comaze comes up with, and you are talking about removing clarifications. AliceDeGrey 06:04, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

The information is in the intro. It doesn't need to be in the intro twice. Clarification is one thing. using redundancy to emphasize a particular view is another. And if you can't learn to write for the enemy, you may need to allow a pro-NLP editor to edit the NLP point of view parts of the article. FuelWagon 06:15, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi FuelWagon. NLP is its own worst enemy. Really, it is so silly what is going on. Promoters push for more evidence, and more evidence is found. It us generally very negative. Findings are stated mildly. Promoters object. The alternative is to place the statement clearly as it is quoted in the research. It is usually damning. The other alternative is to ignore efforts of the person who did the delving and research and to delete the viewpoint altogether. That is against NPOV and also irritating and uncooperative. I think people should just read the article properly and realise how neutral and scientific it is and stop being so silly. AliceDeGrey 06:49, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

The point of NPOV is being ignored, misunderstood, or misapplied here. You do not present the view of some topic from the point of view of its critics. Nor do you present the view of a topic from the point of view of its fringe followers. The intro should present the pro-NLP point of view from the words of pro-NLP advocates. The critics can then cite their pseudoscientific labels and fringe followers as a means to discredit NLP. But the Pro-NLP side should actually be "pro" NLP. FuelWagon 02:41, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

NLP is influenced by the positivist tradition (Grinder & Delozier, 1986) that basically says, if you cannot see it , smell it, touch it, bite it, then it does not exist, or belongs in a different fields of endeavor. So this is a direct contradiction to the standard usage of the term ESP. If ESP is used then it is not used by all NLPers, and definitely not by those who have learned the metamodel. Most ESP can be squashed by a simple, And how do you know that? Oh, really, that's interesting... How specifically, do you know that? --Comaze 05:52, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree with FuelWagon - though only if it can be shown to be a common application. I'm pretty well convinced that NLP is often applied to spiritual contexts... it probably all falls under that.

Comaze - I've found questioning someone who believes in ESP or energy healings counterproductive... they own their own beliefs and if their beliefs work for them what would be the purpose of questioning them? GregA 06:49, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

remote ESP?

Does anyone have ANY EVIDENCE AT ALL that NLP is "often promoted for the use of ... remote ESP influence"? I reverted it and it came straight back up... come on guys, justify it. GregA 22:51, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, I removed ESP again, and it was reverted back by Headley. Do you have anything to back up your claim Headley?. I propose ESP is removed from the opening. GregA 13:21, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi Greg. I posted a James ref, and many more can be placed in the article. Brevity was my goal but it seems that to satisfy people, the article is going to be one long block of citations.HeadleyDown 01:31, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Headley, the most critical thing is not to add something that is not representative. Once we agree that something is a common descriptor of NLP then I agree we should make it brief. It's not a terrible weight you're shouldering! :)

Now, you've chosen to use a Tad James book as your source. "Presenting Magically: Transforming Your Stage Presence with NLP". Amazon describes the book as:

• Have you ever been enthralled by a masterful presenter or trainer? Have you longed to effortlessly entertain and motivate your audience just as they seemed to do? At one time it was considered that such captivating performances were possible only if you were one of the fortunate, 'natural-born' presenters. Now, with the application of advanced human communication technologies such as NLP (Neuro-Linguistic Programming) and Accelerated Learning, everyone can learn to present magically. Whether you are a newcomer or a seasoned professional, Presenting Magically will provide you with masterful tips and techniques that will transform your presenting skills. Introducing you to the secrets of many of the world's top presenters, this, the most comprehensive book available on the application of NLP to presentation, explores:how to adopt the beliefs and attitudes of master presenters; how to become calm, balanced and centred; how to connect with your audience; how to structure your language for optimum effect; how to handle hecklers; how to use metaphor; how to use gesture to access the unconscious mind of the viewer; how to use and own the stage; how to elicit states from your audience and anchor them; how to structure presentations to fit everyone's learning style; how to to grab the audience's attention and keep it.

Now, the word magic is obviously a play to the original "Structure of Magic"... and this is an applicaiton of NLP to giving presentations. Instead of "remote ESP influence", perhaps we should write "presenting to groups"?... though I'm unconvinced this is a common application. GregA 06:35, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

To GregA: about the previous comment, You obviously havent read the book "The Structure of Magic" It is not a play back at that book. The Structure of magic is a title given to symbolically say That language has a structure as does the meta model which is the composition of the book. The Structure of magic was the first therapy book looking at unravelling linguistic patterns using the meta model the results would be magic as it had never been told before in detail. Magic is also a term that employs curiosity once shown a trick people want to learn how you did it. So Bandler and Grinder are saying "Here is my magic trick -the meta model - do you want me to show you how I did it? This is my book". "Presenting magically" on the other hand used differently here conveys a demeanor you could have toward the art of presenting a potent presentation and with seemingly magical presentation qualities to your audience. But really it is the art of communication non verbal and verbal James is talking about not the meta model which is linguistic based. (58.178.*)

Hi. I'm not sure who you are. I did not intend to say the books taught the same things. Headley references this book as evidence of NLP being used in ESP... the only thing remotely connected is the word magic, and the word does not mean what Headley would like to make it mean. I guessed (though I said "obviously") that since this book teaches the art of communication (verbal and non-verbal), state control, etc. - then like in "structure of Magic" the word magic probably has a very similar meaning based in observable cues etc. GregA 22:22, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

I guess you'd have to be a NLPer to understand James' or Bandler and Grinders intent.(58.178.*)

I apologise for saying "obviously". I don't think being an NLPer helps either - we don't learn mind reading. My guess may have been wrong, hell, maybe Tad James didn't even notice that Bandler/Grinder used the word Magic in their earlier book. GregA 22:22, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes I did mind read sorry GregA. However there is a metaprogram that notices difference aand not same attributes. To put the two togetherin a piece to be viewed by the public could be misleading. Its like saying Dermat Mulroney and David Duchovny look the same. when in fact they are quite different- unique. This would enable a NLPer to become curious about both. Justin He Jamesalso might have noticed that they had used the word "magic" and thought I'm going to use it differently. But please keep it up you are doing well and being a NLPer does help understand NLP's constructs where non NLP practitioners might not so readily. Cheers- Justin

Have you ever seen someone perform with such gusto that it warranted an applause from yourself? If so it is this type of performance that James wants his audience to elicit with the skills he has to teach. Once started on the track of being NLPed there is no need for fancy ideas. With a trance induced state you could ask a person "Have you ever felt like you are a good person" all of a sudden the client starts to feel good sensations, has imagery of him being good in the past and wants to recreate the result more consistently in the future, The client then begins to behave in the way that they percieve Good people to be or because of experiential learning may begin to have a broader view of what a good person is and want to model that. That sir is magic: this meaning that these sensations thoughts behaviours are very powerful in their effect and are not readily accessible everyday when we want them. By giving this to a client we have performed a magic trick albeit an excellent one. Better than a guy escaping out of handcuffs in a water tank. The Presupposition has been that Magic or skill can be learned and passed on to others. However used very differently here one presents a model the other a way to make the audience react. One word can have a great effect on a person and inspire them to think of all it's meanings and uses Magic is but one word NLPers use to describe what they do, not because it is true it is because it is useful to know the qualities of a healer. Heres a another word. Science. NLP trainers will continue to use the word science because it invites the learner to start to think like a scientist. What are some of the qualities a scientist has- determination, unending curiosity, He will keep asking until he finds the answer which is flexibility in his approach. He's specific about his subject and notices things that normal people don't. Why? because he is trained to with his naked eye hearing and other senses(sensory acuity). These are quite common qualities found in a NLPer and are taught so a NLPer becomes atuned to new skills quite easily. The learner fills in the blanks with his/her own details most useful to themselves and thus control is given to a fledgling practitioner. This is a part of the way that magic happens with the NLP milton model. Most NLPers become better at questionning than most scientists this way, so are more like scientists than scientists in their nature. Bold maybe? but it could be true. "Bah! humbug!" you say. Well I say "How do you know?" (58.178.x.x)

Hi Greg. More evidence can be supplied for the ESP stuff, and I'm sorry but its really awfully damning. Whichever way you look at it, you are going to have broad viewpoints recognized as they are in the world subject of NLP. Regards AliceDeGrey 06:51, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

I know a few people (yourself included?) have said they're annoyed at providing references and having them ignored, so let me clarify what I'm asking for. I'm saying that ESP is an insignificant minority of NLP application... OR is included under the banner "Spirituality". Any references you have that counter that claim would be useful... NLP books simply do not talk about ESP (though, as with spirituality, any experience can be the subject of modeling - which is a separate issue). GregA 07:35, 31 October 2005 (UTC).

PS. Beware the presupposition you're using :) "More evidence".... hehe... well, the last one wasn't evidence for ESP, it was evidence for presentation skills.... so start with "any evidence"... noting of course what I said above. GregA 07:37, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

GregA here's a quote from Trance-Formations: Neuro-Linguistic Programming and the Structure of Hypnosis, Real People Press:

"For those of you remaining, I'm going to have you learn to become "psychic"... I' going to have you all do some crystal ball gazing, or if you prefer, palm-reading. The point of this exercise is that it's an excellent way to further develop your ability to perceive minimal non-verbal cues. Being able to do this makes all the difference when you're doing hypnosis, and you need systematic ways to develop such perceptual skills. p.206"

— Bandler or Grinder, 1981

--Comaze 09:12, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Mr Headley down which implies you are looking down are kinesthetic and maybe clinically depressed if ESP is talked about within the constructs of NLP it is at the speakers folley. However due to the sensitive nature with what a NLPer can sense from a client there is an ability that is ESP like. firstly a NLPer can sense what a client feels from the slackness or tighness of muscles when approaching a subject, the other is that a NLPer may know what a person will decide to do if given a situation by knowing how a person communicates with him/herself, what they believe, and by observing their behaviour. This is not done however by mind reading but by careful and intuitive observation. I suggest if you were to challenge me do the NLP course which you so obviously seem averse to and tell me the outcome. However by implying that NLP practitioners have some keen sense of mind reading abilities you are right and wrong. It is not Mystical it is observational apoint you should make in this article. Justin

Alice et al, remote ESP simply isn't part of the normal NLP discussion. Neither is remote influence. As with "engrams", any source that try to label this as part of NLP is suspect: Years of tracking NLP shows me it isn't used. There is a fringe set of NLP users that believe in ESP/remote influence, there is also a (significantly larger) fringe set that believes in "psychic energies", EFT/TFT, and similar. As what is taught as NLP is fluid, this may enter some seminars - it still isn't considered part of NLP. Again: There's enough to criticize NLP for without attributing things that are not part of mainstream NLP (as far as such exists.) --Eivind Eklund 09:22, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Excellent quote Comaze. It clearly shows the focus on non-verbal cues (and how some people think that's psychic)... though it also is obvious how easily someone can misquote this kind of thing. It fits with our NLP/psychic phenomena section too. GregA 09:38, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Greg, I've got about 100 other quotes like that one from Bandler and Grinder that demonstrates ESP/Psyhic is simply cold reading using (calibration/sensory acuity) skills (see p.98 Frogs into Princes or mentalism). It is sometimes used as an metaphor to demonstrate a meta model mind reading violation. Someone could get confused if they do not understand the form/content distinction. I also have ~30 quotes and references from Gregory Bateson (1972, 1979) as well as John Grinder and Judith Deloizer (1986) talking how intolerant they are of fuzzy New Age thinking (ESP, psychic, energy, ...). I can provide page numbers, just ask. The closest thing to "psychic" is a quote from John Grinder/Richard Bandler (1979) stating, I don't know what other information is available to us outside the five sensory channels. --Comaze 13:23, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

What has become very obvious is that Grinder and Bandler have used vernacular terminology that is often mistaken as literal. Thus "the structure of magic" is in relation to people who were saying, "these people [erickson, satir] must be doing magic, they get such uncanny clinical results". So the book was called, the structure of magic, ie, how these people's "magic" actually works.

Likewise, as Comaze points out, they often talk about mentalism, or psychic tricks, as a way of emphasizing that such tricks are nothing more than exceptional observation, and that precision observational skills, especially of unconscious communication at the micro level, can be crucially important in a clinical or communications setting. FT2 14:59, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

As with Engrams, ESP is not a common NLP aspect, saying so just looks like an anti-NLP strawman. The ESP line should be modified in a way similar to how I changed the engram line.Voice of All ^{Talk|@|Esperanza} 18:32, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Hello VoiceOfAll. I personally accept your reasonable compromise. Modification is always a better option than the deletions (even after references are provided) by people who simply want to censor.HeadleyDown 02:19, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

I see you add the word "occassionally"... as in "NLP is often applied to self-help, therapy, and occassionally ESP". If NLP is applied to ESP, it is usually in the form of teaching how ESP is nothing spiritual... maybe "debunking ESP" is a more common application? (some of the quotes above support this). However... It just is far too minor to have in the opening at all. I would say more than 2/3rds of the time that NLP is applied to another field, it is applied to counselling/coaching/self development. NLP works with the experiences you have (spiritual or not), and has been used reasonably often to model a spiritual experience... so spiritual is probably major enough to stay within the "often applied to" section. Business processes are also really common (that may fall under corporate coaching too??). GregA 22:22, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Here I am writing for the enemy. A legitimate criticism would be of ideomotor responses (minimal cues) imported from Milton H. Erickson use in NLP for unconscious signal systems. Another example of sensory acuity that could be easily confused for mysticism by someone not properly trained in NLP. Here's an article about how people could be fooled by ideomotor action [37] --Comaze 23:33, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

I have moved the ESP down to the spirituality/new age....ect section. If there is better place for it (not the intro) then move it there.Voice of All ^{Talk|@|Esperanza} 00:01, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Cult characteristics

I've modified the cult characteristics section again. After the last one, nobody would discuss why they reverted. so here it is again. Please discuss:

• NLP has been associated with modern day cults (Langone, 1993; Tippet, 1994; Singer 2003), it is seen as an intrinsic part of modern ritual mind control tactics (Crabtree, 2002) and NLP has even been monitored by the Cult Awareness Network (Shupe & Darnell, 2000) and appears on some lists of cults (Howell, 2001). NLP is said to promote an "almost evangelical fervour" which makes practitioners unreceptive or even unprepared to countenance scientific reviews of NLP (Platt 2001).

This is altered to include Comaze's finding of actual description with a cult book of why NLP is included in the book.

• The presuppositions of NLP create a background for reduced resistance in the guise of empowerment for the devotees. The presuppositional beliefs; in no fixed reality, positive intention regardless of negative action, and communication being the result of communication, leads to a fertile ground for manipulation on the part of cult leaders.

Last time I made the changes to this section I included an explanation of the actual presuppositions. I have removed this entirely this time as the explanation for the presuppositions is already in the main article, and also this paragraph has no basis in fact or reference.

• NLP has belief systems and social control methods. Certain cults use these in combination with the occult and pseudoscience to claim modern day miracles and induce dependence and compliance on the part of the cult's victims. NLP hypnotic techniques are used by both mild cults and very aggressive cults to induce dependence on the cult, and to further provide conditioning to induce compliance within the cult (Langone, 1993). NLP has resistance reducing mind control aspects. These are only effective in combination with the usual high social pressure, threats, and authority control used within cults or similar social situations, and make the victim passive and controllable. It is said that NLP is attractive to cult leaders due to its strong marketing push towards "the unfair advantage" (Langone, 1993). New Age philosophies are compatible with the occult mindset of cult acolytes and leaders (Barrett 1997), and NLP is said to share these.

Clarified for NPOV - saying what NLP can be used for more clearly.

• NLP training programs used in the business sector have received complaints of undue and forced adoption of fundamental beliefs, intense confrontational psychological techniques, and coercion through NLP. Aside from complaining that they were being put through programs tantamount to a forced religious conversion, employees also objected to specific techniques being used including intense confrontational sessions (Thaler Singer, 1995).

I'd like to clarify how many business training programs have these complaints. 1? 5? 1000? As several editors have confused NLP with LGATs before, there may be some confusion here too. I have left it in though... I'd like someone's clarification. Does Singer say what proportion? GregA 08:47, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi Greg. If you want more evidence to place NLP as a cult full stop! then fine. But your edit was not clarifying at all, and only gives the impression that you're censoring facts because YOU don't like them. I think it is time to list all the bodies and authorities who call NLP a cult explicitly on the article. Whadysay?AliceDeGrey 09:52, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Furhtermore has NLP or it's founders ever considerred NLP a cult. I haven't heard them mention it as a cult. I'm sure also people with the right authority could if they wanted to to prove NLP to be a cult. This isn't hard thesists do this every other day with other material and subject matter to their own conclusion. It is as arbitrary as trying to prove that NLP could fit on a boat however sounds less ridiculous. No not in the 22 books on the subject has there been a congregation of NLPers to perform ill practices nor have they built temples or churches where there is regular worship or any of the other stereotypes that come with the word cult. I think perhaps the meaning of the real word CULT is marred by the perception of the general masses therefore the literal meaning and the taken meaning will be quite different. Amazing that you could come across such an erroneous word and create such damage to the reputation as such a thing as NLP. But then are you practicing NLPers who know what you are talking about first hand. this fact should also be mentioned. I have heard unsubstantiated stories of how CULT leaders o have used it to their aims however it's intent is entirely different and Cult leaders are not NLP. Headly Down, TBP asked you a poignant question before one you seem to have forgotten to answer. In fact he/she asked you four times with out answer or explaination. Do you know anything about classic NLP? Please answer it will speak volumes. 58.178.135.242 (please sign your comments by adding ~~~~ at the end)

Hi Alice - I don't want any more 'evidence', I want to represent NLP as it is. The paragraph on presuppositions (within the cult characteristics section) is unsourced, and directly contradicts the earlier description of presuppositions (In the principles and presuppositions section) on the page. VoiceofAll said is was fair to say NLP was associated with cults, and also to say what comaze found about that association. We know and accept that NLP processes have been applied in multiple fields and that cults could easily use NLP techniques (they certainly all use some forms of persuasive techniques). As 58.178.* said, the association is a negative one and can bias the reader. And yet, it's fair to mention it in short and properly explained. I've done no mass deletion of 'fact' - I've clarified it. GregA 11:01, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

I modified the section you mention. The descriptions I have given are sourced from books such as Joseph O'Connor, "Principles of NLP" (a good introduction to the subject), and several of S & C Andreas' books. In fact they are so fundamental as to almost come under the category of "common knowledge in the field". If you want more details or specific quotes, I can find them, but the descriptions I give are non-controversial and they are pretty standard. If you read them you can probably see they would make sense and their origins with Bateson etc too. FT2 15:27, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi FT2 - hope my clarification to my own posted paragraph above explains better. Of course, I know the principles and presups section is well sourced and common knowledge. GregA 21:25, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Ah, thank you :) For those not trained in classic NLP, that is what a "metamodel violation" looks like: "The paragraph on presuppositions is unsourced" Notice that gregA doesn't state which "paragraph on presuppositions" he means, and I didn't realise there was more than one paragraph on the subject, hence miscommunication. He deletes the information by using the word "The" instead. There must be some specific paragraph, but it is merely alluded to, not identified. The metamodel in this case says, if you were to notice this pattern, and ask "Which paragraph exactly?", you may (not necessarily will) get valuable information you lacked, and avoid miscommunication. In this case, I would have. In other cases, not. That is about as simple as classic NLP can be. It gets a lot more powerful (this is a trivial example), but thats a simple example of how NLP views a lot of communication hinging on awareness of even just one tiny word of nonverbal cue. No magic, no ESP, it was there for everyone, but neither I or anyone else saw the fact there was a difference between greg's "map of reality" in which it was "obvious" it meant the cults paragraph, and mine in which it was "obvious" it meant the principles paragraph. Careful awareness and observation would have been enough to identify there could be a miscommunication, and one precise question enough to test the possibility. That is how NLP actually forms and tests hypotheses in use, and that's a quick NLP tutorial moment. FT2 23:28, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi FT2... it is a nice example of a deletion in the metamodel. It's also an example of framing and what happens if the framing is missed or something is read in isolation to its context (which I can often do in these discussions I have to say!). Which brings me back to my point - in this cult characterics discussion, I've been attempting to update the cult characterics info on the main page. Have you read what's currently in that section of the main article? What do you think? (I quote the presupposition paragraph of the cult section, with a bullet-point, about 12 paragraphs up). GregA 23:58, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Hello GregA The "clarification" you posted is not Barrett's perception of the subject of NLP as a cult. He actually classes NLP exactly as a cult. That can be represented. People use terms such as movement, or approach or whatever, but that does not exlude NLP from being a cult. I will represent those authority's views.AliceDeGrey 11:51, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

What definition of cult are we using here? --Comaze 12:55, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Alice, the only comment we've got sofar is comazes quote (as I wrote) of how Barrett classifies NLP, and Headley's reply that what the book actually says doesn't matter, if it's in a cult book then obviously it's a cult. hardly damning evidence. Can I assume this is your only criticism of my change? GregA 21:25, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Greg Barrett does not classify NLP. He says that NLP is not an organisation, but as a philosophy has some characteristics of a religion. --Comaze 02:36, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

HeadleyDown... I'm still waiting. As the user above says:

"Headly Down, TBP asked you a poignant question before one you seem to have forgotten to answer. In fact he/she asked you four times with out answer or explaination. Do you know anything about classic NLP? Please answer it will speak volumes. 58.178.135.242"

It's about six times now I've asked - and I'm still asking. TBP 15:18, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

TPB. YES.HeadleyDown 01:44, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

According to the wiki article, Cult Awareness Network is now owned by Scientology. Is this a reliable? --Comaze 02:36, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

I've just reposted the change I did the other day - with comaze modifications to barrett, and I didn't merge 2 cult sentences into one at the top. I've also put the 2POVs at the bottom - perhaps this will allow us to work on what we agree neutrally presents the facts without removing anything. If you disagree with something in the common section please NPOV it and move the original to the POV below. If you think your group doesn't really have that POV then remove it all together, or alter it so both groups POVs align (and it can go into the common section). GregA 03:47, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Has anyone noticed the inconsistency in the NLP criticism section? On the one hand we are told it is ineffective, on the other hand it is used for mind control and unethical persuasion. Seems to me you can't have it both ways, if it works for mind control then it is not ineffective, if it's ineffective it can't do mind control. Comments? Seriously? FT2 06:47, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi FT2. The last promotional vandals actually came up with that excuse also. NLP is ineffective for what it claims to do, and uses pseudoscientific explanations and excuses to make cop outs and backups. It is used in cults because it encourages the twisting of words and meanings and it encourages manipulation. If you have ever attended a large group awareness training seminar you will notice the worries of people. At NLP seminars people jump around, chant, are asked to do magic rituals in magic circles and do funny things with their eyes and perceptions, all while further products are sold to them. It has led to many psychiatric complaints including schizophrenic episodes, breakdowns, and long term anxiety. Some of these seminars (including Tony Robins) go on for days. The same kind of setup is used in cults. NLP uses it to get repeat buy of pseudoscience and mythical spiritualism, and cults use it to obtain money and control in a similar way. The reason it encourages manipulation is due to its strong commercial push (the unfair advantage, the science and technology of getting what you want, and psychic seduction). It also encourages manipulation because of NLP's presuppositions set up excuses for cult members for behaving dubiously. The reasons it is used in cults is not because moving your eyes around and standing in magical circles is scientifically supported, because as you know, NLP is indeed scientifically unsupported. Dianetics is scientifically unsupported but it is still used to manipulate. VoiceOfAll's understanding of Dianetics is really very good as far as I can see. I have seen the research on that one also, and the similarities are amazing. RegardsAliceDeGrey 07:04, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

That's not what the criticism section says. What you are saying is, "it's useless but can be used to mislead others to believe it's able to soplve problems. But the crit section says, to take one example:

"NLP Processes can be used with or without consideration for the subject (no 'ecology'). In fields such as sales, there is said to be little or no long term focus, and more an effort to get the 'customer' to buy. Similar concerns have been raised over NLP patterns being used in speed seduction (see Ross Jeffries and David DeAngelo) and 'optional' concern for the person being 'seduced'."

Either people will be unable to sell or seduce, in which case NLP has held out false promises of persuasion skills, but not enabled them to have ways to mislead others. or NLP has indeed enabled them to seduce and sell, in which case it is capable of efficacy but is being used unethically. You cannot say on the one hand its use has no effect, and on the other hand that when used by those it's been sold to, it is used unethically. If I sell you something claiming it is a knife, it is illogical to simultaneously claim that it is not a knife and unable to cut, whilst also complaining it does not have a sheath and can be used to cut people unethically. Do you see the contradiction? Please consider what you mean and clarify this paradox.

FT2 08:04, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Hello FT2. Were you one of the promotional vandals? I see you are completely biased towards promoting NLP by reducing the impact of their own mistakes and misdemeanors. You have added your own opinion (inconsistency) to the article. That is totally unacceptable action for any editor to do. You are an NLP promoter.AliceDeGrey 09:06, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

I might add that Tony Robbins was in court (actually he didn't turn up) for a piece of litigation against him from a woman who he seduced in relation to these seminars. He payed up, but it was a big to do. "Therapists" are not supposed to do that kind of thing. It is highly unethical.AliceDeGrey 07:07, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

My apologs. Actually Tony was suing a British newspaper for broadcasting the fact. I don't think he managed to get any extra money for it. AliceDeGrey 07:18, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi Alice... Just breaking up your last reply to answer clearly... I've copied it here:

Hi FT2. The last promotional vandals actually came up with that excuse also.

Easy - who are you accusing of being a vandal? And it was a valid question, not an excuse.

NLP is ineffective for what it claims to do, and uses pseudoscientific explanations and excuses to make cop outs and backups.

I was refering to the vandals you recruited from newsgroups a few weeks ago.AliceDeGrey 09:21, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Actually, the anecdotal evidence is quite strong in support - it's the psychological research more in debate. There is no need to give an excuse as the client is happy. GregA 07:47, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

The anecdotal evidence and testimonials are utterly promotional. They are completely dubious. Science is the most independent and neutral factor for clarification.AliceDeGrey 09:21, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Of course science is the most independent and neutral factor, that's self explanatory. I thought you were talking in the context of clients, where excuses are usually unnecessary - since not many sessions involve a client KNOWING the effect of the session.

It is used in cults because it encourages the twisting of words and meanings and it encourages manipulation.

Strong judgement, ignorant of NLP. Firstly some NLP processes are used in cult. NLP processes may be used to manipulate - which is not the same as NLP encouraging manipulation (significant difference). The meta-model is useful to remove meaning attribution, but similar patterns can put meanings in (again, this is the user's will, a process doesn't have a will. GregA 07:47, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

None of these are my judgments. They are the judgments of Standford professors and French academics.AliceDeGrey 09:21, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

I think it's a strong judgement to say why a cult chooses to use a certain process - and reasoning that they use it because it encourages the twisting of words is circular reasoning. They use a process they find effective for them (which your stanford professor may say is only twisting of words and meanings). GregA 12:01, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

If you have ever attended a large group awareness training seminar you will notice the worries of people.

I think I've been to one. I was more worried about the way 90% of people were NOT worried. Scarey stuff. And when I've met people who have also gone to one at times, they're almost all positive about it. Yuck.

At NLP seminars people jump around, chant, are asked to do magic rituals in magic circles and do funny things with their eyes and perceptions, all while further products are sold to them. It has led to many psychiatric complaints including schizophrenic episodes, breakdowns, and long term anxiety.

I've been to several NLP seminars - no one jumped, chanted, or did any magic rituals. Further products were not sold during the seminar. Your claim has no basis. The seminars were highly experiential and interesting. I HAVE seen one guy react badly to an NLP process in a training context. GregA 07:47, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Some of these seminars (including Tony Robins) go on for days. The same kind of setup is used in cults.

The weird LGAT I went to went for days. Not really a cult, but very dubious.

NLP uses it to get repeat buy of pseudoscience and mythical spiritualism, and cults use it to obtain money and control in a similar way.

You're giving NLP a motivation. Firstly lets separate out the judgement since an NLP trainer would not call it pseudoscience. Say perhaps "NLP trainers uses chanting and rituals to get a repeat buy of their spiritualism". Even then, you're not talking about mainstream NLP, I haven't found any that do this (including the NLP trainings I think I don't agree with!). And NLP only sometimes has a spiritual connection. GregA 07:47, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

The reason it encourages manipulation is due to its strong commercial push (the unfair advantage, the science and technology of getting what you want, and psychic seduction).

NLP doesn't encourage manipuation. Besides your logic "NLP has a strong commercial push, therefore it encourages manipulation" is a bit of a stretch.

It also encourages manipulation because of NLP's presuppositions set up excuses for cult members for behaving dubiously.

Then you don't understand the presuppositions. To write about something neutrally you need to understand what both sides are saying.

The reasons it is used in cults is not because moving your eyes around and standing in magical circles is scientifically supported, because as you know, NLP is indeed scientifically unsupported.

NLP processes can be used by cults. Nobody uses something because it's scientifically supported - they use it because it works. If a cult uses stuff that doesn't work the cult won't get new people (which would be a good thing!) GregA 07:47, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Dianetics is scientifically unsupported but it is still used to manipulate. VoiceOfAll's understanding of Dianetics is really very good as far as I can see. I have seen the research on that one also, and the similarities are amazing. RegardsAliceDeGrey 07:04, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

I think this is where you get confused. These topics are considerably different - yet you can pidgeonhole much of NLP and bend and squash it to make it look like Dianetics. Your simple misunderstandings of the things above mean to me that your belief they are similar is very flawed. GregA 07:47, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Greg. All of my statements are strongly backed up in the research. Read a book or two and you will discover that I am correct.AliceDeGrey 09:21, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Well I'm thankful you believe I can read. I'm not saying you haven't read what you're repeating, I'm questioning the quality of what you've read, since misguided comments about presuppositions etc indicate a lack of understanding of NLP (yours and the author's you believe). GregA 12:01, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

I have cleaned up the cult section a bit. Out of respect for editors and controversy, I have not radically fixed the many errors visible, rather I have cleaned up the language and presentation to a slightly more professional style. The following are my list of actual changes:

• Removed dilts modelling jesus from new age. Its no more a problem than if (say) Jung or others had considered whether Jesus suffered a mental illness or was deeply spiritual.
• Removed "no fixed reality". NLP does not say that. Rather, it says that people cannot know through their senses what reality is, so they can only know subjective reality. I've also removed "communication being the result of communication" because that doesn't mean anything and it's not a presupposition of NLP I've ever heard of. If someone wants to add either of these back - corrected - thats fine.
• I have also noted that the other presuppositions are commonly held too. For example, many schools of therapy now accept that a negative or dysfunctional behavior often has a positive intent, in some form. That's worth noting.
• Removed the 100th reference to "pseudoscience" (I think we got the idea)
• removed the bit about "inventing" words - to be fair most fields create words for the things they study and use. Or do you think we all spoke about "ids" and "dynamic pressure" before freud and fluid dynamics came along? I've modified this accordingly, seems a straw man to raise "they have their own technical vocabulary of words invented for use in their field" as a fault. So do most fields. (Logically, if they want to describe something, they either have to invent a new word, or borrow one and use it in a more specific or different sense. There is no other choice, which would you like them to do?)

Thanks for pointing this out. Many scientists and critics state obscuriantisms as an indication of a pseudoscience. I like the ones mentioned already, I think we could post more of these to show exactly how words are misused in NLP, plus I will be sure to emphasize the scientific views towards NLP use of jargon. Its usually quite funny.JPLogan 10:48, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

• Removed highly POV and uncited final sentence "Nevertheless, the extended addition of pseudoscientific buzzwords and anecdotal promotion suggests that it will continue to operate on a commercial scale, with a disregard for objective proof of its proposed assumptions or claimed effectiveness."

FT2 07:55, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm sure someone will find a citation for it. I think perhaps you should start hunting for POV you place in the article before you actually place it. I am also getting the strong impression you have a promotional agenda. Wanna make some money out of NLP?JPLogan 10:48, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Not really. The offensive snip notwithstanding though, I am a quite experienced and reasonably well-reputed editor, and have contributed to editing other heavily controversial or complex subjects. I have been involved in such areas as the huge "christianity context and history" article dispute, I created, documented - and successfully defended - the first article on Wikipedia about the alleged election 2004 irregularities, I have contributed to BDSM, paraphilias, and other extreme sexualities, likewise controversial. And I've had to defend NPOV against a range of editors who are unable to discuss, but merely snipe and ignore. Some of those who couldn't master WP:NPOV are no longer allowed to edit. My neutrality is normally recognized once you stop assuming I'm "against" you.

I say this so you understand that when I look at your comment "Wanna make some money out of NLP?", I understand that you are less interested in fact and the wiki process right now, than in seeing one "side" "win". Wikipedia isn't about sides, or winning, Logan. Its not about attacking people or even about choosing between what science or promoters think per se. It's about collating what can be said on a subject for people coming from all angles. In the Wikipedia sense, neutrality is not merely "the scientific view", but a rounded representative view. You need to let this article have that. FT2 13:02, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi FT2 - I'd just posted a new "cult characteristics" section which someone reverted. I'd prefer to work on improving mine with yours and other inputs, than confuse with a 3rd version - if you're amenable to that. So far they just revert it which gets nowhere GregA 08:09, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Communication patterns

What in the world does this sentence mean?

The developers claim that NLP is based primarily on the communication patterns of three psychotherapists(Bandler and Grinder 1975 I).

Does it mean that someone studied the way three particular psychotherapists communicated, noted their patterns, and then based NLP of of those patterns? Sort of like studying the language and communication patterns of chimpanzees? Please do not reinsert this without rewording it into something that makes sense. FuelWagon 02:46, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

POV "overview"

The first paragraph of the "overview" section ended with this

It is also promoted in various specific forms including as a quick fix or lay therapy, in some management training programs, and for more fringe practices such as NLP trance seduction, and psychic or occult practices.

Wow. That has got to be the most POV overview of a topic I've ever read on wikipedia. "quick fix", "lay therapy", "fringe practices", "occult practices" are all highly POV and highly critical of NLP.

NPOV policy says to present BOTH views, which means you folks need to present the PRO NLP view before you start hitting it with the criticism point of view. FuelWagon 02:54, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. Does that mean I'm not part of "you folks"?

Actually, let me rephrase that - I agree we have to start with what NLP says about itself, before the criticisms of that.

hey, maybe you can comment on the intro I suggest above in Suggested Openings GregA 03:12, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

a note about sources

One other thing, the article seems sprinkled liberally with "sources" that consist of someone's name. This is useless for purposes of actually verifying that the source said what the article says they said, unless a URL is provided, or a book title and page number is referenced, or something. Given how POV this article currently is, I can't take any of these sorts of "references" unquestioned, nor does it help me ascertain whether you're describing the pro-NLP point of view using the words of a NLP critic or NLP supporter. If you're attempting to describe a pro-NLP point of view using a critic's words, you are failing to follow NPOV policy. If at all possible, please provide URL's so that others can verify your sources. FuelWagon 02:58, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

FuelWagon, I'm adding URLs as I found them. Some of the sources I've checked have been misrepresented. See for example what appeared before my recent changes [38] based on checking [39] which is really a summary of a paper by Raso, 2000. NCAHF is just added for impact (and is a violation of cite your sources policy). Lilienfield is also being mispresented but my changes to fix this have been reverted. --Comaze 03:20, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Can someone please check this post [40]. It has been reverted twice now (including the removal of the URL [41] of source article). --Comaze 04:40, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

I've checked another URL, it also seems a little dodgy. Can someone else please check this. Apart from making false statements about NLP being about "body language" and "percentages" of communication (verbal/non-verbal/tonal ) this is NOT NLP, this is some pop-psyhcology non-sense. I think this reference is invalid... Sanghera, S (Aug 26, 2005). "Look into my eyes and tell me I'm learning not to be a loser". Financial Times, London (UK). --Comaze 06:07, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

This is the same author Headley agreed to remove a few weeks back. The quote then was along the lines of "the unethical use of NLP can increase personal power to the point of evil", or something along those lines. It's a newspaper article and seems to have little basis in fact. headley accepts it because it's a negative review. I'm not sure if this is the same article or a new one by the same author... GregA 07:22, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Please check this edit, IMO the text is misleading: [42] --Comaze 11:50, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Comaze, you are your own worst foe. I was trying to be soft. The category is actually "mental help procedure to avoid". I will make the necessary adjustments. I have a long list of sources who believe the same thing also.HeadleyDown 11:58, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

punishment

DaveRight, regarding this recent revert by you: [43] with the edit summary of "Two big compromises in one day are quite enough. I think that deserves some punishment".

This indicates a possible WP:POINT violation. i.e. disrupting wikipedia to make a point.

NPOV trumps any compromise you may have made. NPOV trumps any consensus or support you have gotten to vote for your version of the article. NPOV trumps any "quid pro quo" you think you deserve in an article.

Please review WP:POINT and NPOV policy. There will be no more "punishments". FuelWagon 03:37, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Fuelwagon. VoA made a compromise in order to smooth things over and move forward. You destroyed his efforts. I rephrased my correction of your uncooperative actions.DaveRight 03:50, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

VoA didn't make a compromise to smooth things over, he made a decision based on our discussions here and in an effort to make the article better.

FuelWagon - I agree, that's really weird. How does he justify a change by saying it's a punishment? (in contrast to being clarifying, informative, adding a reference)? And that any change is a "compromise"... GregA 03:55, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

I was being cooperative and I rephrased it according to your wishes.DaveRight 03:57, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

NLP Promoters/Promotion

Hi again. I feel that VoA could do with a little more respect. This is a deliberately confusing subject and promoters are doing their best to confuse things further, plus promoters are telling him to go away, denying evidence that is already well verified, and completely going against his entirely tolerant compromises toward the actual promoters and against the neutral editors (who are also tolerant). I urge NLP promoters to work with more cooperation. Regards DaveRight 04:03, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

DaveRight, An unspecified noun "NLP promoters" 3 times in one post, and 7 times in the article... can you please provide a definition of this? "Promotion" is used a further 10 times. I think the promotion POV is given a little too much emphasis. --Comaze 04:49, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

I think VoA is doing a great job considering the warzone he's entered into. In what way do you feel we should show him more respect? How is NLP deliberately confusing? Who told VoA to go away? The NLP promoters are trying to work with the Anti-NLP crowd... I can't speak for the other "neutral editors who are NLP trained" (you are not neutral), but we are attempting at the moment JUST to have NLP represented as it portrays itself... we haven't really got to the scientific arguments which come as a natural stage 2. Personally I'm not asking for a compromise either, I'm asking to represent both sides, and where we can show a single viewpoint lets do it. GregA 04:57, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Hello there Greg. Well to be fair, when people remove cited scientific facts and the cited views of scientists and authorities, while at the same time presenting multiple confusing pseudoscientific obscurantisms, other people are going to replace those scientific facts and remove the confusion. By removing facts and presenting hype you can be considered a promoter. By replacing facts and removing confusion, you can be considered more neutral. I think in the "NLP promoter characteristics competition" you are doing quite well, although you are up against some pretty stiff competition. You will probably never match Comaze, and FuelWagon really looks like he trumped you on several fact deletions already. Regards AliceDeGrey 06:03, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi Alice. I agree with what you say - when people confuse things, others will remove the confusion (and vice versa in my experience here). I'm not arguing that I don't present NLP in a far more positive light than yourself - I'm just saying you are highly negative - antiNLP :) GregA 07:24, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Greg,Alice, Is "NLP promoter" used in any of the reputable sources? --Comaze 08:00, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Well havn't we all been busy today! OK, I am going to have to reiterate. The NLP promoters will try their best to annoy and antagonise as much as they can, primarily by insising on questions that have been answered multiple times already. If NLP promoters do that, simply ignore them, they are just trying to cause flames.

If people make multiple spelling edits to cover up deletions etc, then simply revert. Usually those minor adjustments on top are just that; minor. Just revert.

Try to keep as cool as possible and simply work towards NPOV with its emphasis on science over pseudoscience. RegardsJPLogan 10:32, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

It is unfortunate that if you believe all questions are invalid, then all discussion dies, doesn't it? GregA 12:26, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

I noticed that the Patrick Melverde website was on the article. Now that is just wikispam and unacceptable. I also noticed that Patrick is promoting himself on wikipedia also. This kind of promotion simply has to stop. HeadleyDown 11:18, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree no promotion as stated in wiki policy. Saying "this simply has to stop" implies it was more than once?? GregA 12:26, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Read a few books about censorship, Greg. Promotion through censorship is one of the key methods that cults use to promote and bias their devotees. It is also how this article has been treated by NLP promoters.HeadleyDown 14:03, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

I think you forgot to read what I actually said. I was saying no promotion as per wiki policy - that's not censorship, and it agrees with your comment in the line above. And I asked you if it had happened more than once which

you forgot to answer. GregA 20:12, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

I answered. You are trying to cause trouble. Read between the lines and do not twist my words to your distorted way of thinking. HeadleyDown 00:38, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I'll ask again Is the term "NLP promoters" used by any reputable source? I do not have any reputable sources that use the term "NLP users "or "NLP promoters" to refer to a group within NLP. This (personal?) POV is currently given too much weight. Do a search on google, "NLP promoters"-wikipedia does not reveal any results. --Comaze 22:22, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

The books use many term to describe who uses NLP. The NLP books also try to make everything sound high fallutin and would like to call every NLP teacher a doctor, and every user a professor. Practitioner is a confusing term. It can be used to describe an NLP therapist (though most of them don't even have a degree). User is someone who goes to a seminar and gets conned into thinking that NLP does something.HeadleyDown 00:43, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Headley uses the terms "NLP promoter" and "NLP User" liberally.

"NLP promoter" is a subtle implication of bias on anyone presenting NLP from NLP's perspective. A similar implication is attempted when he refers to the anti-NLP group as "Neutral" (AND of course when I call them "Anti-NLP"). I attempted to avoid that bias by using the terms "Group A" and "Group B" when we requested mediation. Headley has recently said that the NLP promoters can't agree with each other and are therefore not one view - I've had disagreements with people though I'm quite confident we could present an article in an agreed way.

"NLP user" was a term they used when they said multiple terms of "NLP Trainer" and "NLP practitioner" were too confusing. I didn't pick it at the time, but since NLP processes can be used by anyone, a priest (for example) can be called an "NLP User" if he uses NLP processes. That doesn't clarify what NLP practitioners or NLP trainers do, or their goals, and weakens the article unfortunately. GregA 22:51, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

User is a neutral termHeadleyDown 00:43, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Tomorrow I want to replace all occurances of NLP promoters, or NLP users with developers, trainers, promoters or practitioners where appropriate. Please let me know if you have any objections to this by tomorrow. --Comaze 12:56, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Reversion war and Arbitration

Well... it's not quite a reversion war, since it's spread over weeks. Things like the sanghera newspaper quote get argued over and agreed to be removed, and then reappear a few weeks later. Michie et al 2005 gets put into context (since Psychological modeling is different to NLP modeling) and described in more depth, gets simplified over time, and then removed by Headley... only to reappear in a different section a little later with the original misunderstanding.

It's circular and pointless, and probably exactly what some people want. I don't know how to take this article forward with the constant changes all over the place, adding negative innuendo and to reframe what's said etc. It's obvious that people come from widely different viewpoints and are either quite positive and knowledgeable in NLP, or quite negative and knowledgeable on the pseudoscience books/cult books/skeptics dictionary and related websites.

I suggested we put 2 views on the page itself (where necessary) and use it as a basis for improving the article - without much comment (I believe there SHOULD be a better way), and then my attempt at that was undone without comment (See Cult Characteristic section [44]), along with a removal of a link to Cult Awareness Network which detracted from the Anti-NLP group bias.

Do we have to go to arbitration or can we get somewhere with the article? I'm happy with either way. GregA 12:22, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Do what you like, Greg. Just remember your track record on deletion of cited fact, statements to request deletion of fact via other promoters, and incitement to vandalism, and willingness to ignore the balance of mediators, and your complete unwillingness to accept fact. Arbitration will definitely expose the more damning facts about NLP cults, legal problems, scientific reviews of pseudoscientific theory, let alone ineffectiveness, and the continued ridiculous proclamations of NLP magicians. Suits me. Regards HeadleyDown 13:59, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Well :) Thanks for your support on arbitration Headley. GregA 20:15, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
PS. Don't presuppose I have a track record. For the record, I answered your accusations and asked some follow-up clarifying questions of my own which you ignored. Instead you make your claims where it suits you and where it's not obvious you're avoiding questions you can't answer. You ARE good at distracting from the subject at hand, which is a pity. GregA 22:59, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Your track record is part of the archives. Have a look and remind yourself.HeadleyDown 00:50, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

HeadleyDown and I have agreed to enter mediation. This happened because basically I feel that the matter is about differing perceptions of whether the article was neutral, and not personal, and thus might be amenable to mediation. He has agreed, for which I have thanked him.

Part of me would like to go straight for arbitration, as I believe a couple of editors of this article are clear POV pushers compared to WP:NPOV and other comparable articles. They may have good intentions, I do not doubt that, but I think they are lacking awareness of the subject in overview, and WP:NPOV specifically, and this means their editing is seriously mis-balanced regardless of their intention.

However thats not wikipedia's aim. The aim is to see a simple subject documented representatively in accordance with Wiki standards of "what an article should be". I am hopeful that if we could take the "heat" out of this, and narrow the debate down to a couple of people and a clear focus, that we might find it's not that hard to sort out. At present Headley (to me) is acting fanatically, but that might just be his understanding of NLP and exposure to it, speaking. I appreciate him being willing to engage in this despite how he obviously feels it is an annoyance and complete waste of time. So I don't want to discuss this, myself, until Headley and I have seen where we go. But in view of Headley's comment above, if he feels Arbitration is best, so be it.

My sense of this is, though, that it would be pointless and pretty premature as it stands anyhow; Arbcom will probably decline to take it on unless/until we've tried to make a serious attempt at mediation, and it's irrepairably failed. I don't think we're quite at that stage yet.

FT2 21:55, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Non-pro NLP editors have been completely cooperative concerning answering the many multiple requests of both the mediator and the proNLPers. On the other hand, proNLPers have been distruptive, rude, and denying the facts. You are in a very weak position.HeadleyDown 00:50, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks FT2. What do you consider a serious attempt at mediation? I'm not sure how your mediation differs from the one we're already doing - are you going to expand on the current NLP Mediation, or start a new one?. We started mediation 3 weeks ago and though a few things are clearer, we're no closer to resolving the same differences you talk about. So on a related note - how do we take our existing mediation and make it more serious??? GregA 22:59, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't mind. Either's okay. I am not seeking mediation around the whole article, or with everyone else. I want to talk specifically with Headley, for now, and specifically not about what ought to be in it, at first, but very narrowly, about the principle, how NPOV works on an article like this. If we can agree how NPOV should work and interact with an article like this, what principles apply and what they mean, then we can go ahead and apply them. So my focus is very narrow right now. Not engrams, not grinder and bandler, not how much research or who said what, but principles of NPOV. Simply put, I want to obtain a consensus between HeadleyDown and myself, that we can both sit down and agree how NPOV is intended to work and works in other articles, in respect of the various defined features of an article and discussion like this. FT2 23:40, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

No FT2. Even during mediation you want to evangelise about NLP. You consider NLP a way to give people orgasms, but that is your opinion. I represent multiple viewpoints using wikipedia policy while being completely cooperative with mediators and neutrally minded editors who verify and accept the facts. HeadleyDown 00:50, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

POV pushing

Alright, I don't know what is going on here, but it would appear that there are multiple people who are entirely clueless about NPOV policy. That or they are disregarding NPOV policy in order to advocate against NLP.

First of all, the article should be presenting the NLP point of view using language from a pro-NLP source or website, not using some NLP critic's version of what NLP claims to be, but using what NLP supporters actually claim it to be. I don't know anything about NLP, but it is abundantly clear that the pro-NLP poitn of view in the article was written by a vehement critic of NLP. That the article started out saying "NLP is a pseudoscientific concept" when I first came to this article is a red flag that NPOV has been completely subverted, trashed, and bulldozed by POV warriors.

Secondly, your sources suck. A name in parenthesis is useless. Start finding some URL's. If the source of your information is a book, give the title and author and page number. You can not simply say "NLP is garbage (Smith)" and expect that to fly in any way. It is a joke version of "citing your sources". I don't care if "Smith" or whoever did say something, you can't just give their name. You have to give the name of the book they said it in, the URL that contains the quote, the newspaper article that contains the quote, etc. Just saying "Smith" is useless for anyone to verify. Do the work, or it doesn't qualify.

Thirdly, start quoting your sources the more disputed and biased the terminology becomes. Paraphrasing "nonsense" or "pseudoscience" or "psychobabble" won't cut it. If someone uses that biased of a term, it needs to be reported in a verbatim quote. This is sloppy editing throughout. And it is some of the most biased editing I've read.

Fourthly, if you are an anti-NLP editor, and if you have no muscle around the idea of "writing for the enemy" (and it would appear that there are no anti-NLP editors here who actually are familiar with the concept of "writing for the enemy"), then you will have to recuse yourself from editing any pro-NLP section. This goes back to my first point, that the pro-NLP point of view must be written from NLP supporters, but it must also be written from their "best foot forward" or whatever you want to call it. When you are writing the pro-NLP section you must essentially write as a pro-NLP advocate, using their words to present their poitn of view. Then when you report the anti-NLP point of view, you basically write as an advocate for the anti-NLP point of view, using their words and their "best foot forward". If you cannot do this for both views, then you should only be editing the views that you can edit and report the view's "best foot forward", whatever side that may be.

My knowledge of NLP is nill, but reading this article tells me nothing about what NLP claims to be. That right there is a red flag that the article is not doing its job as part of an encyclopedia. I don't care what agreements you came to before, I don't care what negotiations you've had before, I don't care what you've done prior to this point, one thing is abundantly clear:

this article sucks. It is blatantly POV. It blatantly advocates against a topic. It fails to present the point of view of supporters of the topic with their best foot forward. And it appears that a number of editors have hijacked this article to make sure that happens.

Now, if someone threatens arbitration, this will be the first thing that shows up. And I'll make bloody sure that this is the first thing to show up. If you're a POV warrior using Wikipedia to advocate against something, you need to find a different encyclopdia to edit. FuelWagon 23:22, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

About NLP (not for flames, but for better understanding of the issues

I want (separate from anything else) to try and explain something, one time at least, both to those who are "anti" and those who are "pro". It's pretty well documented, despite what the anti's feel, and its pretty accurate despite what the pro's want to think otherwise.

There have always been two kinds of people who tried NLP. Those who got it experientially, and it clicked, those who couldn't get it or only got book learning. You can tell those who understand NLP and those who don't, and this is genuine, by those who think its about those patterns, and those who don't. The people who know NLP will say something like this:

It's about a way of being aware of people. The fact that eyes move up down or sideways doesn't matter. The fact that even an observation such as eye-flicker could be revealing, does. The fact that this or that predicate doesnt match isn't nearly as important as the idea that predicates could at times reveal inner processes.

Some people, and some trainers, and I've seen a lot of them, think NLP is "about" VAK, or "about" eye accessing cues. It's not. Those are where books start, because they are simple concepts, easy to observe, and a decent primer for teaching. They could come and go, and NLP wouldn't be affected. It would lose some abilities, and be hampered, but it's not those patterns.

NLP isn't about wholism or pseudoscience. It may be used by them, but thats not where it's at, its a separate issue. NLP is about the principle of it. This is what NLP is about:

These are your opinions. Other sources say other things.HeadleyDown 01:04, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

• Eye movements often reveal inner processes, so if you watch someone's eye movements, they may have idiosyncratic movement that can be used then to form testable hypotheses about that inner process.

NLP has been tested in this way and has come up unsupportedHeadleyDown 01:04, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

• Preciates often reveal inner processes, so if you listen to someone's use of language, they may have consistent linguistic patterns that can be used then to form testable hypotheses about their inner processes.

This is pseudoscienceHeadleyDown 01:04, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

• Conscious minds respond to different things than unconscious minds, and if you do cross-matching with skill and smoothness, rather than crude one-dimensional unskilled linguistic parody, you may find at times that honoring their way of thinking and perception works. (If you are discussing a mountain with an artist, and truly want to engage them, don't describe it in terms of how much money you could make from it as construction material; if you are discussing a day at the beach with someone who remembers the gentle warmth of the sea then you will do better to talk about the feel of the place than the noise of kids playing. May, not will. May)

You are criticising the research again. Scientists say the research is correct. NLP= unsupported.HeadleyDown 01:04, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

• Lie detectors pick up psyiological signals. Not always, and they need to be calibrated individually too. But although it can be fooled, and can have type I and II errors, there is usually enough correspondence between psysiological observables and inner cognition and emotion, to be valid in a U.S. court of law. People can do that too - skin flushes, micromuscle flicker, momentary trancing, word patterns, a hundred observables are there to learn how to calibrate a person effectively, if you have learned how to observe and not be overwhelmed by the volume of detail.

NLP claims to be an arcane skill where you need special training, even to the point where it cannot be tested. That is pseudoscientific.HeadleyDown 01:04, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

That is all NLP says.

Practice hard to learn to be aware - very aware - it says. because people reveal a huge amount about how they are thinking and processing cognitively if you watch for it, and most excellent communicators are simply exquisitely skilled observers.

No, some of them just read from a script (Churchill)HeadleyDown 01:04, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

To get you up and running, learn a library of kinds of patterns others have noticed before, that you might come across again, so that when you do you can be aware. Not everyone will show them, but by the time you can handle that lot, you'll usually be picking up something or other of unconscious behaviors to get by on.

Learn how to spot new patterns, so you aren't stuck with what went before. Explore what kinds of patterns you can notice as people communicate, experience, and respond.

And then, if you feel a pattern is indicating some unhelpful inner process going on, learn how to guide them to try a different way of thinking about it. So you learn to communicate too, only at the micro level, with word patterns, with body language and metaphor. Because thats how humans also do it. The right word can help, but the "right word" inevitably varies from person to person, and isn't always a "word".

Don't assume their life and their way of thinking is yours. In fact, don't assume they care how you see it. So learn to always convey your important message, by addressing it in ways of speaking that they can actually listen to. That's the basis of every modern book on interpersonal communication, and it's part of NLP too.

That is NLP. Most of the rest is superstructure. That's the core. No magic, no pseudoscience. Its testable, and tested, many dozen times in a conversation. Scientific evidence that it works though, tends to come from studies of NLP performed by experienced practitioners in a natural context. They are decomposable, separable, testable, analysable. But the context and style, the experiemental design, is by far the biggest part.

Tests of individual statements are more likely to fail. That's not because it's untestable, more because when NLP folk say "this eye movement means that", it's understood there is an implicit "often" or "sometimes" or "check it for yourselves because not everyone will show this". Eye movement is simply one of a thousand patterns to be sensitive to. Its not robotically common, but if it isnt there some other body language will be. So NLPers look for whats there and dont mind what they find so long as it seems revealing of useful information. Observers who pick just that one item will have problems that NLPers wont, because they don;t see that approach, they only see "you said X means Y".

This is holist thinking and pseudoscientific argument. Your opinion is that the science is wrong. The article cites scientists who know the science is correct.HeadleyDown 01:04, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

That's poor sloppy wording on the part of NLP writers, and their reward (quite reasonably) is many researchers misunderstand, and many others take it to extremes. if you say "X means Y", of course some people will test it, and quite right too. You didn;t tell them clearly what you wanted them to test, what you saw as mattering. You were vague, because vague worked in the field. But vague doesn't work when you are describing and communicating to people outside the field, and thats where NLP screws up big time.

But the basic principle and the whole of NLP is based on nothing more than I have described above. Its that simple a premise.

Written with no citations, no proofs, and capable of being written off as pure hype and unreasonable claims... Read it. Does it not make sense that the approach might not be that far fetched? Can you not see why such divergent results might arise?

My prediction here is, the pro side will agree. They have seen this in action. The anti side will see it could be, but ignore what they feel for what they believe. I've done my best to explain NLP. What you make of it, over to you. It would be nice to be appreciated for attempting to build bridges than flamed for hype, but I can handle the latter too.

A bunch of anectodes are truly not appropriate. Research is requiredHeadleyDown 01:04, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

FT2 23:33, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

thanks FT2 GregA 00:44, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

---

I hadn't heard of NLP until I edited this article about a week ago. That you understand NLP means you can be a good resource for explaining what NLP is and for finding sources and quotes for the article. And I ask you to find sources and quotations and URL's to support the pro-NLP view. I don't know NLP, so I will need to refer to someone who does for help. What I'm concerned with here is wikipedia policy. The article absolutely must follow NPOV policy. And even though I know nothing about NLP, a quick reading of the article reveals blatant NPOV violations. I've tried to correct some: "guesswork" [45]. NLP is "pseudoscience" [46]. Calling it "pseudoscientific"... twice [47]. Associating it with ESP [48] [49]. Confusing explanations [50]. POV terms "quick fix", "lay therapy", "fringe practices", "occult practices" [51]. Some of my corrections have been reverted, which is clearly not a good sign. Biased and/or disputed terms like "quick fix" must be attributed to a source, not made as a blanket statement of fact. This is what I'm looking at, the blatant NPOV violations. It's also fairly clear that the entire article lacks a pro-NLP point of view. It is entirely critical of NLP and that is a NPOV violation as well. This isn't a question of whether NLP is right or wrong for me, this is a question of a highly biased article on wikipedia in blatant violation of policy. Pro-NLP editors and anti-NLP editors can work on this article. I don't care. But NPOV policy must be followed. FuelWagon 00:29, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Hello FuelWagon. Read more about NLP. You will see that the claims made are far more exagerated than the ones presented and that the jargon and obscurantisms are throughout, as are the convenient pseudoscientific explanations. The article requires science for clarification of fact, and it has it.HeadleyDown 01:04, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi Fuelwagon. Thank you for getting involved. I have a question about attributions that perhaps you can answer - I am positive we can find somebody to attribute pretty well anything to... a quick search for "NLP" and "quick fix" will find someone who agrees with that POV. It seems more difficult to show something is representative (or non-representative - eg: I have 50 books which don't mention something, and 2 that do... what does that mean?), and there is a blurred line between a 'scientific review' and a book written by someone with a scientific background. Are there standard wiki policies for that ... when common sense does not prevail? :) GregA 00:44, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, first of all, the answer to the question depends on which view you are reporting. If you wish to report the pro-NLP point of view, then you would report their view "in proportion" to the pro-NLP sources. so if you have 50 pro-NLP books and only 2 of them mention "remote sensing", then you could argue to keep "remote sensing" out of the pro-NLP point of view. If you're talking about the anti-NLP view in the article, then you could quote someone who is critical of NLP who points out that NLP is used by "remote sensing" advocates. And then the article should probably quote this critic as to how, exactly, he mentions "remote sensing" and how he uses that to criticize NLP. And this should be reported in the article in the form of "critic says 'blah' (URL)". If a critic of NLP doesn't actually criticize NLP because it is used by "remote sensing" folks, then criticising NLP based on "remote sensing" may qualify as "original research". When push comes to shove (and by the attitudes in this article, it will, I'm sure), then if "remote sensing" is 2 out of 50, then it could be kept out of the intro, and a section could talk about "fringe" applications or whatever, mention that some advocates of "remote sensing" use NLP. This should also be balanced with anything by the pro-NLP side that would clarify that not all NLP advocates support "remote sensing" as given by the 48 versus 2 ratio or some such thing. FuelWagon 01:22, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

On wikipedia, Science comes before pseudoscience, hype and commercial promotionHeadleyDown 01:04, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Oh, I'm afraid what you just said is another red flag that there are problems here. Wikipedia does not report the "scientific point of view". It reports the "Neutral Point of View". Wikipedia policy is clear that even a topic you believe to be pseudoscientific cannot be reported to be pseudoscientific as a fact. Such a view must be reported from the point of view of a notable source. It is against NPOV policy to say "NLP is pseudoscience" in an NLP article if that assertion is disputed by supporters of NLP. I have some links on my talk page about NPOV policy that I'll post here for you. FuelWagon 01:10, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

"fairly represent all sides of a dispute by not making articles state, imply, or insinuate that only one side is correct." [52]

"unbiased writing presents conflicting views without asserting them." " Writing unbiasedly can be conceived very well as representing disputes, characterizing them, rather than engaging in them." [53]

"Facts are not points of view in and of themselves. So an easy way to avoid making a statement that promotes a point of view is to find a reputable source for a fact and cite the source." [54]

Some NPOV policy quotes. FuelWagon 01:12, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

...And, as User:FuelWagon said, NPOV comes before Science. TBP 01:14, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Actually, on wikipedia, yes, it does. If you can't follow NPOV policy, you will need to advocate your views somewhere else. Perhaps you can start your own website or something. But wikipedia policy is clear: There is no "scientific point of view" in wikipedia. FuelWagon 01:28, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi Fuelwagon. Yes, of course I have now got sources, on both sides. I just did a quick check - there are dozens of studies that I've been assured by multiple contributors don't exist, even though they are self declared experts on NLP and the scientific method. Most books had references that can be tracked down. Except...

I'm not interested in fuelling a dispute. All this would do would be to push people's beliefs and buttons, it wouldn't resolve anything. Because you see, the argument isn't over "NLP right or wrong". Its over people's positions that they have staked out, that they have to defend or else feel made to retreat. Its about ego-loss, the feeling of having taken such an absolute stand that one is committed to the view "my country right or wrong". The issue here is about agreeing in principle what NPOV is and how we apply it as a policy in this article. Otherwise all we do is retrench from "Is NLP evil?" pro/anti, to "Are these researches as reliable as those?" pro/anti. We won't resolve anything, nor achieve any kind of harmony. Extra knowledge in a dispute doesn't resolve things, it just becomes another object both sides look at to prove their point all over again. I'm not inclined to be a cause of provoking others aggression that way.

So no, at present I'm not minded to post more research that way to "prove" one side or the other. If I'd wanted to I'd have done it days ago. I want to work out things with Headley if he's willing. Agree what "neutrality" means in the context of this dispute, which should be simple because it involves misconceptions about WP:NPOV, rather than conflicts over NLP. Then, within that context, it becomes meaningful to look at the article evidence more.

FT2 01:18, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

NPOV isn't about establishing who is right or wrong, it is about reporting that someone said this and someone else says that. What the article currently does is say "NLP is pseudoscience". Well, not now, but a week ago when I did my first edit here, it did actually say that. So that approach is doing exactly what you're talking about, trying to argue whether NLP is right or wrong. NPOV isn't about that. It is about reporting who said what. Smith said this. Jones said that. NPOV does not allow the article to state one way or the other whether a topic is right or wrong or pseudoscientific or whatever. So, I was merely asking that you be available to provide some sources and URL's as to what some of the pro-NLP folks say about NLP. That would then allow the article to at least report the "Smith said this." half of the equation. The editors who hate NLP can then find some sources critical of NLP and the article can then report the "Jones said that" half of the equation. I'm not trying to establish whether NLP is right or wrong. I really don't care. What I care about is that the article remain neutral. FuelWagon 01:27, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

FuelWagon - I have done so. I posted that any reversion should be discussed first on the Talk page, in line with Wikipedia policy, and any questioned facts itemized and I would source them. User:HeadleyDown full-reverted without explanation. I am not into revert wars so I mostly left them, and noted it well. My reasons are given above, all this would do is fule more animosity. It's better the root cause is addressed, ie the differing views of NPOV which we will come back to whatever facts we happen to know. That said if you have a specific question of fact, what NLP says about X, I can look it up easily.

My view is simple and direct. Headley and (to a lesser extent) JPLogan learn NPOV, or they should cease being involved with this article. I have made my stand clear. I am neutral. I want to work collaboratively with editors, and one does that by explaining (which I have tried) even when dismissed, condescended or insulted for it (which I have been), without aggression back. Both sides matter. But NPOV matters more.

I have sought mediation, despite efforts to state it is not useful. Actually I would simply like HeadleyDown to discuss NPOV properly with an informed mediator and see if he can get the idea. I hope he can and will, and his editing drastically changes. For that reason I am letting the status quo stand, because frankly I don't want to unduly incite aggression and ill-will.

But I also wasn't raised naive, so whilst I hope for mutual collaboration and understanding, I'm also prepared in case that doesn't work.

FT2 01:46, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

NPOV Policy

The NPOV policy appears to be the most misunderstood policy. Here are some good excerpts:

"fairly represent all sides of a dispute by not making articles state, imply, or insinuate that only one side is correct." [55]

"unbiased writing presents conflicting views without asserting them." " Writing unbiasedly can be conceived very well as representing disputes, characterizing them, rather than engaging in them." [56]

"If we are to represent the dispute fairly, we should present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject," [57]

"Facts are not points of view in and of themselves. So an easy way to avoid making a statement that promotes a point of view is to find a reputable source for a fact and cite the source." [58]

"the policy does not say that there even is such a thing as objectivity, a "view from nowhere" such that articles written from that point of view are consequently objectively true" [59]

Pseudoscience: "represent the majority (scientific) view as the majority view and the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) view as the minority view" "(some editors) believe Wikipedia should adopt a "scientific point of view" rather than a "neutral point of view." However, it has not been established that there is really a need for such a policy" "explain how scientists have received pseudoscientific theories." [60]

Fuelwagon. You are misrepresenting NPOV policy. NPOV does not give equal weight to all views. It says that some feel wikipedia should be fully science standpoint. But wikipedia should have science as the greatest weight and pseudoscience as a minor weight. Why? Because Dilts, Bandler and Grinder et al want to turn the universe into something out of Star Wars. Science will bring it back to reality.JPLogan 01:50, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

FuelWagon 01:34, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

This means that the article cannot declare as fact that NLP is pseudoscience. Therefore I've removed the assertion that NLP is pseudoscientific from the intro. FuelWagon 01:38, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Another way to put NPOV more simply is to say the article should report who said what and where they said it. And that the article should not make any declarations of fact regarding the scientific or pseudoscientific status of NLP. FuelWagon 01:40, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

You wish to remove the facts. FuelWagon that is against wikipedia NPOV. Your edits will simply be reverted.JPLogan 01:50, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Your definition of what is "fact" about NLP is a poitn of view. That NLP is pseudoscientific is someone's point of view, and it is a view not held by all sources involved with NLP. SPecifically, the people who support NLP don't view it as such. Therefore NPOV policy requires that you report who says it is pseudoscientific adn report it as their poitn of view, rather than report it as undisputed fact. It is disputed by NLP supporters, people who wrote NLP books, etc. So it cannot be reported as undisputed fact. That is NPOV policy. FuelWagon 02:13, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Claims vs. statements of fact

Here are two definitions from Wiki:

Pseudoscience

"Pseudoscience is any body of knowledge, methodology, or practice that is erroneously regarded as scientific."

Science is both:

• "The investigation or study of nature through observation and reasoning, aimed at finding out the truth; and
• The organized body of knowledge we have gained by such investigation."

These imply that it would violate NPOV to say "NLP is pseudoscience". If you note, the line I put in the intro(I don't know if it is still there) was like "NLP is most often regarded by Psychologist and Psycholinguists as pseudoscientific." This is how "pseudoscience" needs to me mentioned here per NPOV. It leaves open at least the possibility of defending aspects of NLP, and since we are not the final arbiters of everything, we must agknowledge this by presenting criticism as the word of critics and not a definite fact.

Also, note that "The Bohr model of the atom, like many ideas in the history of science, was at first prompted by and later partially disproved by experimentation." So while science clearly is more credible than what people consider pseudo, it is not the final correct answer. On the other hand pseudo=/=wrong; however, this title("pseudo") still dismissed all of NLP in one fell swoop.

By the way, it was an IP who told me to "go away" :-).Voice of All ^{Talk|@|Esperanza} 02:08, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I would only ask that you tweak "NLP is most often regarded by Psychologist and Psycholinguists as pseudoscientific." so that it has some indication of how many view it as pseudoscience. Has there been some sort of poll you could cite? Otherwise, "often regarded" is a little too fuzzy. Perhaps there is some psychologist/psychotherapist organization that has come out saying that NLP is pseudoscience, and you can report that? FuelWagon 02:17, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Sure, VoiceOfAll. Apart from all the psychologists, psychotherapists, and linguists, The British Society of Psychologists calls NLP pseudoscientific and I believe the ref is on the article already. RegardsDaveRight 02:47, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Do you mean "all psychologists" or do you mean "all the psychologists whose names are on a list somewhere as specifically calling NLP pseudoscientific"? As for the British organization, that's fine. To report that in the article, it would say "The British SoP states that NLP is pseudoscientific (URL)". Do you understand how that is fundamentally different from the article saying "NLP is pseudoscientific." ??? FuelWagon 02:52, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

The words written on the main page are "The British Psychological Society classes NLP as "quintessential charlatanry" (Parker 1999) [61]." I have searched the British Psych Society pages and found nothing on NLP (except for one training 2 or 3 years ago), and Parker doesn't say where he got this info specifically from. I found one other mention of NLP and British Psych Society, which was the British Psych Society awarding accreditation of a new psychometric test based on cognitive psychology and NLP [62] (they also say the test underwent several years of rigorous empirical testing). Hope that helps GregA 07:43, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Oh, I found another British Psych Society reference to NLP [63] pointing to an NLP review in a newsletter for postgraduate psychologists within the BPS [64] - I've only glanced at the review opening but it seems positive on NLP (and positive or not, it helps us clarify the BPS position on NLP!). Not sure where Parker got his info, maybe it's just dated?. GregA 08:01, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Hello GregA. This is going to be really funny. I think you are trying to open a can of worms for yourself here. I count a lot of sources already on the article that class NLP as pseudoscientific, and do it in a very comprehensive way. My own little database (and I wouldn't dream of dumping everything onto the article at once) is full of refs that explicitly state NLP is pseudoscience. I imagine that there are more sources for NLP as pseudoscience than sources that categorize dianetics as a pseudoscience:) Actually, some of those references place NLP with scientology:) Actually I'm not sure if Scientology is a cult or a religion. I think its a cult in Oz, but a religion in the US. Probably the other way round with NLP:) Oh well!DaveRight 09:46, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

You may find it funny, all I have searched on is British Psychological Society, which SOUNDS like a great source of yours, and I find no support of what you say. Now the pseudoscientific response to me finding this evidence should be to make an excuse for it, rephrase what was said, divert attention, and continue on your merry path... but you discourage pseudoscience right? I would you like to address the evidence that the British Psych Society is not so negative on NLP, may even be positive. Which do you choose? GregA 10:45, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Sorry FuelWagon. Perhaps I have been a little brusque. I didn't realise that you are a newbie to NLP. We have some very knowledgable editors here and NLP is confusing. It tries to look like neuroscience but its certainly not. The terms, concepts and assertions are erroneous and pseudoscientific. Grab a good book on neuroscience and another good book on psychology from your library. Read through the concepts on the brain and mind. Also read up on scientific verification. Then compare with NLP assertions. You will discover for yourself how pseudoscientific NLP is. I hope this helps. Actually its an interesting study. DaveRight 03:11, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi again. Just to clarify. NLP is very good at picking up on popular misconceptions about the mind and brain. These are typically used in order to market their products. The left right brain simplicity is one myth, and there are many others, especially concerning creativity, eye movements (the eyes have it, and a picture is worth a thousand words) and other such attractive confections. These are all pseudoscientific notions. NLP was built on these kind of notions from the beginning and it continues. The new age and spiritual side of NLP does not help at all, and it really enhances the use of pseudoscientific thinking within and surrounding NLP. Best regards DaveRight 03:20, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

The current intro with the scientific studies leading to the term "pseudoscientific" seems to work pretty well.Voice of All ^{Talk|@|Esperanza} 04:03, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I wonder whether it's fair to say that NLP picks popular misconceptions - or rather that pop-psychology mags have grabbed alot of NLP stuff and used it (from their own understanding). I've seen NLP articles saying "the eyes have it" - but they're articles from the mainstream press about NLP. Same goes for spiritual stuff. Does NLP encourage anything spiritual at all (I've never seen it do it) - but the opposite, can someone with a spiritual yearning use NLP to find something for themselves... sure. GregA 06:00, 2 November 2005 (UTC) (ps. What do you mean an IP told you to "go away"?)

Voice of All - if you could assist in a discussion and NPOV presentation of science I would appreciate it. Check out the (temp) page [65] for exactly the same "facts" presented in a different way.... the contrast is a good starting point for POV improvements. GregA 07:49, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Hello Greg. Try a library search, or if you have a psych database, you will find it using a search. Its all there. I must add that the pseudoscience label is not simply a result of negative results. It is also a result of NLP promoters trying to hide the fact by re-framing and rewording things, and adding pseudoscientific argument plus pseudo theory. Regards AliceDeGrey 09:24, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Reality Check

Facts are provided on the article. People (NLP promoters) keep removing cited and triangulated/corroborated facts. That is against NPOV policy. NLP promotes itself using the New Age category. It classes itself as new age. Its background is new age and according to new age books, NLP is right in the center of it. Yet people were trying to remove the fact even after the mediator had it placed in the first line. People are denying facts. Mediator agrees that NLP is pseudoscientific. It is pseudoscientific according to scientists who get the most weight. References are supplied and denial continues. NLP is one of those subjects which is definitely set up to be confusing. I suggest that some people here have read to much NLP and not enough fact. Please do a reality check on yourselves. Fact will be represented and the multiple views concerning NLP will be heard.JPLogan 01:57, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Then let them be, instead of what User:FuelWagon accurately to my mind characterizes as:

"[O]ne thing is abundantly clear: This article sucks. It is blatantly POV. It blatantly advocates against a topic. It fails to present the point of view of supporters of the topic with their best foot forward. It appears that a number of editors have hijacked this article to make sure that happens ... If you're a POV warrior using Wikipedia to advocate against something, you need to find a different encyclopdia to edit."

TBP 02:08, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

People are denying facts? No, people are claiming they have facts as an excuse to flaunt NPOV policy. Your "facts" do not fly. I don't care what your mediator said, you cannot call NLP pseudoscientific. Give me his username and I'll have a chat with him. Or give me a diff that shows exactly where he said this, so then I'll have his name and exactly what he said. "It is pseudoscientific according to scientists who get the most weight?" You need to read NPOV policy regarding pseudoscientific topics and you also need to read about giving "undue weight". "References are supplied and denial continues?" Sorry, a name in a parenthesis is not a reference. A name of an author and the title of a book plus a page number pointing to a verbatim quote, now that would be a reference. "the multiple views concerning NLP will be heard" Well, that would be NPOV policy, but I haven't seen it in the article yet. FuelWagon 02:23, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

"Mediator agrees that NLP is pseudoscientific". While I said that it seems pseudoscientific to me, I also said above(twice I believe) that such wording can not actually go in the article per NPOV.Voice of All ^{Talk|@|Esperanza} 02:44, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

There is a similar argument about pseudoscience at Talk:Psychology. --Comaze 02:50, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I can only handle three irons in the fire at a time. ;) FuelWagon 02:54, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

No worries. :-) --Comaze 07:17, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Hello FuelWagon. Many references here have been provided and verified at the persistent insistence of the NLPpro editors. It seems the deeper you go into studying NLP, the more pseudoscientific it becomes. I have been reading the encyclopedia of NLP, and eye movements corresponding with left and right brain hemispheres/creativity, intuition, music, against logic, numbers, words and so on. Neuroscience does not say that. The NLP encyclopedia does. Neuroscience says that the only thing we know is that the motor speech center is on the left in most people. Music is distributed, spatial sense is distributed, and they are all over the place. Neuroscientists class NLP's assertions as pseudoscience. Their eye movements are directly upwards with a shrug of the shoulders. Regards DaveRight 02:59, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Oh I might add. With the left/verbal pseudoscience, in fact neuroscience says that only the MOTOR side of speech is on the left. The parts of the brain that light up with verbal activity are broadly distributed. DaveRight 03:01, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

The point isn't to establish NLP as pseudoscience. At least that is not wikipedia's point. Wikipedia's point is to report who said what about NLP and where. Wikipedia requires neutrality, which means you can never ever call NLP pseudoscience. You can only say that the British organization says NLP is pseudoscience, and so on. That's it. You must also report the various points of views from the sources that hold them. Which means that you must report the point of view in favor of NLP from the folks who support NLP, the poeple who write that encyclopedia you're talking about, the people who are trying to sell courses, etc. They are the source in this article with regards to NLP, so you have to report their point of view as "so-and-so states 'NLP is awesome' (URL)". You can tehn counter this with "the british organization states that it is pseudoscience" or whatever. This revert by you deleted a version of the intro that did just that, reporting the POV of NLP from the folks who support NLP. I included two URL's so that anyone could verify the accuracy of the quotes. You reverted to a version of the intro that appears to be written by NLP critics. That won't fly as satisfying wikipedia's requirement for NPOV. You also deleted six URL's in the article, and I'm not sure why. URL's are good for people to verify that the editor's did a good job of quoting a source, didn't take something out of context, etc. Most of this article appears to qualify as original research, i.e. information basically reported by the editor's personal knowledge, opinion, or point of view, and it is impossible for another editor to verify the accuracy of original research. This is why articles such as this must report who said what and where they said it. I'll revert the intro again. And ask that you allow the pro-NLP point of view to be reported using the words from pro-NLP sources in accordance with wikipedia policy. FuelWagon 04:31, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Hello FuelWagon. I would like to address your issue. From a broader perspective and one of an editor that has been around for a while, your addition to the opening is inappropriate, based on the fact that it makes it unclear for readers what NLP is about. We sorted this out over the last few weeks through mediation, and the same happened only a few minutes ago through mediation. Wikipeida does not put pseudoscientific subjects on par with science. They are weighted differently. The views from nlpPro sources were already represented in the opening using cited references. As VoiceOfAll mentioned, the opening worked pretty well. I agree with VoiceOfAll. We must have a clear opening because the subject of NLP is so confusing and full of wild claims and obscure terminology that is unfit for a clear encyclopedia. ATB AliceDeGrey 04:46, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

The intro should report the point of view of NLP using the words of NLP sources. Once again, the reverted intro appears to be written by NLP critics. I'm not sure if the source mentioned is an NLP advocate or critic, but the editor who crafted that intro made good effort to slant the article against NLP. I don't care what your mediation results came up with. This intro is biased. Pseudoscientific terms are not "weighted differently". NPOV only allows you to report the views "in proportion" to the number of experts who hold them. That does not allow you to write the pro-NLP point of view using the words of an NLP critic. In other words, declaring a topic to be "pseudoscience" does not give you carte blanch to chuck NPOV policy. FuelWagon 04:56, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Some of the criticism was too much for the intro(since it does have its own section) so I toned it down. The "Pseudoscience" part is enough.Voice of All ^{Talk|@|Esperanza} 05:02, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

No, the intro still fails to meet Wikipedia:Writing for the enemy. Even the pro-NLP point of view is critical of NLP. FuelWagon 05:06, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

What is wrong with it? What would you like removed/added to it?Voice of All ^{Talk|@|Esperanza} 05:10, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Soon, I may be able to get Jay Erwin, my optomotrist, an NLPer, to join this discussion, so don't worry :-).Voice of All ^{Talk|@|Esperanza} 05:18, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi VoiceOfAll. Yes, your changes seem reasonable to me. I have some references that actually state NLP is about programming the mind. It is really very clear and helpful as an opening. RegardsAliceDeGrey 05:25, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm.. what is wrong with it? For me the main concern is that it doesn't clearly show NLP as being applicable to multiple fields. It also makes modeling as something NLP can be used for (along with therapy), which is misleading (the 2 should be clearly separated). Those 2 things would clear up alot of the article IMO. Apart from that it currently isn't clear, it repeats a few things (eg changing beliefs), and mixes some general concepts with specific processes ... it's understandable that it's that way since what it is is mainly what doesn't get undone. The science (like the science in the article) is currently one sided and should say "Preferred Rep Systems" instead of "specific NLP processes" (alternative views in the main article, including quotes and references, have been reverted out of the article instantly with the line "too pro-NLP").

Personally, I think nothing should be in the opening that hasn't been discussed and NPOVed in the article. At the moment it roughly fits that. We need to discuss the science soon. GregA 06:35, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi Greg. By multiple fields, do you mean firewalking, psychic seduction, trancework, Skydancing tantra (yes thats a branch of NLP) and timeline therapy (regression to past lives)? You mention mixing things up, well, I am afraid NLP IS mixed up and that probably needs to be represented in the opening. Personally I find the opening extremely clear and quite neutral. But then again, I'm into neutral. DaveRight 09:51, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

by NLP can be applied in multiple fields, I mean ANY field at all, really. Dancing, scuba diving, computer programming, therapy, whatever. So yes that would include dodgy fields, respected fields, whatever. NLP could model winners of pie-eating contests if the modeler felt like it, and if they didn't feel like it they wouldn't. I haven't heard of Skydancing tantra but it sounds like someone finds it important and if they can use theories and processes from anywhere to get what they want good on them (though I hope they do it ecologically). You bring up another intresting point - we (on this article) should be clear about the differences between NLP and its application so that the reader can be clear - I don't think representing any apparent contradictions by contradicting ourselves is very useful, lets make things clear instead of backhanded... if it's clear we can work more easily on what's actually claimed and what's representative. GregA 22:01, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi Greg. Sure, clarity is extremely important and I'm sure we can work that one out. I have seen NLP practitioners developing NLP in many strange ways. The timeline therapy is one point. James worked it into a kind of Karma buster with the past lives timeline that was used by Bandler. I havn't taken a look at the Skydancing Tantra one properly yet, but I have come across it also. It looks to be a similar kind of development. I'll check it out. Regards HeadleyDown 01:04, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes clarity is a goal. You misinterpret the APPLICATION of NLP, with the DEVELOPMENT of NLP. NLP practitioners often apply what they've learned to other interests and contexts which are not part of NLP (past lives, tantra, whatever). You can "check it out" though if you miss this fundamental point you continue to not understand NLP. GregA 04:42, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi Greg. Allow me to intervene. There seems to be no misunderstanding from either of you as far as I can tell. There are several branches of NLP already on the article and following from NLP's unrestricted and multiple developer development, I would say the dancing tantraTM method is about the same as the Feldenkrais idea, with some of the spiritual aspects of time line/past life therapyTM. This is a very broad subject with a strong new age push so I would say that those branches are probably valid. Of course, more evidence will need to be presented. (considering the requests of mediators and uncles, I suggest accusations of non-understanding are probably not a good idea) Regards Bookmain 05:45, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Bookmain - Yes NLP can be applied to tantra, feldenkreis, past lives.... the point is it's an application. A hammer is valid in multiple fields - gokart building, picture mounting, frame making, cubby house construction... hammer use is really an unrestricted and multiple developer development. Hammers can also be used to tear down stuff, hurt people, and smash macadamia nuts. They're all possible applications and if there is a wikipage on hammers some of that will be represented. A valid application is different to being part of a field. GregA 06:10, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi again everyone. Further info for reality checks. Further to the above recommendations for background reading, I recommend Psychology, a new introduction, but Gross et al. Its a very recent tome and is quite comprehensive giving good info on neurology also. Its a basic undergrad level book and recommended for 1st-3rd years. I also know that Carroll writes books to help undergraduates seperate fact from pseudoscience and myth, and they are used to teach undergrad psychology and related students. Most undergrad psychologists are warned about pop psychology and common new age myths about the mind and such that are promoted all over the self help pop psychology sections of bookstores. If you put pseudoscience in your essays as if it is fact, you're going to flunk. Anyway, I'll keep my eye out for more lovely books to read for clarity. ATB AliceDeGrey 06:31, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi again all. Further to my above post. Here is a good article about science and pseudoscience and the emphasis to warn people off reading and accepting pseudoscience as science. [66] Some of the reading is from Lilienfeld amongst others. Its a useful source and hilights NLP as a pseudoscience to avoid in quoting as science, and to avoid as a method. ATB AliceDeGrey 08:07, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Hello PatrickMelverde. Really Kolb's learning syle inventory is not VAK accelerated learning pop psych. [67]. I'm not sure what kind of research you are doing on NLP but please use the right theories and notions. RegardsBookmain 06:12, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Civility

Let's keep this civil  :)

Splendid decision, Comaze. Hope you can keep it up. Actually, does that involve recognising facts that have been presented and verified many times before? HeadleyDown 12:10, 2 November 2005 (UTC) 12:06, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, will you do the same? --Comaze 12:28, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Certainly! Group hug! HeadleyDown 14:00, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

So we agree. Ok. Let's collaborate on this and get all the facts represented accurately and verified. --Comaze 02:04, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism: Studies failed to test NLP?

Comaze! It is not my role to block people from editing wikipedia. But you have just committed vandalism on the article.[68] Not only have you been accusing others including myself of vandalism with absolutely no basis, but you have been committing it yourself in addition to all the other antagonistic behaviour and uncooperation. It is noted! HeadleyDown 14:09, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

It seems that NLP promoters will stoop to any depth in order to damage and subvert this article. Not only do they actively encourage deletion of cited fact, but they will twist sentences to suit themselves no matter what the source has quoted. I suggest to non NLP promotional editors to scrutinise every edit NLP evangelists make. A stricter crackdown is in order HeadleyDown 14:17, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I question your revert: [69] based on one objection. The revert also removed spelling and grammar corrections. I rather you edit the text you object to rather than waste my time having to correct spelling and grammar repeatedly. If you find yourself using "they" when writing prose, then think who is "they" referring to? This is the same as when you write "NLP promoters", "NLP users", what group specifically? I invite you to attribute "they" comments to specific group with reference to the source so that it can be checked. --Comaze 22:41, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Comaze, stop messing around. You know you are making multiple edits to promote NLP and everyone can see it. You have been around here long enough to know the background material. If you change a direct quote to suit your agenda it will definitely be reverted. So just leave it alone. DaveRight 03:54, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

A direct quote should be in parenthesis ("). --Comaze 07:35, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Really Comaze, your excuses are totally beyond the pale. Just stop this silly behaviour. Everyone can see what you are up to. AliceDeGrey 07:58, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Alice, What exactly are you referring to? Please use my talk page if it is personal. --Comaze 09:24, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Article Issues

Here are the sections:

1. 0 Intro--NPOV, acceptable.
2. 1 Overview--NPOV, acceptable.
3. 2 Goals--NPOV, acceptable.
4. 3 Principles and Presuppositions --NPOV, acceptable.
5. 4 NLP Modeling--NPOV, acceptable.
6. 5 Background--NPOV, acceptable.
7. 6 Basic Tenets--How often PRS is used is still being discussed, rewording might be needed.
8. 7 Recent Developments--Could use more clarity, some POV remains, to much use of "many".
9. 8 NLP Applications--Had some POV, could use minor style rewordings.

   * 8.1 Psychotherapy
   * 8.2 Self Help and Inspirational Seminars
   * 8.3 Coaching and other HR applications
   * 8.4 Energy, Spiritual Experience and New Age Movement

1. 9 Science

   * 9.1 Scientific Testing
   * 9.2 Claims to science
   * 9.3 Pseudoscience

1. 10 Criticism

   * 10.1 Unethical use
   * 10.2 New age
   * 10.3 Cult characteristics
   * 10.4 Extraordinary Claims
   * 10.5 Buzzwords and trademarks

Which ones do any of you have problems with and why? Lets try to speed this process up.Voice of All ^{T|@|Esperanza} 17:32, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I've started sorting out the references to make it easier to check NPOV, and clear out any unused references. --Comaze 00:47, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I've only skimmed the article. I have been focusing on fixing the intro, which is woefully anti-NLP, biased, non-neutral, and POV. NLP should be defined in terms of language used by pro-NLP advocates first, followed by defining it by anti-NLP folks second. It is currently defined by anti-NLP folks and then criticized by anti-NLP folks. I tried inserting the definition of NLP based on some of the NLP websites that are provided in the reference section, but obviously, the anti-NLP folks have hijacked the article and refuse to allow it, shouting "facts" and "pseudoscience" and several other comments that all clearly show a disregard for how NPOV policy actually works. The central aspect of NPOV is to report BOTH sides of a topic from BOTH points of view, not to let the critics define it as pseudoscience and then tell you all the things wrong with it. The lead sentence just a week ago started out by saying "NLP is pseudocientific ..." But the tone of the article is clearly biased, and it obviously lacks the voice of a pro-NLP source. I also find it funny that someone would suggest bringing in their... dentist, I think... as a pro-NLP source when I actually quoted some of the main pro-NLP sources provided in the reference section, used it to define NLP from their point of view, provided URL's to verify these definitions, only to have it reverted by the anti-NLP because it doesn't line up with their version of facts. Your version of facts as an editor is irrelevant. Wikipedia demands we report who said what and where, and NPOV requires that we allow main NLP sources define what they say NLP is and is not, followed by reporting what main NLP critics say NLP is and is not. All the "facts" that get bandied about on this talk page is little more than anti-NLP POV that needs to be reported from an anti-NLP source. FuelWagon 02:04, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Hello FuelWagon. So you are saying the mediator is no good, proNLP editors should have full power to promote NLP pseudoscience on par with science, or even demote science, and you should be allowed to remove any edit that the mediator makes? I believe your suggestions are uncooperative. Lets just work together with the mediator on this. HeadleyDown 02:14, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm saying it is pretty clear that you have absolutely no clue what NPOV policy on wikipedia is. None. Any editor should have full power to report what pro-NLP SOURCES say about NLP. Any editor also has full power to report what anti-NLP SOURCES say. That is NPOV policy. The problem here is that you aren't following NPOV policy in any shape or form. You are declaring the anti-NLP point of view as "fact", and demanding that the article report that point of view as fact. You take NPOV's requirement to report the pro-NLP point of view using pro-NLP SOURCES as "full power to promote NLP pseudoscience on par with science, or even demote science". You are arguing that your view, is "fact" or "science" and therefore is not subject to NPOV policy. And I have pointed out several times that wikipedia does not follow the "scientific poitn of view" (SPOV), instead wikipedia requires the "neutral point of view" (NPOV). I suggest you read up on both SPOV and NPOV and learn the difference before you decide who is being "uncooperative" here. And yes, if the article is blatantly violating NPOV policy, anyone can revert the article to fix it. FuelWagon 02:21, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi VoiceOfAll. There are no problems according to my cross checking. There may be some quotes that need changing after Comaze's "alterations" though. Regards HeadleyDown 02:07, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Case in point, the "applications" section of the article made this assertion of fact: Similar to other amoral pseudoscientific psychocults such as Dianetics and EST, and goes on to say that NLP is amoral, pseudoscientific, and a psychocult. This is asserted as fact without attributing it to a source as saying "Jones says 'blah' (URL)". Instead it just says 'blah'. I have removed this blatant POV statement. [70] FuelWagon 02:25, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Another case in point, the "recent developments" section contains an entire paragraph that states as fact that NLP is "pseudoscience", wish fullfilment, quick fix, lack critical faculty, fad, cult, grossly misleading. all of this as fact, rather than reporting it as the point of view of someone. I've removed it. [71] FuelWagon 02:41, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Hello again Fuelwagon. The solution here would be to ask for the citations. They do exist, although some promoters like to delete them during multiple edits or while backs are turned. I will go through and check for uncited statements as a solution..Bookmain 04:35, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Mmm, I'm sorry Fuelwagon, I am afraid I do not agree with you. The citations are all there and extremely clear. Please do not make assertions that cannot be supported. Editors have better things to do than check up on groundless complaints..Bookmain 04:42, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Bookmain, I don't know if you understand what I'm getting at here. The article says stuff like NLP is pseudoscience (Smith).. That is clearly not in accordance with NLP. It may be in accordance with writing an academic or research paper, where the point of view of the researcher/writer is the point of view of the article. But that is not, I repeat, not the point of view of wikipedia. Wikipedia demands a neutral point of view, meaning that the editor cannot insert any of their own opinions or research or information. What must be reported, instead, is who (in the form of a notable source for or against NLP) said what (in the form of an assertion made by the source, a verbatim quote is best) and when/where they said it (in the form of a URL if at all possible, or a book title and page number). Anything else falls short of meeting NPOV policy for wikiipedia.

Therefore, the article can not, I repeat, not say something like NLP is pseudoscience (Smith). Instead, the article must rephrase this to something like Smith states that NLP is pseudoscience, followed by a URL or book/page to verify the accuracy of the quote or paraphrase. Therefore, despite your arguments that "citations are there", the citations are there in the form of a research paper written by a researcher who has a particular point of view, namely an ANTI-NLP point of view. This is in NPOV violation. FuelWagon 17:53, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Hello FuelWagon.. You are correct in making the statement that the article can not, I repeat, not say something like NLP is pseudoscience (Smith). But the article does not do or say that. As VoiceOfAll said, the way the pseudoscientific statements are worded, they work pretty well. Certainly I have tried to word things softly, and have deliberately avoided placing incendiary words, but people do keep pushing for the actual quote. Right now, the lines are really very mild. Regards HeadleyDown 01:10, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

I removed this chunk of text [72] that links NLP eye accessing cues with engrams ?? It references Bandler and Grinder and O'Connor??? These guys have NEVER used the term engram. This has since been reverted (a simple correction of fact) [73] --Comaze 08:42, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Proposed solution to PRS/RS

Hello VoiceOfAll. I have a way to resolve the recent use of PRS/RS. Would you like some recent refs for proof? Best regards DaveRight 03:55, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

blanket POV reverts

So, I fix a number of different POV issues. Explain each one on the talk page, and they get blanket reverted [74] by the anti-NLP pushers on the article. FuelWagon 03:42, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Three Psychotherapists?

Hi Fuelwagon. Sorry it takes more than a minute for me to type a para. In Bandler and Grinder 75 they say that they developed NLP based on 3 psychotherapists (actually it was one new age family therapist, a dianetics auditor, and an anthropologist). Bandler was a mathematician, and Grinder was a linguist. Please do some background reading before making edits. This article has been extremely well researched. Note that Comaze likes to change quotes to change the meaning. His changes are indeed extremely bad and are generally reverted. Please do not follow his bad example. Best regards DaveRight 03:46, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

"This article has been extremely well researched." The article is also extremely biased. The original sentence doesn't make sense saying that NLP is based off the communication patterns of 3 psychotherapists. I apologize for getting the three names wrong, but the sentence rewrite, minus the names, makes it more understandable. FuelWagon 03:55, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi again FuelWagon. The other reverts were due to you deleting the scientific view. The NLP proponents have their say (eclectic), and the scientific view is that is pseudoscientific due to the way it is being used. This has been resolved before during mediation. Best regards. DaveRight 03:49, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Ah, if only you could realize that the "scientific view" you speak of is in the article in the form of factual assertions, which violates NPOV. You must report who is asserting these "scientific views" that call NLP pseudoscience. You cannot simply state as fact that NLP is pseudoscience, with a name (Smith) in parenthesis at the end. You must say that "Smith states that NLP is pseudoscience". It is a fundamental difference. FuelWagon 03:55, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

The attributions are very clear as they are, Fuelwagon. I see no reason to argue over how they said it or some/he/they/ said and so on. Those kind of arguments will be very unproductive at the present. Please lets get on with the issues that Voice_Of_All has marked out..Bookmain 04:32, 3 November 2005 (UTC)