Talk:Neuro-linguistic programming/Archive 26

Archive 20

←

Archive 24

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

Section Scientific criticism

I have added to section Scientific criticism the critiquue contained in Bradley and Biederman (1985) and that in Tye (1994). I wanted to WikiLink to a description of nonspecific effects but there is no article on this important topic, there is only a redirect to placebo. The placebo effect is merely one of many nonspecific effects of treatment. I may create an article on the topic and link to that. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 05:00, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

I have added the Craft (2001) critique of NLP modeling. Craft's critique is steeped in the lexicon of educational psychology/philosophy so it can be -- dare I say -- abstruse to some so I have paraphrased where I thought necessary and made liberal use of WikiLinks where it was necessary to use the original language or where even my paraphrase wasn't completely clear. I will revisit this (along with the new section) later with a clear head as I am exhausted at the moment (so there may well be typos). AnotherPseudonym (talk) 16:35, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Section Early Development

Include Carlos Castaneda as inlfuence on NLP. Used McClendon's authoritative history as source here, other sources will be included in other section where Castaneda is referenced. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 06:43, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

New Section

I surveyed the academic anthropological and sociological literature vis-a-vis NLP and found that there is sufficient material to justify the description of NLP as quasi-religious. NLPs positioning within the New Age movement appears undisputed amongst social scientists of any note. I am not done with this new section so bear with me. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 09:55, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Where is the "Neutral Point of View" ?

Wow, from top to bottom nothing but criticizm of NLP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:30A:2C21:3060:C12E:B979:E672:5A39 (talk) 12:33, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

You apparently don't understand WP:NPOV or WP:SCICON. Given that there is literally (I am not being hyperbolic) no evidence for the efficacy or validity of NLP what can the outcome be? Should we make up positives about NLP or allow made-up material to be included in the article? Can the article on Young Earth creationism be anything but critical? AnotherPseudonym (talk) 02:19, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

While not strictly adhering to the point of view of this article, this is clearly good work (tx!), i've been emailing a well known nlp teacher to ask for other relevant papers/studies/books and will report here if i get any usefull answer, Regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.178.15.156 (talk) 23:37, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Btw, dear AnotherPseudonym, if you ever get any time to have a look on the Robert Dilts page, it could be great as well ;) Thanks again -Regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.178.15.156 (talk) 00:01, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't know about AnotherPseudonym, but I see nothing of note on the Robert Dilts page, personally. References on Wikipedia should generally be secondary sources, in other words, an objective person reviewing the NLP literature, studies about the effectiveness of NLP, etc. Books written by NLP practitioners themselves are primary sources and are, at best, suitable to describe NLP practices and viewpoints of practitioners. You may wish to read further on reliable sources and, since this is purported to be a possible medical treatment, medical reliable sources, which has even stricter criteria for sources. – RobinHood70 ^talk 00:20, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

@User:88.178.15.156 I am familiar with Dilts' (many) books and his encyclopedia and have been for many years now. I concur with RobinHood70: there is nothing of note there and many concerns about reliability. Dilts' opinions and anecdotes don't have any evidentiary value and he is a very partisan source. Regarding a description of NLP based on Dilts' "Systemic NLP", that would be inappropriate because of its peculiarity. We want to describe "mainline" NLP, i.e. what all proponents more or less agree on hence the bias towards the texts authored by Bandler and Grinder before they split. If an analogy would help we are seeking to describe "mainline" Christianity not one denomination versus another denonimation and we don't want to ask the choir whether they think Christianity is true and great. Can I ask that before you try and foist some piece of pro-NLP propaganda upon the article that you first search the archives and thoroughly familiarise yourself with WP:RELY, WP:SCICON, WP:CONFLICT and WP:ORIGINAL and use other articles to interpret those policies (rather than set-up as a WP:LAWYER)? More generally--to you and others like you--there is no evidence for the efficacy nor of the validity of NLP hence the article is as it is. The article represents WP:SCICON. If you don't like this then your energies are best directed at efforts such as this (you can donate money to them) rather than at trying to subvert the NLP article. If NLP-related research is eventually produced and--and this is very important--it is published in a peer-reviewed journal then a case can be made for its inclusion in the article. But until that time any efforts to corrupt the article into a promotional puff-piece for NLP and thereby obscure WP:SCICON will be in vain. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 04:45, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

New Section Main components and core concepts

In the process of reading the article in its entirety I concluded that it required a succinct (as best as I could manage on the topic) statement of the core of NLP, what it is according to its founders. I think this addition makes the article more informative. I am mindful of complaints from some visitors that they failed to get a grasp of what NLP is from the lead but I don't think that what I have added to the body of the article would work in a lead, it would be far too much detail and trimming it down (reference my attempt at a revised lead) produces dense and incomprehensible text. Subjectivity is intrinsically difficult to write about so some degree of obscurity and verbosity is -- I think -- unavoidable in a textual work. This is partly why NLP proponents suggest that NLP can only be learnt via a seminar where a form of experiential learning can be effected. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 03:12, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

That comes across as very difficult to understand for me, and left me with little better of an idea what NLP was about after reading it. I had to literally sit down and "translate" it into everyday language. I've tried to summarize it in the rewrite below, but since it's not a topic I'm excessively familiar with, and I can see from the talk page history that this is probably a contentious article at times, I'd like some input before the article itself is changed.

----

NLP comprises three main concepts:

• Subjectivity. NLP suggests that people view the world subjectively in terms of five senses and language, and therefore think and relate ideas in those terms. It is suggested that these behaviours form a pattern, and NLP is therefore sometimes defined as the study of the structure of subjective experience. NLP contends that all behaviour, whether positive or negative in nature, can be described and understood in terms of these sense-based subjective experiences. Furthermore, NLP suggests that both your own behaviour and that of others can be modified by manipulating these experiences.
• Consciousness. NLP is predicated on the notion that consciousness is split into a conscious component and a unconscious component, with the unconscious component, referred to as the "unconscious mind", being comprised of what occurs outside of an individual's awareness.
• Learning. NLP uses what they call "modelling" as a basis for study, and claim that it can be used to represent one's expertise in any given area. An important part of this process is studying the senses and language used when the subject is working in their area of expertise.

How does that sound? – RobinHood70 ^talk 22:30, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. Overall it sounds ok but there are some problems which I have noticed on first reading. I don't like "NLP uses what they call", that isn't encyclopedic language. Who is "they"? The description of the modeling procedure is technically wrong. It isn't a matter of studying "the senses...used", it is a question of the sensory-based representations occuring in the exemplar's mind. For example, it is a trusm that a juggler is watching the balls in motion--that isn't worth noting. Rather, the NLP modeler is concerned with what "pictures" the juggler may be forming in their head whilst juggling. That is a critical difference. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 01:44, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

I just noticed that throughout your rendition you attribute behaviour to NLP. I appreciate that is idiomatic English (and that you don't actually mean that NLP is capable of behaviour) but I don't think that is encyclopedic language by virtue of its idiomatic nature. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 01:51, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Woops, sorry, I forgot about this. You're right, on re-reading my suggested version, the language could definitely use a little polishing, but I think the section as written is very difficult to comprehend. We should probably aim for half-way between the two. Of course, if it's just me who has trouble understanding the existing language, then I'm content to leave it as is. – RobinHood70 ^talk 05:22, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

I tried to make this section as simple and clear as possible whilst also being accurate. I am quite confident that it is technically accurate and sympathetic to its subject but I am uncertain if it is as lucid as possible. I am doing preliminary work for another article which also relates to subjectivity--but much more so--and I am struggling to find phrasings which are clear but also completely accurate. I am inclined to think that subjective experience is instrinsically difficult to write about because (a) it is generally an unfamiliar topic, i.e. we take it for granted, we just live it; and (b) it is subjective, i.e. it pertains to an internal experience, something which by definition cannot be--ordinarily--elucidated by pointing to something objective. If you survey the secondary texts on NLP you will not find even an attempt at a description as per this section and the primary texts provide these descriptions spread over entire chapters (and most seminars don't use these texts because many can't understand them). Thus there is no exemplar to refer to. Text frequently offered as exemplary is usually vacuous and obfuscatory (e.g. "NLP is the study of the structure of subjective experience" on its own communicates barely anything), marketing-speak (e.g. "NLP is the art and science of excellence"), incorrect by virtue of incompleteness (e.g. "NLP is about modeling excellence"), pseudo-technical/pseudo-philosophical nonsense (e.g. "NLP is pragmatic epistemology"; "NLP is a bridge between rationalism and empiricism"), peurile and reductive (e.g. "NLP is covert hypnosis methodology"). In defense of the current form and content, it is fair to say that if you have understood the section in question you have gained a deeper and more accurate understanding of what NLP is than 95% of NLP seminar attendants and trainers--that is a big payoff relative to the effort IMHO. Most NLP authors and certified proponents are unable to tell anyone what NLP is. They will typically describe a set of techniques and the purpose of those techniques but they are unable to actually articulate what distinguishes those technqiues as NLP--what ostensibly ties those techniques together. My point being that this section is a rarity and given its subject matter it should perhaps be judged with reference to its competition. I don't know--I'm tired and rambling. I am happy to field your suggestions. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 13:59, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for answering the question about your previous status. Otherwise I am afraid I don't find your argument convincing. The sources and text are pretty clear and I for one see no reason to change ----Snowded ^TALK 19:32, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

American English spellings

I have restored some American English spellings in the article except in quotations and book titles. It seems obvious that American English is required in this article as per the MoS principle that articles should be written in the variation of English most closely associated with the subject which NLP clearly is. If anyone wants to make a case otherwise then please do so here. Afterwriting (talk) 09:32, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Read the large yellow box at the top of this page carefully, then I shall expect you to restore the page to the condition it was in before your good faith edits. Thanks. --Roxy the dog (bark) 09:58, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

I will not be changing it back for the reasons I've already given. As far as I am concerned it is a straightforward style policy matter that this particular article should be written in American English regardless of what form of English it was originally written in. Give me one good reason why this article ought to remain with British English spellings. It is quite ridiculous, for example, to keep referring to "Solution Focused Therapy" etc but then used "focussed" for the one time when this word is used by itself. As an Australian I usually use British spellings myself for most things as Australian English usually does. But this is not about such personal preferences ~ it is about what spellings etc an article ought to use based on the MoS principle that a subject principally associated with a particular nationality should use that nationality's spellings etc. As far as I am concerned it a matter of the bleeding obvious that an article about NLP on Wikipedia should be in American English regardless of what that "large yellow box" says. Afterwriting (talk) 11:15, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Just in case you didn't read the large yellow box, sport, I will helpfully reproduce the important bit here - This article is written in British English with Oxford spelling (suffix -ize rather than -ise), and some terms used in it are different or absent from American English and other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. I do hope this is written in the correct Queens English so that you understand it. It seems quite clear to me? Thanks. --Roxy the dog (bark) 11:28, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

If you want to come across to others as pathetically patronising then you are doing a very good job of it. But you have continued to completely fail to present any arguments at all to support using British spellings in an article which is overwhelmingly historically associated with the United States. There are, of course, no good arguments which support using British spellings in this article but obviously you are completely blind to the obvious and prefer silly little power games instead. Afterwriting (talk) 18:25, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

I note your recent edits - I'm happy that you have joined me in my crusade to stop the decline in good English. (Note spelling of patronize). --Roxy the dog (patronize me) 19:17, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Roxy if you want to make the change raise an RfC its simple. Don't edit war on what is an agreed standard until you have agreement that standard should change. I'm sympathetic by the way ----Snowded ^TALK 19:45, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't feel strongly about this issue either way. Afterwriting does make a good point in that the origin and culture of NLP is North American. Most of the books on the subject are from the USA and most of the key figures are from the USA so perhaps USA-English is more "natural". AnotherPseudonym (talk) 03:58, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

I also agree that for this article, using US spellings makes more sense, since that's where NLP has its origins and, I suspect, where it's the most popular. That said, it has obviously spread to other countries, and I agree with Roxy that, according to WP's rules, it should not have been changed without consensus. (And on a side note, I'm amused by the fact that all of us supporting US spelling for the article are from outside the US.) – RobinHood70 ^talk 07:34, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

+1 to move to US spellings as well (and I'm from Australia and living in the UK) - is there any significant non-US contribution to NLP? I was actually surprised to see the British English box at the top of this page when Roxy pointed it out - David Gerard (talk) 08:37, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

@Snowded ^TALK I think you may have got your impression of what I want the wrong way round, however I see what you mean. The issue for me is twofold, in that Afterwriting (talk) never even attempted to get consensus, and my eyes hurt every time I see the word behavior spelled that way. Consensus here will obviously go the American spelling way, and that will be fine, as long as you guys club together and buy me a bottle of bleach for my eyes. Thanks. --Roxy the dog (patronize me) 09:12, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

No, no significant contribution to NLP outside of the USA (but it's not really subject to revision in any event). I agree that Afterword should have sought consensus but (s)he seems a reasonable person and did actually argue a point which I think is a rarity here (present company excepted). It appears that the strength of their conviction of the rightness of the change compelled the action. @RobinHood70 I think our support of USA-English here even though none of us are from the USA is demonstrative of our striving for objectivity and our ability to set-aside any parochialism. I too prefer British-English and my dictionary of choice is the OED (I have the CD version of the behemoth version) but the subject is very American so USA-English it is. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 11:58, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

NLP was born in American so I agree that unless there is a strong case to use UK-English then we should default to US-English. --Reconsolidation (talk) 12:49, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Let's give it a day or two and if there's no dissent, we can change it - David Gerard (talk) 17:41, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

No dissent, so I've changed the template on this page and am about to go through the article. Painful as it will be to me as an unAmerican - David Gerard (talk) 09:12, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Just went through; could an American please go through as well? - David Gerard (talk) 09:56, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

My eyes are hurting ;) --Roxy the dog (patronize me) 10:00, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

BEHAVIOR! BEHAVIOR! BEHAVIOR! AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA (I find "behavior" really hard to type) - David Gerard (talk) 10:15, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Though quite a lot of the reference quotes are from UK sources, so take extra care not to alter those - David Gerard (talk) 10:16, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Teaching scientific literacy

In the introduction, it says: "NLP serves as an example of pseudoscience for facilitating the teaching of scientific literacy at the professional and university level." None of the three references given: Lum, Lilienfeld et al., and Dunn et al. support this statement. Indeed, the aforementioned authors offer NLP as an example of pseudoscience, but there is no specific mention of NLP being used to teach scientific literacy at the professional or University level. Accordingly, if the correct references cannot be provided, the statement should be removed. Lex.shrapnel (talk) 04:55, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

The phrase does not say NLP is being used to teach scientific literacy, it says it is used as an example of pseudoscience in said teaching ----Snowded ^TALK 05:09, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

"it says it is used as an example of pseudoscience in said teaching". As I highlighted, the references provided do not support that statement. Lex.shrapnel (talk) 05:18, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

To be honest I have little idea what you are claiming or what changes you are suggesting. At the moment its a reasonable summary of the sources. It might be clearer if you made a specific proposal for change rather than general and ambiguous statements ----Snowded ^TALK 05:39, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

My statements were neither ambiguous nor general. If supporting reference(s) cannot be provided, the aforementioned statement should be removed. The three references in question could be moved over to the statement "NLP exhibits pseudoscientific characteristics," as that is all that they support. Lex.shrapnel (talk) 16:33, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

It is far from clear if you are saying the references do not say it is used an example of pseudoscience, or if you are saying that is OK but it is not about facilitating the teaching of scientific theory. The first is supported, the second to my mind is a reasonable summary ----Snowded ^TALK 19:03, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

In the three references I highlighted, there is no mention whatsoever of NLP "serving as an example of pseudoscience for facilitating the teaching of scientific literacy at the professional and university level." That is a very specific claim and it is not at all supported by the references provided. I wasted my time reading those references so that I could find out which University courses were doing so, only to discover that they offered no information at all in this regard. On the other hand, the authors do suggest that NLP is a pseudoscience, so as I mentioned already the references could be moved to the statement "NLP exhibits pseudoscientific characteristics", or even placed on a new statement (e.g., "It has been suggested that NLP is a pseudoscience"). Regardless, considering the current references, this should be removed (or have a citation needed added): "facilitating the teaching of scientific literacy at the professional and university level". That information is simply not present at all in the references provided, and so it is misleading to leave it in. Lex.shrapnel (talk) 01:42, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

I just checked page 16 of Lum and NLP is used as an exemplar of psuedoscience to contrast pseudoscience with science. I will check the other references shortly. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 02:10, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

I checked page 12 of Dunn et al and it uses NLP as an example of pseudoscience. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 02:32, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

I read through Lilienfeld et al and it provides instruction for instructors on constructing a critical thinking/pseudoscience curriculum in university psychology courses. There are specific book recommendations for such a course and these include some of the books that are referenced in the Wikipedia NLP article which do specifically name NLP as a pseudoscience e.g. Della Salla. @Lex.shrapnel you appear to be asking for the names of specific universities and I think that is misguided. It is neither necessary nor sufficient to name specific universities to justify the statement that you claim is illegitimate. Not necessary because the two books cited are university-level textbooks that are current and because the Lilienfeld et al paper provides specific direction on curricula creation and it was published in a major journal dedicated to teaching psychology, viz. Teaching of Psychology. Further the Lilienfeld paper tells us that such courses have been and are implemented in North American universities:

Largely as a consequence of the renewed interest in the problem of pseudoscience and its importance to education in psychology, a number of instructors across the country, including us, have developed undergraduate courses devoted to science and pseudoscience (Jones & Zusne, 1981; McBurney, 1976; B. Singer, 1977; Swords, 1990; Wesp & Montgomery, 1998). Based on our syllabi and those of several faculty members across the country who have taught closely related courses (see note 1), we present a model syllabus for undergraduate psychology courses in science andpseudoscience (see Table 1). Interested readers can find an excellent set of resources for such courses in B. Singer (1977), who described guidelines for teaching courses focusing on the scientific examination of paranormal phenomena. (p. 183)

Not sufficient because if specific universities were named and the citation was based mereley on naming universities people like you would complain that X universities are insufficent to justifify the statement and that more are needed. For these reasons there is no problem with the statement: "facilitating the teaching of scientific literacy at the professional and university level". NLP along with numerous other pseudosciences are used as examples in teaching students how to identify pseudoscience and to distinguish science. If you want specific examples then you can start with the universities to which the authors are attached. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 03:22, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

@Lex.shrapnel Just for the record here as some specific curricula that use NLP as an exemplar of pseudoscience:

http://commfaculty.fullerton.edu/jreinard/4th_ch3.htm

https://myeap.eap.ucop.edu/Galileo/service/coursecatalog/CoursePublic.aspx?IDs=28617&ParticipationID=V8K4e1%2Fa7gI%3D

http://faculty.weber.edu/eamsel/Classes/Science%20and%20Profession%20%282010%29/Lectures/LEcture%205/4%20Pop%20Psychology.pdf

http://gator.uhd.edu/~hagen/hum3310.pdf

http://faculty.berea.edu/messerw/paranormal/ExSyllabi/Wetzel_Chris.htm

http://sitemaker.umich.edu/dec.btr/files/dawes_principlesofindividualandcollectiveirrationality_socialanddecisionsci_advundergrad.pdf

http://www.unk.edu/uploadedFiles/academics/honors/honorscoursedescriptionsS10.pdf

Enjoy. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 03:55, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

PS:- @Lex.shrapnel Either you didn't read the Lilienfeld paper or you have reading comprehension problems. You could have answered you own questions by reading and understanding the Lilienfeld paper. If the authors say: "Largely as a consequence of the renewed interest in the problem of pseudoscience and its importance to education in psychology, a number of instructors across the country, including us, have developed undergraduate courses devoted to science and pseudoscience..." and they recomemend a bunch of books that use NLP as an exemplar of pseudoscience then the matter is settled. Teaching of Psychology is a well-regarded peer-reviewed journal, the authors couldn't get away with making stuff up. There is no reason to doubt the Lilienfeld paper. Also, looking for statements of the form "University of X uses NLP as an example of pseudoscience in their course on clear thinking" is puerile. There is nothing special about NLP qua pseudoscience such that it warrants specific mention at every point at which it could be stated. Furthermore, if you were genuine you would have used a search engine to find such curricula. But you didn't do so. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 04:14, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

@AnotherPseudonym: "people like you", "or you have reading comprehension problems", "puerile", "if you were genuine". Your arrogance and hostile attitude are certainly not appreciated and your personal attacks were completely unwarranted, and inappropriate. I disagree with some of what you said, and agree on a number of other points, but you've made it impossible to engage with you in a constructive dialogue after writing such an insulting response. Lex.shrapnel (talk) 04:55, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

You came here to the talk page with a series of presumptuous, poorly investigated and poorly expressed posts with an imperative tone. You responded to Snowded's attempts to clarify your specific meaning with posts that implied that even questioning the clarity of your brilliant prose was preposterous. You aren't after "constructive dialogue", if you were you wouldn't have posted as you did. Stuff like this:"I wasted my time reading those references so that I could find out which University courses were doing so..." sounds like the protest of a petulant child. Is that an example of your "constructive dialogue"? If you read those references and understood them you would have no cause to post and you would have learnt something. The NLP article is one of the most densely substantiated articles on Wikipedia and so by necessity because it is the target of zealous miscreants. You've got a total of SEVEN edits on articles (as opposed to talk pages where you also have seven total edits at this time) and those are mainly deletions and you've come here to play Wikilawyer with us. Instead of WP:CONCEDE you wrote "I disagree with some of what you said, and agree on a number of other points". I don't care what you think and I don't think anyone else does either. Your complaint was answered either challenge it in substantive terms or go away. You are a time waster and from your edits it is plain that you have nothing to offer this article. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 07:48, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

More personal attacks and blatant hostility. You claim that I'm here to "Wikilawyer" you, even though I made no reference to any Wikipedia policies. And "I don't care what you think" makes it abundantly clear that you have zero interest in engaging in a genuine back-and-forth. Lex.shrapnel (talk) 16:58, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Lex you appear to be a new editor (unless you have previously edited under another name in which case please declared it, this article has a history of sock and meat puppets). It was far from clear what you were objecting to but you have now clarified that. You also seem to be making a basic error in assuming that any sentence has to be a direct quote from a source. It does not. That phrase as far as I can see sounds like a good summary of the sources. AnotherPseudonym would you please cool it a bit. The facts you are giving are more than enough without the commentary on other editors which is against policy (as was yours Lex) ----Snowded ^TALK 18:30, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate your moderation, Snowded. I took a look through the history of the article, as well as the talk page, and had I known the state of affairs here (which I won't comment on) I never would have bothered making a suggestion. Nevertheless, here we are, so I'll just finish my original thought. "You also seem to be making a basic error in assuming that any sentence has to be a direct quote from a source": That seems like quite a leap, and I'm certainly not suggesting that at all. Lum and Dunn would both only support the statement "NLP serves as an example of pseudoscience". Them being marketed as "textbooks" doesn't qualify the statement, unless they're actually being used as such (which they may well be, but that is not addressed by the references). On the other hand, while I agree that it's possible to argue that Lilienfeld supports the statement in a roundabout way (as AnotherPseudonym did), I still think it's a very poor summary statement for the reference. The Lilienfeld article is discussing a general approach to pseudoscience teaching, and NLP is not mentioned, although other pseudosciences are (note that I am not at all arguing that NLP isn't a pseudoscience). Yes, a referenced article (Singer & Lalich, 1996) mentions NLP in its title, and Singer (1977) is also referenced in relation to teaching a course on the pseudoscience of paranormal phenomena, but that's a loose connection. Regardless, if you can follow a trail of references that start at Lilienfeld and end somewhere else, to support the statement, then I think providing the references later in the chain would be more beneficial for readers. Taking a different approach, perhaps it would be more useful for readers if the sentence said something like "NLP has served as an example of pseudoscience for facilitating the teaching of scientific literacy at the university level" and then the most prominent examples of it being used in a curriculum (provided by AnotherPseudodynm above) could be referenced. This gets the same point across, it's plainly factual, and can be easily referenced without any ambiguity (I've ignored the "professional level" aspect, as it hasn't been featured in the discussion thus far). Lex.shrapnel (talk) 13:25, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

So is this the game-plan? (1) Change references to specific instances of syllabi; (2) Meat-puppet or sock-puppet #2 (maybe he will be named something original and imaginative like Max Hardcore) makes some trivial edits and then comes here to; (3) complain that X syllabi are insufficient to justify the the statement that "NLP has served as an example of pseudoscience for facilitating the teaching of scientific literacy at the university level"; (4) demand that it be deleted. Super awesome smartness!. You aren't going to remove the reference to the Lilienfeld et al paper nor will you alter the existing statement. You have been shown that there are many universities (even within the small subset that post all of their syllabi online) that do use NLP as an exemplar of pseudoscience to teach students how to think clearly and identify pseudoscience. The statement is thoroughly justified. There really is nothing further to discuss. There is no feasible method of determining exactly how many university courses on clear thinking use NLP as an exemplar and we don't want to imply that those that we can find online exhaust the field. I would hazard a guess that many more than those that I listed use NLP as an exemplar of psuedoscience but I have no way of confirming that so instead we reference a reliable source, namely the Lilienfeld et al paper. The existing approach is sound. Regarding the two textbooks, you are just trying to be smart. The same considerations that I provided concerning syllabi also apply to prescribed texts. We can find courses that use those texts, e.g. here but we don't want to just list these. The point is—which you don't seem to appreciate—that set of references demonstrate a convergence of evidence for the support of the statement. That I can readily find courses that use NLP as an exemplar and that I can find courses that use the cited books demonstrates that the approach taken is sound and the statement honest. You aren't the first low edit count nuisance and you won't be the last. I suggest that you take a good look at the archived talk pages. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 17:39, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

To the other editors present: I have highlighted AnotherPseudonym's personal attacks three times now, in an effort to curb them, and Snowded has also asked him to stop... yet to no avail. It is clear that other editors frequent this page, and so I'm left to wonder: Is this type of behaviour actually condoned here? Lex.shrapnel (talk) 14:28, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

"[A] genuine back-and-forth" on what? Can't you just admit that you were wrong? You are right I have "zero interest" in indulging you as if your claim had any merit or as if you represent an opinion I should care about. Also rather than go around articles arbitrarily deleting text you should be marking them with Template:Citation needed if they need a citation; or better yet create a citation and make a positive contribution to the article (if only for the novelty of the experience). Also your username is in breach of WP:REALNAME (Cf. Lex Shrapnel) and your account page neither states that you are or are not Lex Shrapnel. Your pattern of edits is the same as many others that have come before you. You've made a some token edits and now you've come to the NLP article to post an illegitmate complaint. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 04:24, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

More personal attacks. In the hope that you will heed Snowded's advice, making this the last round of attacks, let me address them. "rather than go around articles arbitrarily deleting text you should be marking them with 'Citation needed' if they need a citation": As you highlighted previously, I have a small number of edits on Wikipedia thus far. However, despite your previous claim that they were "mainly deletions", two were edits that removed text (although not at all in an arbitrary fashion) and two were 'Citation needed' markings. "or better yet create a citation and make a positive contribution to the article (if only for the novelty of the experience)": Ignoring the pejorative aspect of this statement, one can easily discover that I had previously added a citation to an article that had been requesting it, as I stated in the edit summary: Provided citation that was being requested regarding Goodman's claim of secret service involvement. Lex.shrapnel (talk) 13:25, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

"[O]ne can easily discover" if one actually cares. I care so little I don't even remember why your activity fell below my threshold of care. I could only speculate at this stage but I don't even care enough to do that. I suppose I just really don't care about your seven trivial contributions to Wikipedia. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 16:21, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

(←) AP: You've been warned about your civility before. I suggest you bow out of this discussion before an administrator gets brought in.

Lex: AP did have a point about WP:REALNAME—thanks for clarifying that on your user page. We all have our heroes, but unlike mine, yours is a real, live person. :) And to answer your post a couple above, no, this type of behaviour isn't condoned anywhere on Wikipedia. – RobinHood70 ^talk 18:31, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, he did have a point about my name. While I'm sure Lex Shrapnel is a very talented voice-over artist (and therefore worthy of the 'hero' moniker), I must admit that I had no idea he was a real person. I cannot recall where/when I first heard the name, but it never occurred to me that it actually belonged to someone. It just sounded cool, and so it stuck with me for that reason :) Nevertheless, I appreciate your input. Lex.shrapnel (talk) 16:25, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Lex you need to calm down a bit as well, you don't seem to have made a case to make any change here and its understandable if other editors get a little irritated. In particular as you are a new editor taking a very similar stance and style to other new editors who have subsequently been proved as sock or meat puppets. You haven't answered the question about if you have edited here before by the way. It would be nice to have an answer.----Snowded ^TALK 19:32, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

"a little irritated" Okay... "You haven't answered the question about if you have edited here before by the way." Previously, you stated: "Lex you appear to be a new editor (unless you have previously edited under another name in which case please declared it, this article has a history of sock and meat puppets)". As I have not previously edited under another name, there was nothing to declare. "you don't seem to have made a case to make any change here" Yes, let's please get back to the discussion. So, my suggestion was: "NLP has served as an example of pseudoscience for facilitating the teaching of scientific literacy at the university level" (followed by the specific curriculum references provided by AnotherPseudonym). As I see it, the only point that I have not addressed is the idea that my suggestion is vulnerable to claims that it is not supported by the references. As AnotherPseudonym stated (hypothetically arguing as someone else): "X syllabi are insufficient to justify the the statement". I don't believe there is any validity in that. Even if you only had one specific instance of NLP being used in a curriculum, and it was at the lowest-ranked (yet still accredited) University in the world, the statement would still be supported. It's a statement of plain fact, and by using "has served" rather than "serves", I believe you avoid any issue of ambiguity. On a related note, AnotherPseudonym stated: "There is no feasible method of determining exactly how many university courses on clear thinking use NLP as an exemplar and we don't want to imply that those that we can find online exhaust the field". Obviously I agree that it's impossible to know how many are doing so, but it's not necessary to find them all. If we wrap the references in an "(e.g., )", as one would do if this were an academic article, then that solves both of those issues. So, to recap, as it stands, I do not think the references support the statement (for the reasons I highlighted). However, rather than remove it, I suggest we replace it with a statement that can easily be supported, as I have suggested. I think it is particularly telling that, in order to support the statement during the discussion, AnotherPseudonym made reference to specific instances of NLP being used in University curriculum. Indeed, as he stated: "You have been shown that there are many universities (even within the small subset that post all of their syllabi online) that do use NLP as an exemplar of pseudoscience to teach students how to think clearly and identify pseudoscience. The statement is thoroughly justified." Although I don't agree that they justify the statement as it is, I do agree that they justify a mildly adjusted statement, as I've suggested. Lex.shrapnel (talk) 16:25, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

@Lex.shrapnel: if you are a reasonable person and are prepared to survey the archives of the talk page you would concede that your behaviour follows the pattern of many sockpuppets and meatpuppets. Given the history of this article it would be foolish for any of the experienced editors to observe this well-rehearsed pattern and just WP:AGF. There is civility and there is stupidity. I would rather be thought of as incivil rather than stupid. Are you an NLP trainer? Are you associated with any NLP trainer or training organisation? You answered Snowded's query regarding sockpuppetry but you left the possibility of meatpuppetry open. Are you a meatpuppet? The objections I raised to your proposal were not made with idea of a reasonable and honest interlocutor in mind. My hypothetical interlocutor is deliberately unreasonable because that is how the various sockpuppets and meatpuppets have behaved. We've had Wikilawyering on the use of the word "claim" for example. If I have understood your position I agree that the presentation of actual syllabi that explicitly use NLP as an exemplar of pseudoscience makes a compelling case—it is factual. My concern though would be attempts to characterise those universities as unusual in order to deflect criticism of NLP. The value of the Lilienfeld et al paper is that it documents a trend and an influential position on curricula construction even though it doesn't specifically mention NLP so I would not support its removal. If anything it provides a context for the syllabi that you propose to cite. If you are serious about your proposal I suggest you find more syllabi and not just rely on my work. Also I would expect you to create complete citations that use the archive field that references the archived page so that the citations never break (I have created many such citations so you can refer to those). Doing some work would be demonstrative of your good-faith. So my advice is: answer my questions about meatpuppetry, find some more relevant curricula and then re-present your case for reconsideration. If you found another paper that did specifically mention curricula and NLP that would make your position even more compelling. You haven't really done any work and that denies you credibility and even the outward appearance of good intentions. You appear to understand what the statement in question is getting at and you concede that it is indeeed a factual statement, i.e. there really are courses that use NLP as an exemplar of pseudoscience. So why don't you do some research and propose a positive contribution to the article? AnotherPseudonym (talk) 04:43, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

"Given the history of the article..." Yes, it is totally understandable that people would be suspicious. As I mentioned previously, had I looked through the history of this page and the article, I never would have bothered making the suggestion. Regardless, absolutely nothing could possibly justify your previous behaviour. "Are you [...]" No. To summarize: I am not now, nor have I ever been, a member of the NLP party. "My concern though would be attempts to characterise those universities as unusual in order to deflect criticism of NLP" Again, I'd say there's zero validity in such a (hypothetical) position. As I mentioned, even if only one University in the world (with a low ranking) had done so, it would still be a totally valid statement. And if only one University is doing it, one could easily argue that, by definition, it is "unusual". Nevertheless, I don't see any validity to such an argument. Indeed, the robustness of my suggested alternative is, I think, one of its strongest points. "The value of the Lilienfeld et al paper is that it documents a trend and an influential position on curricula construction even though it doesn't specifically mention NLP so I would not support its removal. If anything it provides a context for the syllabi that you propose to cite." Let me be clear that I was never suggesting that any of the three references were "bad" (i.e., poor quality) articles/books, simply that they didn't apply to the statement (which I don't believe needs a 'context' provided, again making it a more robust statement). I agree that the Liliendfeld paper is a good one, but I do not agree that it is an appropriate reference for the statement that I have suggested. Generally speaking, it might work better in the article on pseudoscience. Alternatively, it may well be possible to add another statement, in the NLP article, that it could be used on. However, that would seem a bit forced to me. "find more syllabi" As I mentioned, even just one of the curricula you found should be enough to validate the statement. Lex.shrapnel (talk) 02:19, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

"absolutely nothing could possibly justify your previous behaviour." I don't agree, your initial post was hostile. But there's no point in arguing about that. "Again, I'd say there's zero validity in such a (hypothetical) position." I agree. I think you misunderstand my position. I know full well that this hypothetical position is invalid but that will not deter its invocation by misguided NLP zealots. A pre-emptive culture has developed around this article because of the stream of meatpuppets. The thinnest of pretexts is used to disrupt the development of the article and to attempt to delete critical content. I would be willing to support your proposal on the following conditions: (i) you use all of the universities I found as citations and ideally that you source more of the same; and (ii) you create archive referencing links so those links don't break. Assuming that you agree to my terms it still remains for you to persuade the other editors. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 03:20, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

"[...] conditions [...]" Sounds reasonable to me. If anyone else has issues with the proposed changes, please raise them. Lex.shrapnel (talk) 03:42, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

(Lex.shrapnel -- Welcome to the NLP talk page. The quizzing you're getting appears to be typical treatment of those who appear to edit this entry of Wikipedia. htom (talk) 05:09, 18 September 2013 (UTC) )

Thank you for the welcome. Regarding the rest: I have proposed a specific change above, I would be most appreciative (and it would be more productive) if you could direct your attention to that. Lex.shrapnel (talk) 02:19, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

The complaint to make is that this use of that reference is SYN, stating that the source has said something which the editor has inferred from the source. That some here seem to think that they OWN the page is rather blatantly stated in the conditions AnotherPseudonym makes above. htom (talk) 13:04, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

You mean WP:SYN and that is debataable. Lending my support conditionally does not entail that I think that I own the page. You also conveniently ignored "it still remains for you to persuade the other editors" which is inconistent with any notion of personal ownership. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 02:48, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I've incorporated the syllabi details I listed above into the lead. More will follow. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 03:40, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

@Lex.shrapnel Thank-you for being reasonable. I did (some of) the work. To keep the others happy I added to the citations rather replace the existing ones. I did a search using Google and I couldm't find more such courses but I am confident that there are more to be found. I am trying to find something that will better support the "professional" part of the statement. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 04:38, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

"Thank-you for being reasonable" You're very welcome. "To keep the others happy" Up to this point, there really haven't been any "others". You conditionally agreed to my suggested changes and I agreed to your conditions. Our debate is done, and no one else has raised any specific issues with the suggestions yet. Following User:David Gerard's example below, if no one else raises a specific issue with the suggested changes, after a few days, then I'll make the changes as we agreed (assuming you haven't done it all by then, of course). Lex.shrapnel (talk) 14:55, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, since you're asking: IMO, AP is pretty much right and you're pretty much wrong. Does that help? - David Gerard (talk) 15:20, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

"Does that help?" Well, to be honest, no it doesn't. Considering the two of us have come to an agreement, and that I was asking for specific issues to be raised, a blanket statement saying that he's right and I'm wrong doesn't really help to move the discussion forward at all. If you highlighted what argument(s) you thought were poor (and, preferably, why) then I could attempt to address them. Lex.shrapnel (talk) 16:15, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

LS, I think DG means that he agrees with me that the existing citations should be augmented rather than replaced and I suspect that Snowded, Roxy, and RobinHood share that view. It is important to appreciate WP:RAP and that the spirit of the principles should be respected rather than the strict letter of the law. The point of of WP:VERIFY is to prevent falisities from getting into articles. You are correct that the Lilienfeld paper and the two books do not directly support the statement they are attached to but it is also clear that there is no deception or falsehood there—and that is the ultimate purpose of WP:VERIFY. That there are many courses that do support the statement makes that point clear. The purpose of Wikipedia is to educate and inform and providing those links to the Lilienfeld paper and the books serves that purpose. Also that is not a breach of WP:OR either because we are just providing further information for the reader. The Lilienfeld paper provides a context for the syllabi and the books show that Liliefeld's recommendations are also being implemented in textbooks. That is worth knowing. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 18:12, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

The "real" NLP

In all of the time that I have been here you have contributed nothing to this page. Absolutely nothing. Most recently you were hassling Snowded about giving you evidence that Bandler and Grinder claimed that NLP is scientific. I gave you pages of such evidence (and I can give you more). Your response was that you had family problems and you won't be able to "digest" this for some weeks. Well many weeks have passed will you now WP:CONCEDE? You are incompetent to edit this article. You have no idea about NLP, its developers or its history yet you've developed this bizarre conceit that you represent its guardian. The description of NLP that I provided in Main components and core concepts is better than anything you could have produced in the entirety of your lifetime. All of your complaints have been answered yet you are still here trying to stir-up conflict. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 02:48, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't consider myself an expert about NLP (or indeed, any psychological topic.) I have read the first couple of books that Grinder and Bandler wrote about NLP, and I came to the talk page to ask questions about the differences between what I'd read them write and what is written in the article about what they wrote. I think that part of the difference is that there seem to have been changes in what is called NLP, between then and now. I'm not about to put that in the article, because I think that's OR. Looking at other current psychological therapy methods, I see some echos of "early NLP"; again, that's OR. It seems to me that there is a group here who are determined to label NLP as pseudoscience, as if it was the psychological version of phlogiston. I think I'm more skeptical of that particular claim than you are, and I'm more skeptical of the "truth" of NLP than I think you think I am. For my personal life, see your talk page. htom (talk) 05:24, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I've read all of the books jointly authored by B&G and almost all of those authored by them independently (the only one I haven't read is "Red Tail Math" by Grinder), I've attended NLP seminars and I've watched about 100 hours of NLP seminars on DVD. I've also read books by B&Gs direct "disciples". I think I know NLP fairly well. There has been no substantive change in NLP from Bandler and Grinder besides Grinder's "New Code" and that is more an exercise in brand differentiation rather than genuine development. There are forms of NLP that have been extended/created independently of Bandler and Grinder and the article deliberately avoids those. The article revolves around Bandler and Grinder and that way it avoids the charge of "that's not 'genuine' NLP". If you watch a Bandler NLP seminar from the early 1980s and a Bandler seminar from the 2000s it is essentially the same except that Bandler has grown fatter, uglier and toothless. The substantive content is barely different; the peripheral content has changed somewhat in that Bandler's imaginary qualifications have changed, now he is a physicist or a mathematician. Grinder's "New Code" is old wine in new bottles. When Bandler and Grinder were at each other's throats they were each accusing the other of not doing "real" NLP and of not "truly" understanding NLP. When Bandler sought to trademark "NLP" and sue every man and his dog he said he was doing so because he was saving NLP from Grinder and others. There is an usenet post from Bandler (I'd have to search for it) where he paints himself as the saviour of NLP. So when Bandler lost his trademarks and the civil suits he trademarked "Pure NLP" as if to say Grinder's "New Code" is adulterated NLP. If there be any doubt, the page reads "Pure NLP® & Keeping it Simple" which is a indirect swipe at Grinder's predilection for filling his books and seminars with pseudoscientific/pseudotechnical/pseudophilosophical decorations. But if you remove all of the rhetoric and decoration from "Pure NLP" and "New Code NLP" they are the essentially the same and also the same as the NLP of the late 1970s. At most there is a difference in emphasis of variou topics, eg. Bandler is big on "submodalities" and Grinder emphasies modeling. But regardless of that you are failing to see the bigger picture. There is no such thing as "real NLP" that is why Bandler and Grinder were able to each accuse the other of not doing "real NLP". When B&G were together "real NLP" was what they jointly said was "real NLP". When they split there became two "real NLPs". There is simply no such thing as "real NLP". Grinder provides an ex post facto defintion of NLP such that only his "New Code" is "real NLP"; Bandler does the same thing so that only his "Pure NLP" is "real NLP". To this extent you are chasing a ghost—there is no such thing as "authentic NLP". The best that we can do as encyclopedists is confine ourselves to Bandler and Grinder and emphasises their NLPs. You wrote: "It seems to me that there is a group here who are determined to label NLP as pseudoscience, as if it was the psychological version of phlogiston." NLP has been labelled a pseudoscience by many experts, you need only read the article to learn that. NLP is worse that the psychological version of phlogiston, phlogiston at least had some explanatory power, there was general agreement about what phlogiston was and there was also general agreement about how it could be falsified amongst its proponents. None of this could be said of NLP. NLP is more like witchcraft, Santeria and folk magic. You wrote: "I think I'm more skeptical of that particular claim than you are, and I'm more skeptical of the "truth" of NLP than I think you think I am." Your personal opinion of whether NLP is or isn't pseudoscience is irrelevant, as is my own. We have quoted a multitude of experts in the article that consider NLP to be a pseudoscience so I don't understand why you are trying to import your personal opinion into the discussion. I don't think you know enough about philosophy of science, science in general, experimental psychology in particular and NLP to make a determination whether NLP is or isn't pseudoscience and to second-guess neuroscientists. From what I have read of the demarcation problem and pseudoscience, NLP meets all of the criteria of pseudoscience. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 06:36, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

PS:- @htom Rather than speak in vague generalities can you tell us what you think NLP was and what it has become and can you find a source that corroborates your claim? I haven't encountered any such source nor have I detected any such change directly ("Pure NLP" and "New Code NLP" and their different emphases notwithstanding). I really don't understand what you are complaining about. You can't point to anything specific (because the content of the article is based on the writings, interviews and seminars of Bandler and/or Grinder) so you just express a vague dissatisfaction. Have you considered the possibility that you are incorrect in what you think NLP was? You don't seem to have considered that possibility. You admit that you have a limited reading of NLP texts and on that basis you are prepared to make grand and sweeping pronouncements about some mythical change that NLP has allegedly undergone. Further you are also prepared to criticise other editors for failing to account for this alleged change which you also incongruously categorise as the product of your WP:OR. I suspect that your conception of what NLP originally was is based entirely on your limited knowledge of NLP. More of NLP has been revealed to you in the article and you can't reconcile it with your original conception of NLP so instead of acknowledging that you were ignorant and the article educated you instead you form this strange theory that NLP has undergone some strange mutation since its early days and no NLP writer has recognised it but you have and we are all prejudiced because we don't write about this change even though you can't provide us any sources that document this change. To me this seems to be just a baroque way of dealing with your own ignorance and education in a way that you can deny being ignorant in the first place. It is like me saying "All swans are white" and then when I see a black swan I say "swans have changed, when I said they were all white they were all white but they have since changed so that there are now black swans". AnotherPseudonym (talk) 09:06, 20 September 2013 (UTC) [discussion from "Teaching Scientific Literacy" moved here] Lex.shrapnel (talk) 14:57, 20 September 2013 (UTC)]

Just another opinion on this: the idea that modeling a process undergone by "Extraordinary individuals" in a way that anyone can learn is far from being discredited. In fact, the latest revolutions in Artificial Intelligence, especially what Intel calls "cognitive computing" do just this. I believe neurolinguistic programming has simply been assimilated wholly into the field of Cognitive Science, one you will find highly guarded and at only the most prestigious - and tied to Washington, D.C. - academic institutions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.163.161.226 (talk) 18:35, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Excellent! Do you have a good citation that any of what they're doing is specifically from neuro-linguistic programming per se, rather than from ideas that might have a slight similarity? - David Gerard (talk) 18:47, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

@67.163.161.226 NLP modeling has nothing in common with cognitive computing nor with AI or machine learning. Given that NLP modeling is oriented toward the subjectivity of the exemplar and computers have no subjectivity your "opinion" is still-born. You don't understand NLP and are basing your "opinion" on factoids. Read the article and follow the citations—I don't want to repeat the article contents here. Cognitive science has not "assimilated" NLP neither "wholly" nor in part. One of the central premises of NLP is that subjectivity is constituted entirely in terms of the putative five senses (see Neuro-linguistic_programming#Main_components_and_core_concepts); that is not a premise of cognitive science. The last phrase of your post pretty much vaporises the remnants of your credibility that your preceding content left behind. That is a portion of a conspiracy theory template, viz. there is a conspiracy of silience and we can find no evidence of the conspiracy because the conspiracy runs so deep and is so well-organised but somehow some person on the internet has circumvented the obfuscatory efforts of the genius conspirators and arrived at The Truth and has decided to share it on the talk page of a Wikipedia article. Thanks for that. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 02:38, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm rereading Frogs ..., Reframing ..., and Trance ..., and will have an answer in a couple of weeks. htom (talk) 04:11, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Over referrencing to prove your validity is invalidating

Frm the article :

Criticisms go beyond lack of empirical evidence for effectiveness, saying NLP exhibits pseudoscientific characteristics,[19] title,[20]concepts and terminology as well.[21][22] NLP is cited as an example of pseudoscience when teaching scientific literacy at the professional and university level.[23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32]

One has to wonder if an article marked for assasination could be reffrenced to death. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1zeroate (talk • contribs) 15:55, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Look at this. This editor responsible for the ten ref has a clear bias and little regard for civility. Overkill just to prove a point? To whom? This is wikipedia, your not supposed to be attmpting to make points by seeing who can have the most references. I believe the standard is 3 as being good enough. More supported could of been added as additional reffrences but this 10 inline citation is petty and ugly and need correction. And some limitations on reusing the same reffrence need to be observed. Witkowski is cited as a reference OVER 10 times.

Another problem is the amount of heavy lean toward quakery while at the same time attempting to validate its legitimcy with pubmed numbers and such other qualifiers, the article asks the reader to double think and hold both opposes ideas as true that NLP can be both a theraputic resource as well as quakery that all oppose. The immature contradictions need resolution.

What kind of article is this supposed to be? An informative one that expands an ignorant readers mind to the basic concepts and purpose of NLP

or is this just another article under indefinite protection because someone says so.

Narccisistic personality disorder is a real problem too, always thinking your right? Whoever has to double down on ten refferences or more has a definite problem that is detracting from the potential quality of the article. 1zeroate (talk) 15:47, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Conservative Christian Part?

So I realize from reading through the rest of the talk page that there's a little bit of a kerfuffle. Just the same, I was wondering how

"Bovbjerg's secular critique of NLP is echoed in the conservative Christian perspective of the New Age as represented by Jeremiah (1995)[144] who argues that, '[t]he ′transformation′ recommended by the founders and leaders of these business seminars [such as NLP] has spiritual implications that a non-Christian or new believer may not recognise. The belief that human beings can change themselves by calling upon the power (or god) within or their own infinite human potential is a contradiction of the Christian view. The Bible says man is a sinner and is saved by God's grace alone.'"

works with WP:Relevance_of_content ? The quoted passage doesn't tell me anything about NLP, and while I'm sure some fellow named Jeremiah is a wealth of information and wonderful person to read should I ever have questions about the modern Christian church, what was quoted amounts to nothing more than an opinion.

Jeremiah's book is published by Thomas Nelson, a (Christian but) reputable publisher. I'd say the fact that some conservative strains of Christianity are opposed to NLP on religious grounds is relevant enough. Huon (talk) 12:58, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying that - I thought you meant Book of Jeremiah ! --195.137.93.171 (talk) 09:49, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

NLP has no formal link to religious texts, such as the Bible. No science can serve two masters of thought. Science looks first and only to observable evidence that can predict cause and effect relationships in this world and universe. Science is inductive, meaning observations and experiements lead to the creation of a "law of science". Religious texts, such as the Bible, as a source of absolute knowledge is deductive meaning the law comes first, then observations are based on what the law says "should be". Jim Smith

Imbalance in lede

The scientific criticism section of this article constitutes about 30% of the article length, but 50% of the intro. I propose cutting the criticism in the lede to two sentences to restore balance. Cla68 (talk) 00:16, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

I would suggest that the lede reflects the body of the article quite well, and does not need any alteration. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 00:39, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Could you explain why the intro of this particular article is exempt from the stipulations of WP:LEAD? Cla68 (talk) 00:44, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

It isn't. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 06:21, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Agree with Roxy, and there is another alternative, cut some of the padding in the article .... ----Snowded ^TALK 10:53, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

We want the article to be as informative as possible. The way the intro was written made it look like someone was trying to discourage people from reading the rest of the article. Any reason why this article does not have to comply with WP:NPOV like most of the rest of WP articles? Are pseudoscience articles somehow exempt? Cla68 (talk) 14:19, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

NPOV does not mean that we are neutral between pro and anti-NLP people, it means we are neutral in respect of what the sources say. ----Snowded ^TALK 14:22, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree Cla68 and will support those changes. NaturaNaturans (talk) 07:11, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Two editors for a change , two against hardly a consensus given the mass discussions around that text in the past. However, I've attempted a compromise by restoring one of the stronger criticisms but not everything. We went through multiple discussions on that before, so lets respect that. If we can't agree then it had best go back to the stable version until there is talk page consensus ----Snowded ^TALK 10:07, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

The current unstable version shows too little or unclear information on why it is discredited. One positive thing to clarify for the lede in terms of information, is NLP as a very useful example of pseudoscience. It appears to be even gaining the usefulness as such. There can also be issue of its cult nature that also helps to explain its current standing, that could be added to the lede for clarity. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 10:20, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Happy to support amendments to that effect ----Snowded ^TALK 04:21, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Blatantly biased against NLP

This article is blatantly biased against NLP. This is Wikipedia, not the Skeptic's Dictionary. Are people being skeptical to the point of refusing to acknowledge the possibility it is real, or does someone know it is real and is trying to suppress it? --Frank Lofaro Jr. (talk) 15:37, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Could you explain in more detail what you mean. The article has been well sourced, and discussed at great length. Without some idea of what you think could be done to improve it, it is very difficult to know what to do. --Roxy the dog (quack quack) 15:39, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi Frank, the article accurately represents the existing evidence and the expert consensus. WP:NPOV is not about acknowledging the possibility of something, it is about reporting whatever evidence exists and reporting the expert consensus. Speculations about the possibility of something are the responsibility of subject matter experts not Wikipedia editors. Also you are presenting a false dichotomy: "skeptical to the point of refusing to acknowledge the possibility it is real" vs. "know it is real and is trying to suppress it". Neither. The article takes account of the most recent literature reviews of NLP and reports those as well as other subject expert reviews. There is simply no evidence for the efficacy of NLP nor of the validity of its fundamental premises so the article will necessarily assume a certain "shape". AnotherPseudonym (talk) 02:37, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

The page has resident skeptics who block any improvement to the page. I support the POV tag. WykiP (talk) 14:11, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

This, of course, does not substantiate a detailed claim, as the tag would require to stand. Please detail the problems, without repeating points already dealt with in the extensive archives to this talk page - David Gerard (talk) 14:49, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

For the tag to stand some evidence needs to be presented on the talk page to support it. Just saying that you think it is biased is not enough you have to show how the current sources have been improperly used or show other sources that give another view. Given that this has been debated many times before you also need to demonstrate something new. Otherwise it is just disruptive editing ----Snowded ^TALK 16:15, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

This seems a "Straw man" argument. Focussing in Witkowski [16] which is heavily cited in the summary and conveniently free (unlike a number of the both pro and anti references). Bandler has repeatedly described NLP as being "subjective" and `"inherently untestable" (also Witkowski). Witkowski's secondary research focussed on a third party base of data (315 article), from which he selected a subset (i.e. 63 publications on the "Master Journal List of the Institute for Scientific Information in Philadelphia"). He produces both quantitative and qualitative analyses.

The quantitative analysis found 33 out of 63 tested the tenets, 14 had no empirical worth, 16 had nothing in common with NLP. Of these remaining 33: 9 works were supportive. 18 non-supportive and 6 uncertain. Witkowski's conclusion is that "the NLP concept has not been developed on solid empirical foundations."

The qualitative analysis evaluates both the 9 supportive - which he finds lacking in control groups, and the 18 non-supportive - which from his report focus on evaluating Preferred Representation system

It would seem that his analysis demonstrates the poor quality of the database used (and I've not yet found better) and the lack of engagement of the NLP community with the scientific community. Summarising the summary Witkowski confirms at least one of Bandler's claims is true. Presenting NLP as unproven, and not scientifically verified would be balanced - for such a heavy emphasis on being pseudo scientific - the article would need to demonstrate that the NLP community as a whole, or some leading proponents of it, were making it out to be scientific in the first place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluesmany79 (talk • contribs) 16:57, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

why are these studies not mentioned: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2296919 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2385721 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1620774 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19505969 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17131608 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21283502 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10263094 this article is clearly extremely biased — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.22.162.21 (talk) 17:09, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Its not our place to dispute the validity of a third party reliable source, or to prevent our own synthesis of an editors selection of primary sources. ----Snowded ^TALK 23:25, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

What's the point of having an open encyclopedia if editors were to select whatever sources fit their bias? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.22.162.21 (talk) 07:55, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for drawing attention to this additional material. I suppose it may be worth summarizing some of the points made in the PubMed articles mentioned, but I think one should also probably look at other material that cites those articles, and then synthesize the information available in an overall context, as Snowded said. jxm (talk) 15:54, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

What do you mean it may be worth summarizing, why do you need articles to cite those findings when the findings speak for their own? The fact that they alone exist is enough to show there is scientific validity to the process, or do you just need another person with a wikipage to say that to in order to add it to the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.22.162.21 (talk) 19:28, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

"Scientific evaluation" section

Why is the section Neuro-linguistic programming#Scientific evaluation divided into two subsections, "Empirical validity" and "Scientific criticism"? As far as I can tell, these address the same topic (scientific criticism of NLP's lack of empirical validity) and most of the sources are saying essentially the same things. Just looking at the table of contents, a reader is given the false impression that the "Scientific evaluation" section is going to have one subsection talking about evidence for NLP and one subsection talking about evidence against.

If there aren't any objections, I can combine these subsections and also edit for length. Currently, the section is so bloated and meandering as to distract from the bottom line, which is that this is pseudoscience. A lot of the text there can be trimmed and distilled to make this point in a much clearer and more direct way (see e.g. Reverse speech#Rejection by the scientific community). rʨanaɢ (talk) 03:29, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree, the sections are a tale that grew in the telling to deal with multiple attempts to detract from that core message. A simplification would help ----Snowded ^TALK 07:28, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Here is an extremely condensed version: User:Rjanag/NLP rewrite. I hope to have pulled out the main points while removing the small details, overly specific arguments, and repetition. Feel free to make edits there.

Please note that I haven't looked closely at these sources, just organized them based on how the previous article text represented them—so if the existing text has misrepresented any of the sources or used inappropriately close paraphrasing, then I may have as well. Also, it is likely that if we replace the current section with this text, some refs will briefly get orphaned until the bot fixes them. rʨanaɢ (talk) 03:41, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm OK with that and other sections could do with similar tightening. We might want to make a note of the material which has been condenses - with a link to the current version - in the header to the talk page and ask editors to read that and seek agreement before changing. I only had time for a quick review, others may feel critical material has been left out so I would leave it a few days. But it looks to me like a good job well done. ----Snowded ^TALK 06:27, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Definitely in the right direction. Needs note that it's not just pseudoscience, but a standard example of a pseudoscience - David Gerard (talk) 16:16, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

2nd nomination for deletion of Robert Dilts

I am nominating this article for deletion again. See this page. I am posting this notice here so that all interested parties have an opportunity to either improve this page or contribute to the deletion discussion. Famous_dog (c) 14:13, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

POV in "NLP as quasi-religion"

I edited a paragraph of the section "NLP as quasi-religion" to remove strong POV while retaining the facts of the matter. It was reverted by Snowded with the comment: Hardly a POV when it reports court decisions. Note that information regarding the court decisions was retained, but the grouping of NLP as a "New Age" practice (along with yoga, meditation and other methods) was clarified to be the view of the plaintiffs - that was not a court decision.

Diff of reversion.

I am restoring this version as it is more accurate and less POV. I will not be editing into a further edit war on this change. --Chriswaterguy talk 02:20, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

You are in error here. The court decided for the plaintiffs; that is to say the court decided that NLP does contain substantive religious content and that an employer requiring employees to undergo NLP trainings as a condition of their employtment represents a breach of religious freedom. The act of deciding for the plaintiffs means that the court accepted their position. I am reinstating the original text. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 04:03, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

A court decision still, of course, represents a POV. Deciding for the plaintiffs in this particular case does not mean that the case can be generalised into some kind of objective "truth" that NLP is by its nature a quasi-religion. No courts can decide these kinds of things. Afterwriting (talk) 08:06, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

No, a court decision in a common law nation-state represents a precedent that becomes relevant for all other common law nation-states (by virtue of legal convention). Given that freedom of religion in the USA is enrishned in their Constitution, a ruling about whether something is or isn't religion is more than just a POV—it becomes a part of the law. The cited court case found that all human potential/self-help practices—including NLP—are predicated on a particular worldview. NLP is not science and the claims made by NLP proponents are not metaphysically neutral—they spring from certain foundational assumptions about how the world works. This is detailed by the social scientists cited in the NLP as Quasi-Religion section. The court case is significant because it corroborates the social scientific understanding of the metaphysical foundations of the human potential/self-help movement—of which NLP is a major part. We have a legal ruling from a common law nation-state that NLP does indeed contain substantive religious content such that it can conflict with mainline religions. The HR law textbooks that I have consulted (one of which is cited in the article section) mark this ruling as significant: it means that employers can't require employees to undertake NLP, Landmark, Scientology etc. courses without running afoul of anti-religious discrimination legislation. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 10:23, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

We tend to take a court decision over the view of an NLP advocate. Courts do decide these sort of things and we report them ----Snowded ^TALK 17:27, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

@AnotherPseudonym:: Re your edit comment, "a US Court decision is not POV", that is not at issue. What is at issue is that the reporting of the case here appears to be POV, and does not accurately reflect the sources given.

Re your comment: "The court decided for the plaintiffs; that is to say the court decided that NLP does contain substantive religious content and that an employer requiring employees to undergo NLP trainings as a condition of their employtment represents a breach of religious freedom."

Could you please clarify the evidence for "the court decided that NLP does contain substantive religious content"? There are 3 sources given, one of which does not mention NLP at all, and none of which support the paragraph's wording, or demonstrate that "the court decided that NLP does contain substantive religious content".

An employee could violate someone's religious rights by forcing them to go to a bar, strip club or other establishment, but that does not demonstrate that such establishments are religious in nature. (As a personal note, a couple of decades ago I was part of a self-described fundamentalist christian church. There were many things that they would have rejected as the work of demons, including meditation and rock music. Even if you think that such people are severely misled, forcing them to participate in meditation or rock music may be a violation of their rights.) --Chriswaterguy talk 23:55, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

The Court's decision covered all human potential/self-help practices, the generalisation is confirmed by the HR text that is referenced. Your (attempted) analogy is spurious. Forcing employees to receive Landmark, EST or NLP training represents a potential breach of religious freedom not because there is a specific injunction against such trainings as there is with conservative Christianity vis-a-vis pornography, fornication etc but rather because these trainings reflect a particular worldview that is at odds with conservative Christianity (amongst other faiths). NLP is not metaphysically neutral, it embodies a certain conception of the world as does EST, Landmark, Gurdjieff, CoS—that is the substance of the complaints that were upheld. The courts have independently arrived at the same conclusions made by a multitude of social scientists (some of which are cited earlier in the article section). The cited HR text specifically mentions NLP and NLP is also considered a member of the human potential/self-help movement, which the other references are concerned with. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 02:34, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

@AnotherPseudonym:: The sources given in the text do not support your assertions about the court finding. Little information at all is given about the actual finding. Are you relying on additional sources that I'm not aware of? --Chriswaterguy talk 01:17, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Let it be noted then that the POV interpretation of the court decision is unsupported by evidence. --Chriswaterguy talk 00:07, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Chris - your edit says that "...plaintiffs claimed that trainings in NLP...", but, unless I'm missing something, the two sources given don't even mention NLP. The whole paragraph - and indeed the whole section on "NLP as a quasi-religion" - appears to be very weakly sourced.Enchanter (talk) 01:31, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Huh – you seem to be right, @Enchanter:. That's even worse than I thought. The source from Heuberer and Nash mentions NLP in passing, but not in relation to the court case. Looking at it again, there's no justification for this paragraph at all.

My goal was simply to remove the most egregious of the POV in that paragraph while trying not to provoke the anti-NLP editors unnecessarily, but I was being too conservative. The attempted justification offered above ("The Court's decision covered all human potential/self-help practices" to explain the lack of mention of NLP) is very weak, and interpreting this in the light of a tangentially related text (Heuberger and Nash) is WP:OR. If there is any suitable evidence (reliable sources that actually mention NLP in relation to the court case), then that information may be used in a neutral manner in the article. --Chriswaterguy talk 04:29, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I think the whole section should be deleted, for the same reasons that a similar section was deleted by me back in 2007. The sources used simply do not properly support what was being said.

The section on "NLP as quasi-religion" was recently added by User:AnotherPseudonym. Compare that with the following edits, all made by the same banned user who was banned for long term abuse of this article, including misuse of sources. The sources used are the same, and the arguments similar:

• Edit using Tye as a source
• Edit using Barratt as a source
• Edit using Hunt as a source
• Another edit with Hunt as a source

The new sources that have been added do not appear to be much better, and show the same pattern of misuse of sources that was seen in this article ten year ago. The section should be deleted again now for the same reasons. Enchanter (talk) 21:50, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Your concerns have been addressed previously, above and in the archives. I very much have to disagree with your assessment, and the attempt to argue guilt by association with HeadleyDown is completely unconvincing. siafu (talk) 22:15, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 March 2015

Please correct :

More recently (circa 1997), Bandler has claimed, "NLP is based on finding out what works and formalizing it. In order to formalize patterns I utilized everything from linguistics to holography...The models that constitute NLP are all formal models based on mathematical, logical principles [sic] such as predicate calculus and the mathematical equations underlying holography."

to :

More recently (circa 1997), Bandler has claimed, "NLP is based on finding out what works and formalizing it. In order to formalize patterns I utilized everything from linguistics to holography...The models that constitute NLP are all formal models based on mathematical, logical principles [sic] such as predicate calculus and the mathematical equations underlying holography."

by removing the [sic] as the spelling of the word principles is correct for this usage.

Thank you, VTRefugee (talk) 20:36, 11 March 2015 (UTC) VTRefugee VTRefugee (talk) 20:36, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 21:47, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

VTRefugee I found what you wanted done, and I made the change. Thanks for finding this. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:05, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Correcting Mistakes.

There were 3 co-founders of NLP - Bandler, Grinder and Frank Pucelik. The latter is often left out of NLP histories as he was asked to leave the group by Bandler. However, Grinder himself in the book "The Origins of Neuro-Linguistic Programming", writes that "The co-editors of this book, Frank Pucelik and John Grinder, were two of the 3 prime movers in the creation of NLP." Grinder also credits Pucelik in a similar way in the book "Whispering in the Wind", St Clair and Grinder, 2001.

Several other contributors to the book also credit Pucelik.

Please therefore add his name to to the co-founders of NLP at the start of the article.

In the section titled "Early Development", the article quotes Stollznow who claims: "Other than Satir, the people they cite as influences did not collaborate with Bandler or Grinder". This is untrue as there is well-documented interaction between the two and Milton Erickson, who was introduced to them by Gregory Bateson. Erickson wrote the preface to Grinder and Bandler's book: "Patterns of the Hypnotic Techniques of Milton H Erickson", writing that the book "is a much better explanation of how I work than I. myself, can give." Stollznow was either mis-informed or has his own reasons for distorting the truth. His research is clearly flawed and unreliable.

Please correct this distortion.

My third point is a little more problematical.

The article states, under the heading "Commercialization and evaluation" , that "Tomasz Witkowski attributes this to a declining interest in the debate as the result of a lack of empirical support for NLP from its proponents".

This statement is dangerously misleading as it depends upon how one defined NLP. It is true that some NLP techniques are little more than smoke and mirrors. Others, however, have stood up to the most rigorous of testing: the core belief that while one's perception is one's reality, two people's "realities" will differ is not only an accepted tenet of psychology, the police have to wrestle with its consequences when witness statements contradict each other. Anchoring in another example of a technique at the core of NLP that, thanks to Pavlov and countless researchers since, is accepted in fields as diverse as psychology, marketing, sports coaching etc.

It would be safer to write that "Many NLP techniques have no empirical support or validation". Otherwise, the section Commercialization and evaluation" is contaminated.

Finally, I appreciate how tough a job it must be to write any article on NLP, not least because there is no common consensus about a definition of NLP among NLP practitioners!

Oliver1957 (talk) 16:29, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Misleading Citation: footnote 100

I've been going through the electronically available citations in this article to further my own research. The Lilienfeld article cited in footnote 100 does not mention NLP. I suggest removing the Lilienfeld article from the footnote because it does not generally nor directly support the asserted statement. (The other citations in footnote 100 are not electronically available, so I cannot speak to their veracity.)

Statement: In fact, in education, NLP has been used as a key example of pseudoscience.[100]

Footnote: See, for example, the following:
Lum.C (2001). Scientific Thinking in Speech and Language Therapy. Psychology Press. p. 16. ISBN 0-8058-4029-X.
Lilienfeld, Scott O.; Lohr, Jeffrey M.; Morier, Dean (1 July 2001). "The Teaching of Courses in the Science and Pseudoscience of Psychology: Useful Resources". Teaching of Psychology 28 (3): 182–191. doi:10.1207/S15328023TOP2803_03.
Dunn D, Halonen J, Smith R (2008). Teaching Critical Thinking in Psychology. Wiley-Blackwell. p. 12. ISBN 978-1-4051-7402-2. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theobfuskate (talk • contribs) 03:17, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

I see the Lilienfeld, et al, article here: http://www.criticalteaching.org/Library/coursesinscience.pdf

The authors do not refer to "NLP" or "Neuro-linguistic programming" in the article. The article does not appear to support the sentence.

The citation should be removed from this Wikipedia article as it does not refer to this topic. The sentence in question should probably be removed unless the statement can be cited.

Eturk001 (talk) 02:04, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration motion

The Arbitration Committee are reviewing the discretionary sanctions topic areas with a view to remove overlapping authorisations, the proposed changes will affect this topic area. Details of the proposal are at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions#Motion: Overlap of Sanctions where your comments are invited. For the Arbitration Committee, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:44, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Ignorance Claimed Helpful

"For example, I believe it was very useful that neither one of us were qualified in the field we first went after - psychology and in particular, its therapeutic application; this being one of the conditions which Kuhn identified in his historical study of paradigm shifts," says one of these great pioneers.

"Neither one of us were," one assumes, is staking out ignorance of the English language as a prerequisite for the linguistic side of their revolution.

David Lloyd-Jones (talk) 07:11, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

That raised a chuckle ...----Snowded ^TALK 07:27, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Gaivna

See Psyus

1. It is there for Miltn Model neuroscience
2. No change to neutral point of view
3. No undue weight
4. No guess if an impartial contributor is needed (See Gaivna quote "The process of becoming Aware involves recognition We are pattern recognition machines--continuously comparing sensory data with memories in a process that is cognitively fundamental (Dave J. Snowden, U.S. Patent 8031201) There is room for neurobiology conjecture here However, the thalamus, in forming Awarenes"
5. Metaphors for peace require language patterns supported by neuroscience

--Psyus (talk) 15:22, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

It is a field I know something about, apologies for that. This method associated with Klein and others is nothing whatsoever to do with a pseudo-science like NLP. Trying to make it respectably by association is not wikipedia's purpose ----Snowded ^TALK 20:25, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Neutrality

I reworded the first couple of paragraphs to make them clearer and more neutral. The rest of the article needs more of the same. This page is way too ranty for a Wikipedia article. Readers deserve better, and they know it -- they'll abandon the article fast, and find their information about NLP somewhere else. I doubt anyone actually wants that! If I get around to it, I'll restructure the article properly, with the description in the beginning and criticism towards the end. (If you criticize a concept that has not yet been fully presented, it comes across as heckling.) I'm sure NLP's detractors can present their viewpoint far more creditably than they have so far, once the failed attempts are dealt with... RobertPlamondon (talk) 19:09, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Interesting that my edit to say "The name refers to the connection between neurological processes ("neuro"), language ("linguistic") and behavioral patterns learned through experience ("programming")" was reverted. This statement is 100% non-controversial. Is there anyone alive who would contend that there is no connection between neurology, language, and behavior? Of course there isn't. Learn to pace yourselves, dudes, I'm doing you a favor by making you look more reasoned. RobertPlamondon (talk) 19:17, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Asserting that a reverted edit is 100% non-controversial is unlikely to fly, for the obvious reasons. As an outsider, I can't see all that much between your edits, TBH, other than minor slant. I certainly wouldn't call yours "unbelieveable whitewashing". But as to the difference between Bandler and Grinder claim that the skills of exceptional people can be "modeled" using NLP methodology, then those skills can be acquired by anyone and Bandler and Grinder point out that, if the skills of exceptional people can be "modeled" (successfully learned through observation and imitation) by others, they will be available to more people. NLP modeling techniques are an attempt to achieve this - well, its susceptible to solution-by-looking-it-up. Do they indeed claim it? Or do they merely suggest that "if", "then"? William M. Connolley (talk) 19:46, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. Thanks. My point is that what we're dealing with here are definitions of terms in the form of "possibly unfamiliar term = universally accepted phenomenon." For example, if you look up the page on gravitation, it says, "Gravitation or gravity is a natural phenomenon by which all physical bodies attract each other." It does NOT start out, "Isaac Newton claims..." Similarly, we don't need to say, "Bandler and Grinder claim..." when we refer to the concept that our neurology, our use of language, and our behavior affect each other -- we all agree that they do. Similarly, in the modeling sentence, no one questions that one can learn from experts! But the term "modeling" is used in a sense that's unfamiliar to many readers -- splitting the difference between "role model" and "theoretical model," perhaps -- and I wanted to clarify what it means. The current references support this meaning. Mostly, I want the first paragraph to orient the reader to fundamental concepts and definitions before plunging into claims and counterclaims. Suggestions? RobertPlamondon (talk) 22:01, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

An important difference is that gravity works (is science) and NLP doesn't (isn't science). Thus, we are documenting claims, rather than accepted facts; so the word "claims" and names of the claimants would be relevant - David Gerard (talk) 11:52, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, that's true, but you can tar pretty much all of the therapeutic modalities with the same brush (see dodo bird verdict). The state of the soft sciences means that therapy is still waiting for the Handsome Prince of "valid and directly applicable theory" to arrive. It'll happen, but not yet. We're all still kissing frogs here. RobertPlamondon (talk)

No you can't "tar pretty much all of the therapeutic modalities with the same brush"; CBT and especially purely behaviourist-based psychotherapeutic modalities have a substantial evidence base in their favour. Again, I repeat: NLP has literally zero evidence demonstrating any efficacy beyond placebo. Neither behaviourism nor CBT are "waiting" for a "valid and directly applicable theory"—in any event behaviourism has a solid theory—but its raison d'etre is that it is efficacious in treating certain anxiety disorders (much better than placebo). Good theory is nice to have, but it is isn't and never was essential. The fundamental issue is evidence for efficacy (above placebo)—CBT and behaviourism have it, NLP does not. It is not mandatory that any form of therapy—pharmaceutical or psychotherapeutic—have a "valid and directly applicable theory" for it to be adopted as mainstream or even best practice; all that need be demonstrated is efficacy above placebo level and safety (or at least a favourable risk/benefit profile). NLP has neither an evidence base nor a cogent theory with superior explanatory power—it really is nothing but a bunch of silly rituals which have nothing more than symbolic efficacy. This is why many "NLP practitioners" have started moving to newer psychotherapeutic fads; if all you have is placebo then any silly ritual will do. So, to re-iterate, Bandler and Grinder have nothing more than naked claims and that is why we use the term claim in the article. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 11:33, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, CBT ain't what it used to be - https://uit.no/Content/418448/The%20effect%20of%20CBT%20is%20falling.pdf, suggesting that there may not be much more to it than placebo after all. Not that this makes NLP (whatever NLP is actually supposed to be) better, or not pseudoscience (which it would be, even if it was found to be effective - NLP is grandiose and over-reaching pretty much by design) - but the tar metaphor is stronger than you think. Maloot (talk) 20:10, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

And as a general comment, the changes follow a previous pattern from NLP practitioners associated with the 'new' approach and a quick internet search indicates that Robert Plamondon is offering NLP services. Nothing wrong with that but it means careful attention to use of the sources, rather than an idea of 'neutrality' based on a protagonists position.----Snowded ^TALK 15:59, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Actually, no one has ever sought me out for NLP services, and I expect no one ever will. People always see me for hypnotherapy. But I found many of the concepts presented in NLP (a) helpful and (b) not unique to NLP -- for example, cognitive reframing, operant conditioning, the "parts" metaphor, ideomotor response, imaginary rehearsal, therapeutic metaphor, and so on. I've found this lack-of-uniqueness useful when bridging modalities, but it makes the vitriol a bit startling! RobertPlamondon (talk) 23:14, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't know what is meant by 'vitriol'. 'NLP services' having been offered are by no means negated by having no one seeking them out, at http://www.hypnosis-corvallis.com/what-is-nlp-anyway/ , accessed Jan. 31 2016, Robert Plamondon's blog on, yes, hypnotherapy. The point must be made that, informally speaking, there is a perceived conflict of interest in at least the intellectual sense, where someone is playing apologist for what he or she is offering as a professional service. JohndanR (talk) 21:03, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Wow, comparing Newton's Laws with NLP. This (dis)analogy is so absurd I am tempted to think we are being trolled. There is literally zero evidence for the efficacy of NLP. This isn't my personal opinion, it is the unvarnished truth. NLP has no evidence base. Please re-read the previous sentence and ponder it for a few minutes. Given that NLP has literally no evidence base everything that Bandler and Grinder write or utter about NLP can be nothing more than an (unsubstantiated) claim. If you aren't trolling and you believe that Newtonian Physics and post-Newtonian physical theory about gravitation has the same evidence base and epistemic status as NLP then you are profoundly uneducated, naive and perhaps even delusional. Also, comparing Bandler and Grinder to Newton is risible; it is so absurd it is obscene and perverse. Mr Plamondon you have a clear WP:COI and you will not be permitted to obfuscate the actual evidentiary status of NLP by presenting unsubstantiated claims from Bandler and Grinder as fact. Also, the critiques of NLP are not mere "counterclaims", they stem from contemporary results from neuroscience, cognitive psychology, linguistics and clinical psychology based on evidence. Bandler and Grinder got nothing correct about the human brain and human language and they have been repeating the same unaltered neuromythology and pseudoscience since the 1970s. Bandler and Grinder are to neuroscience what Young Earth Creationists are to Geology. That is a more fitting analogy. Further, Bandler and Grinder are to the treatment of mental illness what African witchdoctors are to the treatment of HIV/AIDS in the sub-Sahara. The evidence base and epistemic status of African witchcraft is the same as that of NLP. Another more fitting analogy for you. Re NLP modeling: the meaning of NLP modeling is clarified in the body of the article and NLP modeling is not merely the idea that "one can learn from experts". AnotherPseudonym (talk) 14:06, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I was making a structural point, and with structure, the specific content of an example is irrelevant -- and in fact, using non-comparable content to make a structural point has some advantages. But we can use examples with similar content if you like. Compare the opening section of the NLP page with that of other far-from-mainstream modalities, such as the one for primal therapy. First the concept is summarized (I'd have defined the term "primal scream" as well), and then the different sections go into detail, including a Criticism section. RobertPlamondon (talk) 23:14, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure where to put this, so I'm putting it here: Neuro-linguistic programming is referenced as a standard technique to be used in the Army's Civilian Affairs manual, in the section on negotiation (STP 41-38II-OFS, Officer Foundation, Standards II Civil Affairs, (38) Officer’s Manual, April 2004). This may be useful, or not, as a reference or as research material. I read this recently, and came to Wikipedia to find out what NLP is. I still don't know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.119.111.71 (talk) 19:10, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Legitimate access to that manual requires authorized login. The 'NLP' references are vague therein and merely state their use, rather than quantify and qualify them. I.E., there is no 'NLP' training material proper, in the manual. The actual inclusion of what is called 'NLP' in the manual is confused by the fact that the Army investigation and dismissal of 'NLP' has been witheringly critiqued as essentially incompetent by an 'NLP' practitioner, at http://www.bradburyac.mistral.co.uk/druckman.html , leaving one with the conclusion that whatever the Army came up that is the actual (taught but non-documented) theory and praxis that backgrounds what it calls 'NLP' in the manual must likely be an at least equally incompetent version of whatever one might want to call 'official' NLP.

Probably someone in the army decided to ignore investigators' recommendations and bunged ahead with (some sort of) 'NLP' 'training' procedure. What that entails has to be a mystery. Another possibility is that the mention is included as a red-herring for foreign consumption: give them something to waste time researching and/or attempt implementing. A similar suggestion was made concerning the HAARP study on 'remote viewing'; one cognitive psychologist conjectured that the quasi-psychic practice was 'studied' to throw the Soviets off-track. JohndanR (talk) 20:22, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

RobertPlamondon still has a general point though when he says the page is way too ranty. Some of the sourcing is questionable e.g. "The balance of scientific evidence reveals NLP to be a largely discredited pseudoscience." is sourced from a blog post which I think can be pretty safely filed under WP:USERGENERATED. Yes 'Joe Greemfield' (I am guessing this is he - https://causewaycollaborative.com/joe-greenfield/) cites "Clinician's Guide to Evidence Based Practices: Mental Health and the Addictions" - so someone actually needs to go to the source as far I can see. Writing a good, 'balanced' NLP article is going to be a tough collaborative effort, but I don't think it's too much of an assertion to say that we could do better. Maloot (talk) 08:06, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Okay. I have made a change & addition reflecting the above, and providing somewhat of an authoritative response from the NLP world (as Steve Andreas has his own wikipedia entry, this seems very reasonable). Another key thing is I have replaced 'proponents' with Bandler & Grinder - now I would have to see the actual sources to verify whether the unnamed proponents were really references to Bandler & Grinder, but that seems a very reasonable inference and much better than a reference to unknown persons who may or may not be composed of dried stalks of grain Maloot (talk) 08:59, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Having a wikipedia entry is not a measure of authority and I'm not sure it would survive a challenge on notability. Also it is already tagged are depending on primary sources. As far as I can see from the quote we have an NLP practitioner asserting that (i) the existing research really doesn't look at the right things (ii) that there is no current research and (iii) NLP is indirectly supported. None of that really counts especially as their whole business is about NLP. I'm sure we can make a better article, but the whole idea here is to have third party sources not primary ones. We've also debated the statement on "the balance of scientific" before and agreed to leave it as it stands. So I've reverse those two ----Snowded ^TALK 09:47, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm not seeing this as justification for a full revert - can you point me to the aforementioned discussion? The edit makes it clear that the counter-claim is from a NLP proponent so what's the problem? Maloot (talk) 09:56, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

We don;'t do balancing statements in wikipedia we reflect third party commentary. The source you used is one practitioner with an NLP business no evidence of notability anyway ----Snowded ^TALK 10:27, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Moreover, I'm curious as to what kind of discussion made the use of a WP:USERGENERATED source like the Joe Greenfield piece okay. Maloot (talk) 10:07, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

I've been bold and removed the Joe Greenfield citation as it is WP:UGC. "None of that really counts" and "the whole idea here...." seem to me to be wooly. "When reverting, be specific about your reasons in the edit summary and use links if needed." - on that basis, I am putting the Andreas defence in there for now. "all majority and significant minority views" should be covered - it could be there is a better way to do this, but the current article does not do so at all. You can say 'we've had a discussion" - but thing is, I wasn't part of that discussion. Maloot (talk) 10:22, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

This is a controversial article. That means if you were reverted you wait for a consensus before you reinstate, You can look at the archives as well as I can. ----Snowded ^TALK 10:27, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

I'd prefer to see citations of WP policy rather than your proclamations, and the WP:CIVILITY to link to the correct discussion so we are both talking about the same thing Maloot (talk) 10:30, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

If you want policy look at WP:RS, if you want guidelines follow WP:BRD nothing uncivil about requiring you to do your own research. In practice the pseudo-science thing is all over the article with multiple sources. It doesn't need to be referenced in the lede which summarises the article. As it is all the statements in the Greenfield entry are linked to reliable third party sources so you can substitute one of those if you want. But the summary article is probably more useful to readers ----Snowded ^TALK 10:33, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

It's not really a case of me *doing my own research*, it's not really possible for me to do that and know that I understand what you're getting that. A justification for a WP:UGC source shouldn't be hard to muster. Indeed you try "the summary article is probably more useful to readers" - that seems pretty subjective. It doesn't meet sourcing policy. I don't see that I can substitute the links because I do not know that the links are actually the case because they are cited from an article that doesn't meet sourcing policy. At the end of the day, I don't see how you can justify not using one summary article but not another. My original edit retained both. If the lead doesn't require the reference, then fine I guess we can go ahead and remove it right? Maloot (talk) 10:54, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

If you check the link the article has the quote with links to articles. It tool me two minutes to check it. But you can remove the reference if you want it is not needed in the lede but the statement stands as it summarises material covered later in the article. Not sure what you mean by two summary articles ----Snowded ^TALK 11:03, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

"It tool (sic) me two minutes to check it. " is telling, and misses the point. I will remove the citation, and sleep on this more generally befire coming back to it. It seems to me that if a term like 'proponents' and the WP:UGC nature of the cited article was missed then a closer look at the rest of the article is going to yield other significant issues. Maloot (talk) 11:15, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

I suggest a brief stroll through the talk page archives as a part of that reflection. You will find a lot of discussion there ----Snowded ^TALK 11:23, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

I thought the source was good per our rules, though if there's good reason to throw it out then we should do so - David Gerard (talk) 12:41, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Strictly sources are not needed in the lede as it summarises the article. But its OK to have it there as the rererence had third party sources for all its statements. I assume you just meant to reinstate the source rather than reinstate the recent addition of an NLP practitioner's opinion ----Snowded ^TALK 13:01, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, fat-fingered edit, thanks for fix :-) - David Gerard (talk) 13:14, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

OK, can you please, in good faith, point to where it states that UGC isn't UGC if it claims to provide citations? Maloot (talk) 13:03, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Policy says "Self-published material may sometimes be acceptable when its author is an established expert whose work in the relevant field has been published by reliable third-party publications" and in this case we have an online repository of referenced material that just happens to use Word Press so I'm not sure its even a blog. But if it is an issue we can use one of the sources it references ----Snowded ^TALK 13:07, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

So clearly this doesn't apply (and btw, almost every other article on that site is a 'work in progress' which several years on we can deem never to be finished- calling it an online repository of referenced material is laughable). Please now help me to understand why you can just go ahead and lift the sources it references, without knowing what they actually say. Maloot (talk) 13:13, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

If you check the rest of the article you will find the articles it references already there. See my earlier comments on the lede ----Snowded ^TALK 15:44, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Okay, in the absence of a defence, Joe Greenwood citation will be removed. If there's a reversion without decent reasoning, I'll escalate in some way because there's just no way in my mind that this can be justified. I suspect that a decent investigation of the article would yield further questionable sourcing, and I also appreciate that people on here are somewhat hardened by puppetry and such in a way that has naturally compromised neutrality (the clinging to the Joe Greenwood source is a clear sign of this). There's no doubt that 'The Structure of Magic' is inherently pseudoscientific & pseudointellectual, but the entry on Postmodernism doesn't mention the Sokal affair in the lede. To declare, yes I have a NLP Master Practitioner certification (in addition to being a philosophy graduate fwiw) - but I am sceptical about most of the grander claims and sympathetic to much of this article. But focussing on representational systems & 'linguistic predicates' is misleading. What to do? Still pondering.... Maloot (talk) 07:08, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

As long as you don't remove the statement I'm neutral on including the reference. However there has been a defence its just that you don't agree with this. That doesn't give you a consensus to change. If David Gerard reinstates the reference then you should leave it ----Snowded ^TALK 18:23, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, I do think that's pretty obtuse (in what sense is Joe Greenfield established in his field and what work has he had published?). However, I have made it clear that I will not re-remove the reference and that I will escalate Maloot (talk) 12:26, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure there is any process to "escalate" in wikipedia but lets see ----Snowded ^TALK 13:02, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

I am new to editing Wikipedia but I am a Certified NLP Trainer with over 10 years experience in training and working with individuals. I can therefore speak from personal experience. I do find that there is a great deal of misunderstanding about NLP from those who are less intimately involved and the article in part reflects that. I would like to add: It is a generalisation to assert that NLP is discredited and should be regarded as pseudoscience. This is an example of ‘Universal Quantifier’ addressed by NLP in the Metamodel, and at the very least we should ask ‘which part of NLP specifically’ is being referred to.

Because NLP is concerned with the unique subjective experience of an individual, any attempt to study a group of individuals to produce some sort of aggregate or average response is fatally flawed. Grinder makes this point in ‘Whispering in the Wind’ in discussing academic studies of NLP’s Eye Accessing Cues model.

In therapy, a skilled practitioner of NLP may utilise one of NLP’s well documented techniques, but will finesses and adapt these to make them effective with each individual client. As such, it is not possible to aggregate the results because every individual has been ‘treated’ differently.

NLP has made little effort to understand how it works because it is more concerned with doing things that work than studying why they work. Any scientific quest is regarded as a search for the ‘territory’ and NLP is only concerned with the different ‘maps’ that individuals have made of the ‘territory. The map is not the territory.

The evidence for the effectiveness of NLP is vested ultimately in the individual testimonies of those ordinary people, businessmen, athletes and patients who have whose lives have been changed for the better through competent NLP practitioners.

Some cynicism has been expressed over Bandler and Grinder resolving their differences in the courts, rather than using their NLP skills. In The Structure of Magic Volume 1, Bandler and Grinder explain, ‘Our experience has been that, when people come to us in therapy, they typically come with pain, feeling themselves paralysed, experiencing no choices or freedom of action in their lives. What we have found is not that the world is too limited or that there are no choices, but that these people block themselves from seeing those options and possibilities that are open to them since they are not available in their models of the world.’ In NLP terms, they simply made a choice.

One organisation, INLPTA (International NLP Trainers Association) has published syllabuses and assessment standards for Diploma, Practitioner, Master Practitioner which INLPTA Certified Trainers are required to adhere to. Standards are also published for the training of Trainers and Master Trainers, Coaches and Master Coaches. — Preceding unsigned comment added by David B Smallwood (talk • contribs) 07:29, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

@David B Smallwood: The evidence for the effectiveness of NLP is vested ultimately in the individual testimonies of those ordinary people, businessmen, athletes and patients who have whose lives have been changed for the better through competent NLP practitioners. So, if the patient's life has been changed for the better they are tallied as evidence for the effectiveness of NLP. This implies that if not for the better, that data point is discarded? A similarly worded study would conclude that everyone who walks into a Las Vegas casino is a big-time winner. Please read up on anecdotal evidence. The use of anecdotal evidence for declaring that NLP is effective would be a valid basis for declaring NLP as pseudoscience.

...and at the very least we should ask ‘which part of NLP specifically’ is being referred to. If a part of NLP is unsound, why would it be kept as part of NLP? If no one is removing ineffective parts of NLP, the entirety of NLP is in doubt. Scientific reviews show it contains numerous factual errors David, do you know of parts of NLP which are ineffective, in error, or are problematic? If so, are you urging these parts be removed? Is there a system in place to excise them from NLP? If not, why? Jim1138 (talk) 10:08, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Reply from David B Smallwood. Effectiveness of NLP. If a skilled NLP practitioner works with a client with a phobia, and the client wishes to get rid of that phobia, and afterwards the client no longer has the phobia, then that (in NLP terms) could be because the NLP intervention has worked, or could be because of another unknown reason. Contiguity in time is generally regarded as best evidence - ie the client lost their phobia immediately after the NLP intervention. Where the client does not lose their phobia, NLP would say that the standard Fast Phobia Cure did not on this occasion work. This does not mean that it doesn't work, simply that on this occasion it did not. Richard Bandler said that he was not interested when his students came and told him that NLP had worked, he was only interested when it had not. In other words, the technique or procedure has limitations and it is of great interest to NLP modellers to discover the limitations of their models and how to overcome them. Robert Dilts, the prime developer of NLP since Bandler and Grinder, defines NLP as "What works". By this he means that the model works. when it doesn't, we go back and do more modelling.

Just because one NLP intervention on a particular occasion does not produce the desired result, is no reason to say that any part of NLP does not work. No more than taking two Anadin Plus and failing to get rid of a headache proves that Anadin Plus doesn't work, nor that Western Medicine as a whole is pseudoscience.

I don't know of any parts of NLP that are ineffective. Any aspect of NLP may not work on an occasion. It depends on the state of the client, the state of the practitioner, the rapport between them, the competency of the practitioner to adapt to that individual client's map of the world and if that change is totally ecological for the client. Success may not be replicable for many reasons, all of which return it to NLP's true quest - to model excellence.

In some ways NLP is similar to Theoretical Physics. There is no quest for truth, simply a quest for a set of equations which explain everything we can observe. There is no suggestion by theoretical physicists that they have discovered the truth about the universe, only that they have a set of equations which fit observations. NLP has no quest for any kind of truth about 'reality', it is a quest to understand the map that of each individual has of reality and how to work effectively with that map to help that individual achieve their outcomes. As such, factual errors are irrelevant. Only results matter.

The scientific approach seems to want to understand and validate NLP as if one were studying how to kick football. Evidence of multiple ways of kicking and the resulting flight of the ball can be accumulated and knowledge about how to kick a football deduced. Kicking in exactly the same way will achieve the same result. NLP could be likened to kicking a dog. The outcome of an identical kick is totally unpredictable as it depends on the mood of the dog and the ability of the dog to understand the kicker's intentions. Dogs can generally tell the difference between a deliberate and accidental kick, but not always. No scientific study will ever produce a theory which will predict the result of kicking a dog in a specific way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by David B Smallwood (talk • contribs) 14:08, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

I am really rather intrigued about how this article has been constructed.

Firstly,NLP has a basis in Philosophy, given that is significant cornerstone is Epistemology (the study of the nature, origin and limits of human knowledge).

Secondly, NLP treats individuals as wholly unique and so statistical analys is irrelevant when examining uniqueness.

Thirdly,, I would expect any analysis to look at a topic in a balanced manner, identifying opinions and evidence from both proponents and detractors.

I can see a number of misconceptions about NLP being expressed by individuals who appear to have then tested for their misconceptions... Iltaph (talk) 11:30, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

See material on your talk page on the various rules as to what is included. I'd read that before you start to make assumptions about other editors. We reflect the balance of what the reliable sources say, we do not balance pro and anti views of a pseudoscience. ----Snowded ^TALK 12:09, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

I see know similar bias on the page for hypnosis and the two are very strongly linked... Iltaph (talk) 14:59, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 February 2016

Under the "Main components and core concepts" section and there is a "Subjectivity. According to Bandler and Grinder:" section. In that section please change the second sentence "These subjective representation of experience are constituted in terms of five senses and language." to "These subjective representations of experience are constituted in terms of five senses and language." for grammatical reasons. The word "representation" should be plural.

Thanks Spitfir23 (talk) 23:53, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Done --allthefoxes ^(Talk) 00:01, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Neuro-linguistic programming. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110615035122/http://www.psychotherapy.org.uk/iqs/dbitemid.84/sfa.view/cs1.html to http://www.psychotherapy.org.uk/iqs/dbitemid.84/sfa.view/cs1.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:36, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

EST hatnote?

Why is this disambiguated from EST? - David Gerard (talk) 19:38, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

NLP and the genesis of "Pick Up Artists"

The pick-up culture relies heavily on these distorted views of human interaction. I will hopefully find time to add to the article, but if it interests anyone else to do so, the Wikipedia article would more closely reflect modern reality if it at least mentioned that the origin of the PUA ethos is rooted in the pseudoscience of "NLP". 173.217.205.130 (talk) 12:10, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Don't know about origin, but they certainly seized upon it. Bandler loves these guys because they're a notable market for him - David Gerard (talk) 22:19, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Neuro-linguistic programming. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for //www.anlp.org/anlpnews.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:00, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Neurolinguistic programming: An interim verdict

New link to PDF document for

Heap. M., (1988) Neurolinguistic programming: An interim verdict. In M. Heap (Ed.) Hypnosis: Current Clinical, Experimental and Forensic Practices. London: Croom Helm, pp. 268–280.

www.aske-skeptics.org.uk/nlp1.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.144.50.58 (talk) 11:20, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

MEDRS

David Gerard: RE: This sentence that you reverted. When it's a medical claim, I don't think it matters if it's in WP's voice, otherwise MEDRS would be irrelevant. It would be ok in their voice if it said something like, "Bandler and Grinder claim as well that NLP can treat a number of psychological and physical in a single session." The issue is that it names specific disorders that it supposedly treats, especially because there are so many citations and all of the terms are wikilinked, that part really jumps out at you. I'll ask at WT:MED. —PermStrump(talk) 19:29, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong with documenting the founders' ludicrous claims, given NLP's status as not just a pseudoscience, but an exemplary pseudoscience, is made clear in the article - David Gerard (talk) 22:00, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

My last edit looks bigger than it really was. There were a couple of duplicate citations that I named replaced with shortcuts, so that took out a lot of text. I also combined related sentences into paragraphs and hid some of the citeclutter. I didn't change the wording, except for replacing some words with more common terms (e.g., myopia→near-sightedness). —PermStrump(talk) 18:00, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

biased

why is this article so biased? i was looking for an encyclopedia article not an opinion on the method. i thought there was a places opinions under criticism. this is not at the least scientific. Yasemincakmak (talk) 17:15, 17 July 2016 (UTC) if wikipedia is a place where there is space only for "accredited" sciences then it is not a encyclopedia for all. i find this greatly disturbing. my trust is shattered. who is to say what is what is not pseudoscience? who are you? and what about those that have been helped by this and those that could be helped that the article is preventing from accessing it. i was with a woman yesterday that after 16 years of dealing with extreme agoraphobia and having tried all the different routes decided to try npl and after 18 months of doing the program she was freed. she credits npl for changing her life. and this is a remark made 30 years after completing it. i feel like the pseudoscience hunters are a bit like christian witch hunters. full of self importance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yasemincakmak (talk • contribs) 17:30, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 August 2016

Please add this to the chapter History and conception --> Early development, right at the beginning, before all the other text. I think it is an important part of the early beginnings and it adds to the text already written.

NLP began in the mid of 1960s in California, when scientists started to question earlier developed psychology. The psychology dealt primarily with mental disorders and abnormal behavior. Its aim was primarily to restore the working capacity of the affected people. But scientifically oriented psychology ignored the part of the human mind that makes us good, powerful and human. Therefore, scientists started to explore what makes people happy, successful and prominent. The result was a human potential movement. Its aim was to explore and to promote the possibilities that are lying dormant in people.

On the ideas of people like Abraham Maslow, Carl Rogers, Fritz Perls, Alan Watts, Viktor Frankl, Milton Erickson founded this new movement. Many scientists and therapists developed methods and theories that followed this new way of psychology.

One of these scientists was Richard Bandler, a student of computer science and psychology. In 1972 he met with John Grinder, a teacher of linguistics. They both had similar interests and started to work together. First, they looked into speech patterns that people use in different situations and developed a new model of communication. Then they started to explore not only the spoken language but also the non-verbal components of language. By their work they targeted specifically at individuals who stood out in their field. So they contacted the three most successful therapists in the United States, Milton Erickson, who had revolutionized hypnotherapy, Fritz Perls, the inventor of Gestalt therapy, and Virginia Satir, the mother of family therapy, and asked to take part in their therapy sessions.

MarTina (talk) 20:00, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

References

Not done for now: Currently, what you've offered, looks like an independent essay - not written in encyclopedic style - that you want inserted into the article. Far too many "peacock" words: "incredible", "young, creative and dedicated", "much more significant", "revolutionized" etc. Some of the sentence structure is quite tortured, as well: "met eleven years older John Grinder", "which aim was to ...". You can reinstate this request by offering a better version suitable for immediate inclusion.  —jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:45, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

In comparing your (now revised and improved) requested edit with the existing content of the article, I see that many of the points you wish to insert are already addressed, including some that are contradicted by other sources. Please consider how to better integrate the changes you want to make with the existing article.  —jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:49, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Revision of NLP's status as pseudoscience (Recent Peer-Reviewed Meta-Analysis)

Consider the abstract from recent peer-reviewed research as evidence that, while NLP is not a mainstream therapy, it is does not qualify as pseudoscience under the neutrality rule: Zaharia, Reiner, & Schütz (2015) Psychiatria Danubina, Vol 27(4), 2015. pp. 355-363. I won't edit the page yet, but it bears discussing... Bmcdani4 (talk) 21:11, 19 September 2016 (UTC)bmcdani4

What does this source say about the pseudoscience in NLP? Alexbrn (talk) 21:38, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

I've read this paper and I've got serious concerns about it. The authors of this meta-analysis appear to have a professional interest in NLP but there is no COI notice in the paper. Three of the papers they review have NLP therapists as authors and two of those papers (unsurprisingly) report positive results. This data is presented, but I cannot ascertain why those papers were not immediately excluded on COI grounds. I cannot fathom how the authors of this meta-analysis have controlled for 'risk of bias'. Two papers apparently contained "no information about the effect" and another "reported significant results but gave no further numerical information" so I don't know how they obtained the numbers they use in later figures/tables. I'm concerned at the inclusion "of conference proceedings (and) unpublished data" in the meta-analysis. There are 3 sources that are not obtained from scholarly databases but seemingly plucked out of thin air - and they are not identified. That's worrying. There are several PhD and Master's theses included in the meta-analysis and the largest pro-NLP effect is from a lowly Master's thesis. Nice try, but no cigar. In my professional opinion this is an example of garbage in, garbage out. Famous_dog (c) 12:05, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

A new editor tried reversing the tone of the article at Methods of neuro-linguistic programming - see Talk:Methods_of_neuro-linguistic_programming#recent_advocacy_edits. I suggested they come here, but reviewing the new claim there may also be useful - David Gerard (talk) 21:46, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia contradicts themselves when Suggestion is a real process too

But NP is basically Suggestion. And Suggestion is a real thing - supported also by wikipedia - so I don't get the extremity of this article to discredit it. Yes, not all of it is true but the BASICS of it, the Suggestion, is obviously a real thing. --188.4.150.161 (talk) 12:50, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

We work from sources not the personal views of any editors ----Snowded ^TALK 12:57, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Large amount of false information

It would appear that the contributors of this page appear to have a professional interest in undermining the usefulness of NLP. Since many psychologist are adopting the practice to help those where talk therapy is not working over long periods of time. Even the articles put forward as evidence against the science do not support what the contributors are claiming. That is, they are falsely and purposefully misleading the reader with links to articles that do not support the claims they made. It would be like linking an article about aliens to a medical journal on high blood pressure.

The page should be returned to its original few posts until which time factual data can be introduced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Swanback (talk • contribs) 17:26, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

@Swanback: Welcome back to Wikipedia. It seems that you've forgotten that you can actually edit the article yourself. If you find references that do not support the content, you are entitled to flag that content or remove it. Since what you are proposing sounds somewhat contentious, please be prepared to hash out the changes here on the talk page. Unspecific suggestions for changes will probably languish until someone comes along with a more specific proposal.  —jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:08, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

@Swanback: You might also want to lay off the personal attacks and declare any COI you have. ----Snowded ^TALK 08:01, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

@Swanback: So, to break this down for you: "It would appear that the contributors of this page appear to have a professional interest in undermining the usefulness of NLP. Since many psychologists are adopting the practice to help those where talk therapy is not working over long periods of time. Even the articles put forward as evidence against the science do not support what the contributors are claiming. That is, they are falsely and purposefully misleading the reader with links to articles that do not support the claims they made. It would be like linking an article about aliens to a medical journal on high blood pressure." Famous_dog (c) 12:03, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Neuro Linguistic Programming: Rapport

Studies suggest that "confederates mimic the posture and movements of participants and showed that mimicry facilitates the smoothness of interactions and increases liking between interaction partners" Chartrand, T. L., & Bargh, J. A. (1999). The chameleon effect: The perception-behavior link and social interaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 893–910.. As such the controversial idea of "mirroring and matching" is supported by a relatively high quality and peer reviewed study.

Additional Studies that support the concept of "Rapport": Above source repeated for easy browsing: Chartrand, T. L., & Bargh, J. A. (1999). The chameleon effect: The perception-behavior link and social interaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 893–910. http://www.spring.org.uk/2009/11/the-chameleon-effect.php Lakin, J.L., Jefferis, V.E., Cheng, C.M. et al. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior (2003) 27: 145. doi:10.1023/A:1025389814290

Mimicry is Over Simplified by NLP: Mirroring a person that is undesirable makes the third person dislike the mimic-er

Kavanagh, L. C., Suhler, C. L., Churchland, P. S., & Winkielman, P. (2011). When it’s an error to mirror: The surprising reputational costs of mimicry. Psychological science, 22(10), 1274-1276.

First published date: September-15-2011

Based on the above sources and marketing psychology the Rapport section of NLP may not be off-base. If these studies are quality they lend support to the basic mirroring/matching concept of Rapport. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Watson2.0 (talk • contribs) 05:00, 28 February 2017 Watson2.0 (talk) 06:48, 28 February 2017 (UTC)Watson2.0

Looks like original research or synthesis on a quick scan. Is there third party material relating to this in the specific context of NLP? ----Snowded ^TALK 07:19, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 April 2017

Please consider changing footnote 98 from:

See, for example, the following:

• Lum.C (2001). Scientific Thinking in Speech and Language Therapy. Psychology Press. p. 16. ISBN 0-8058-4029-X.
• Lilienfeld, Scott O.; Lohr, Jeffrey M.; Morier, Dean (1 July 2001). "The Teaching of Courses in the Science and Pseudoscience of Psychology: Useful Resources". Teaching of Psychology 28 (3): 182–191. doi:10.1207/S15328023TOP2803_03.
• Dunn D, Halonen J, Smith R (2008). Teaching Critical Thinking in Psychology. Wiley-Blackwell. p. 12. ISBN 978-1-4051-7402-2.

To:

See, for example, the following:

• Lum.C (2001). Scientific Thinking in Speech and Language Therapy. Psychology Press. p. 16. ISBN 0-8058-4029-X.
• Dunn D, Halonen J, Smith R (2008). Teaching Critical Thinking in Psychology. Wiley-Blackwell. p. 12. ISBN 978-1-4051-7402-2.

Rationale: The Lilienfeld article does not mention NLP and is not a relevant citation for: "In fact, in education, NLP has been used as a key example of pseudoscience." I do not have access to the other citations and I cannot speak to their veracity. Eturk001 also found this to be true.

Thank you! Theobfuskate (talk) 15:40, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Done. Daß Wölf 23:47, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

I beg to disagree. The Lilienfeld article: The Teaching of Courses in the Science and Pseudoscience of Psychology: Useful Resources has been a topic of numerous discussions. See archives. I am restoring the Lilienfeld reference. Jim1138 (talk) 01:50, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

E-Prime

I added E-Prime to the see also list. @Snowded: reverted this edit. It's a small thing, but I think E-Prime is very appropriate for the see also section, as it also uses specific linguistic techniques for a purported therapeutic benefit. (See E-Prime#Influence in psychotherapy) There are also claims that Neuro-linguistic programming uses E-Prime as a technique and that NLP's theoretical basis relies heavily on the work of Korzybski and Bourland, developers of E-Prime.

The Wikipedia Manual of Style says that the see also section should include "topics similar to that discussed in the article" I apologize for ignoring the MOS guidance that "Editors should provide a brief annotation when a link's relevance is not immediately apparent" Do others have suggestions what an appropriate annotation might be? Sondra.kinsey (talk) 16:50, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Is there anything in the E-prime literature which references NLP or is this an NLP claim? ----Snowded ^TALK 21:01, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

@Snowded: The use of E-Prime in NLP may be a dubious NLP claim, but I still think they are similar enough to be included in see also purely on the basis of the similarities I described. Sondra.kinsey (talk) 19:05, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

We need a third party reference ----Snowded ^TALK 21:23, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

@Snowded: I have been editing Wikipedia for a while now, and am not accustomed to citing see also links. The Manual of Style says See also lists typically include "Links to related topics – topics similar to that discussed in the article." I have described what seems to me to be a significant similarity between them. I believe it is acceptable on Wikipedia for us as editors to make such connections that others have not made before in see also lists, although of course, not in article content, per WP:NOR. However, in addition to the claim I cited above, other works have discussed connections between them. Please correct me if I am mistaken about Wikipedia policy, and I welcome input from other editors. Sondra.kinsey (talk) 13:46, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

I've been editing for some time as well, and paid attention to this article. There is a general issue with NLP in that it seeks to create an association with other (more credible) techniques. This looks like something along those lines. On first sight the references you quote look like NLP proientated material not third party But if I am wrong give me the link ----Snowded ^TALK 22:03, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree. Including a see-also link to E-Prime to the NLP article seems somehow promotional. Making a connection between the two seems more like pushing an agenda than pointing readers to to related topics. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:28, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

@Snowded: Ah, I think I understand now. NLP advocates use name-dropping and mention of other more scientifically grounded theories to bolster their appearance of scientific standing. Therefore, you would rather not include theories or techniques in the see also list solely on the basis that NLP advocates claim association with them. I respect that, and that probably makes all of the citations I mentioned except perhaps Kellogg 1987 irrelevant.

I have been hoping to include E-Prime on the see also list not on the basis of NLP claims, but on the basis of similarities per MOS:SEEALSO. I recognize that your concerns about NLP name-dropping may make it appropriate to deviate from Wikipedia conventions for this article, in which case I would urge you to add a notice of some kind to this talk page.

I have no particular knowledge or interest in NLP. However, I am interested in the idea that training ourselves in particular patterns of speech can have positive psychological affects or be utilized in psychotherapy. I believe my own need can be met with the creation of Category:Linguistic practices with purported psychological benefits. You can find and discuss my proposal on that topic at Talk:Psychology#Linguistic practices with purported psychological benefits. Sondra.kinsey (talk) 16:14, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 6 June 2017

This part is missing in the article and I want to add the main and important thing to it

In essence, all of NLP is founded on two fundamental presuppositions:

• The Map is Not the Territory. As human beings, we can never know reality. We can only know our perceptions of reality. We experience and respond to the world around us primarily through our senses. It is our 'neuro-linguistic' maps of reality that determine how we behave and how we create meaning, not reality itself. It is usually not reality that limits us or empowers us, but rather our map of reality.

• Life and 'Mind' are Systemic Processes.

The processes that take place within a human being and between human beings and their environment are systemic. Our bodies, societies, and our universe form an ecology of complex systems and sub-systems all of which interact with and mutually influence each other. It is not possible to completely isolate any part of the system from the rest of the system. Such systems are based on certain 'self-organizing' principles and naturally seek optimal states of balance or homeostasis. 

All of the models and techniques of NLP are based on the combination of these two principles. In the belief system of NLP it is not possible for human beings to know objective reality. Wisdom, ethics and ecology do not come from having the one 'correct' map of the world, because human beings would not be capable of making one. Rather, the goal is to create the richest map possible that respects the systemic nature and ecology of ourselves and the world we live in. The people who are most effective are the ones who have a map of the world that allows them to perceive the greatest number of available choices and perspectives. Adnansaram (talk) 16:22, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

•  Not done. No sources provided, so fails WP:V for starters. Alexbrn (talk) 16:24, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
• It's WP:COPYVIO anyway. -Roxy the dog. bark 17:50, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

While what you say is valid Adnansaram, and I do understand where you're coming from, it's not going to happen on Wikipedia. Things like Second-Order Cybernetics and Cybernetic Epistemology for the large part fall far outside of the guidelines and scope here, that's just how we roll.

-- That Guy, From That Show! 08:23, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

NLP has since been overwhelmingly discredited scientifically. Poor selection of words

"NLP has since been overwhelmingly discredited scientifically". This is statement is bias and diminishes the scientific content of the article overall. As an example, Christianity has been "overwhelming discredited scientifically". The same has been said of the work of Galileo and Einstein.

There are millions of users, practitioners and believers in the methods proposed by NLP. People have healed and learned to live a better live using NLP. It is now used in life coaching, and self-help programs

The statement should be modified to reflect a fact from an opinion. Jtllz (talk) 23:28, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Have you any WP:RS for these claims re NLP? Roxy the dog. bark 00:15, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Christianity is a religion, and thus its premises within faith are not subject to the scientific method. It may have also improved the lives of many of their practitioners, but that doesn't make it science either. On the other hand the line between religion and pseudoscience (trying to achieve tangible effects based on non-scientific reasoning) is blurry, and you mentioned the word "believers". Should NLP be classified as a religion instead? 2A02:AA13:8105:2500:D8C8:333E:8ED3:DEEC (talk) 12:52, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Pray tell, could you clarify what you mean by the discrediting of Christianity? Its belief system is questionable, but last I checked we had empirical data confirming that this religion exists.Dimadick (talk) 14:49, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

The words reflect the sources, we are not required to be neutral as to NLP claims or to take seriously evangelical claims such as those above ----Snowded ^TALK 14:54, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Edited it to better describe what is discredited. Hackwrench (talk) 09:42, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

This is a controversial page - get agreement to changes here first. I can't see those changes reflected in the body of sources we have so I have reverted them ----Snowded ^TALK 19:36, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Give me sufficient evidence with which to accept the credentials of someone to ask, and I will. Otherwise, you can fuggedaboudit! Hackwrench (talk) 00:44, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Furthermore, I am unaware of a Wikipedia policy that reflects your demands. Hackwrench (talk) 00:48, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Then you need to read on wikipedia practice you were bold, you were reverted, you now discuss. You don't simply reinstate your edit. As to the first sentence of your comment it is not clear if you are talking about other editors (in which case it is not a valid question) or the sources (in which case you need to be clearer) or something else completely ----Snowded ^TALK 03:42, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Just because something is not scientific does not mean it's wrong. The false idea that everything real is quantifiable and testable depends in itself on an unquantifiable, untestable premise. It is not scientific, and there is no scientific evidence for it, but there is plenty of experiential evidence for it, and that is proof that it works, at least in their experience. Svend la Rose (talk) 16:05, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Your argument then is that "experimental evidence" lies outside the realm of science. That is daft. Alexbrn (talk) 16:35, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

I do not know how to add in reflist, but all the researches claiming that NLP are not regarding it as science are themselves outdated. I hope that the moderators can have a look to this https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26609647 or here http://hrcak.srce.hr/file/239625 and inform the Wikipedia readers correctly and shows also what it works in NLP. Another notable research is http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1080/14733140903225240/abstract and I do not think that only one side of the story should be shown. If that is the case Wikipedia is discrediting itself. Drcz (talk) 13:30, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia is self moderating, no one arbitrates content issues. If you can make a case using third party sources (not primary ones) changes can be made. ----Snowded ^TALK 04:36, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

 Required edit requires sourcing which specifically addresses scientific workings of NLP - efficacy studies aren't proof of discredited claims about the workings of the brain

• your sources - a quick rundown:
  • 1) Mind Master Association, Bucharest, România They do a reasonable job of discrediting themselves by noting that a number of the studies included in their 'meta study' were sourced from NLP sources. Even if they hadn't cast this doubt on their study, the authorship consists of three NLP trainers from Bucharest, Croatia and Austria, making the source wp:primary They aim, not to study the scientific mechanisms of NLP, but to study observational reports based on patient feedback as stated in their paper, "AIM AND OBJECTIVE This meta-analysis aims to evaluate all available data regarding the effectiveness of Neuro Linguistic Psychotherapy (NLPt) and Neuro Linguistic Programming (NLP) for the treatment of individuals with different psychological and/or social problems."
  • 2)a paper on perceived effects Effects of Neuro-Linguistic Psychotherapy on psychological difficulties and perceived quality of life. This is a study on application of therapy and patient reports. The conclusions were: "Neuro-linguistic psychotherapy is an efficient intervention, which is on a par with other, well-established psychotherapeutic techniques."
  • 3) the other is a duplicate (link to pdf) of the first source.

Sumamry: The proposed edit is to alter the sentence, "NLP has since been overwhelmingly discredited scientifically". The sources do not justify or support an amendment here. They might support the sentence, "Neuro-Linguistic therapy has been used as an therapeutic intervention technique with results similar to that of other counseling techniques". They provide no support for the idea that neuro-linguistic programming works in the manner prescribed by its advocates or practitioners. Papers which study efficacy based on patient observation do not equate to support for their claims regarding the scientific validity of this technique, which as has been sourced, are discredited. I will remove the word "overwhelming" based on WP:PUFFERY. The sentence regarding discredited science will remain there based on the source we already have vs WP:BURDEN and WP:EXCEPTIONAL. It may be possible that some sources exist demonstrating the scientific validity of this commercial practice, but reports on the outcomes of treatment - no matter how shining - do not equal proof of an extraordinary scientific claim. Edaham (talk) 06:02, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Good call all round ----Snowded ^TALK 06:33, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Neuro-linguistic programming. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070615185758/http://www.mheap.com/nlp1.pdf to http://www.mheap.com/nlp1.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110616080310/http://www.allea.org/Pages/ALL/4/881.bGFuZz1FTkc.pdf to http://www.allea.org/Pages/ALL/4/881.bGFuZz1FTkc.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.anlp.org/anlpnews.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:50, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

"Discredited"

"Mixed results" is more accurate than "scientifically discredited."

Did you know that all forms of Psychotherapy have mixed results? Yet not a single one of these list in the first paragraph as being "scientifically discredited". Did you know all forms of surgery have mixed results? If you cheery-picked all the "failures" and put them all together into a "study" you could "discredit" 100% of all western medicine. Because there are rarely silver bullets that work 100% of the time for 100% of the people. And we don't know why, people are very dynamic beings. None the less, there are PLENTY of NLP studies that report success. So should we only look at these and say it's a blinding success? No, we look at both, and you can claim mixed results. That's fair, balanced and accurate. Officially, not even that vernacular should be used, UNLESS you go and change every single other medical procedure first paragraph page as well as being "mixed results." Because that's is 100% honest scientific truth. Darrellx (talk) 18:34, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Whataboutism -Roxy, the dog. barcus 19:20, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Well, Whataboutism that was easy. Calling me a "lunatic charlatan" trying to be fair and balanced? Wikipedia really is broken beyond repair. (Citation: Cofounder of Wikipedia; Thomson, Iain (13 April 2007). ’’Wikipedia ’broken beyond repair’ says co-founder” http://www.iwr.co.uk/information-world-review/news/2187709/wikipedia-broken-beyond-repair. Information World Review.)

Darrellx (talk) 12:00, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Here is your scientific journal (Psychiatr Danub. 2015 Dec;27(4):355-63.) Evidence-based Neuro Linguistic Psychotherapy: a meta-analysis: "Neuro-Linguistic Psychotherapy as a psychotherapeutic modality grounded in theoretical frameworks, methodologies and interventions scientifically developed, including models developed by NLP, shows results that can hold its ground in comparison with other psychotherapeutic methods."

"Meta-analysis is a statistical analysis that combines the results of multiple scientific studies." Meaning they looked at all the other scientific studies. "From a total number of 425 studies, 350 were removed and considered not relevant based on the title and abstract. Included, in the final analysis, are 12 studies with numbers of participants ranging between 12 and 115 subjects. The vast majority of studies were prospective observational. The actual paper represents the first meta-analysis evaluating the effectiveness of NLP therapy for individuals with social/psychological problems. The overall meta-analysis found that the NLP therapy may add an overall standardized mean difference of 0.54 with a confidence interval of CI=[0.20; 0.88]."

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26609647 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darrellx (talk • contribs) 18:49, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Lunatic charlatan? what the hell are you talking about. Who called you that? -Roxy, the dog. barcus 19:27, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm guessing they mean your profile badge:

This user resists the POV pushing of lunatic charlatans.

73.202.40.143 (talk) 07:04, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

But they used pointing it out as a form of Whataboutism, straight after calling them out for Whataboutism, despite the original point not being Whataboutism and just making comparisons to how the bias may be different on other topics, but the point about being called a lunatic charlatan WAS, rather than addressing their concern either, so this appears to be going round in circles.146.198.219.40 (talk) 22:38, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

As has been pointed out before, @Darrellx: the authors of that meta analysis appear to work for some Romanian company specialising in, yes - you guessed it, NLP. Find me a scientific study supportive of NLP that is not written by an NLP practitioner and I will buy you a beer. Until then, case closed. Famousdog (woof)(grrr) 13:11, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

How about you go point for point for my initial argument? Is every part of western medicine 100% works 100% of the time for 100% of the people? Or is it mixed results? Of course NLP works for some people. A PLACEBO works for 30-80% of people. Lots of FDA drugs on the market today wouldn't be able to pass the current FDA requirements for better than placebo.

Darrellx (talk) 15:31, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Oh dear, I thought we were finished with this. My mistake. OK, @Darrellx:. You are right that many therapies and medicines have "mixed results", but evidence based medicine requires that any therapy or intervention provide a statistically significant improvement over placebo in a randomised controlled trial, preferably one in which the therapy is compared to a sham version of the therapy in question. There is no such study to date and the only potentially reliable meta-analysis in support of NLP is tainted by a clear conflict of interest). Ask yourself this: would you trust the results of a study demonstrating the effectiveness of a drug if the study came from BigPharmacorp, Inc. who where actively marketing the drug? No, you damn well wouldn't and you'd be right not to. Looking at "all" the evidence (as you suggest, and which is what the editors of this article have been doing) it is fairly clear (to me, at least) that NLP is just plausible-sounding waffle with only a tenuous basis in human psychology and neuroscience (in which I have a PhD, but I'm sure you'll assume that I'm lying about that). It has had decades to provide reliable sources to demonstrate its effectiveness and all it has managed to do in that time is become a weird managerial personality cult. If you have "PLENTY of NLP studies that report success" (and meet the criteria for good science) then please link to them here. So far you have provided only one study by NLP practitioners published in a journal that nobody has ever heard of (Psychiatria Danubina). Is that "point for point" enough for you? Famousdog (woof)(grrr) 07:37, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

I know nothing about the subject (I came to the article to learn about it) but the style of the paragraph beginning 'NLP has since been discredited scientifically' looks terribly familiar — it looks almost as if the sceptics have a template to work from to discredit ideas that they disapprove of. My apologies, if there is no truth at all in that suggestion. --Brian Josephson (talk) 10:36, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

I accept your apology. -Roxy, the dog. barcus 11:48, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

I make no apologies for indicating my belief, which appears to be shared by others, that the article gives the impression of being distinctly biased (all achieved strictly in accord with w'pedia's specifications, I'm sure). --Brian Josephson (talk) 12:47, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Over the years, Brian, you have shown you believe all sorts of things, many of them without accompanying evidence! -Roxy, the dog. barcus 12:50, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Such as memory of water? Last weekend there was a conference where clear evidence of water structure was presented. The w'pedia page is going to have to be changed soon. It may be that the cymascope will give very clear evidence of water memory, but the work is in a very preliminary stage at present (the w'pedia page on the subject is a bit limited). --Brian Josephson (talk) 13:18, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Oh my !! You and Luc together at the same time. I wondered what caused the ripples in the space-time continuum. Be that as it may, as this is well outside the scope of Talk pages, I shall not respond further. -Roxy, the dog. barcus 13:31, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

I agree, but let me just close by saying that I discovered at the event that Luc and I are both banned from speaking at the Lindau meetings.

Semi-protected edit request on 18 August 2018

Kirin Soo is the youngest NLP Practitioner trained by Dr Richard Bandler during May 2017 in London.Source:

<ref>https://www.facebook.com/nlplifetraining/photos/t.100003379624179/10154439380550458/?type=3&theater<ref> Crypto168 (talk) 12:35, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

What on earth has this got to do with anything? Change rejected -----Snowded ^TALK 03:42, 19 August 2018 (UTC)