Talk:Neuro-linguistic programming/Workshopgeneral

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Overview section easily misunderstood

I thought I'd start with something simple (and definitely avoid the opening).... though now that I've written this it's not so simple! So - onto the "Overview" paragraphs:

  • NLP participants are taught that the human mind can be programmed, and that mis-programming by negative input is the norm. Like Scientology, rebirthing and other alternative therapies (Raso 1994)(Lilienfeld 2003) NLP embraces this Null Hypothesis and the classic New Age concept of "clearing" these blocks (Singer 1996). While the more traditional therapies concentrate on solving problems by focusing on the reasons 'why' (Singer 1996), Neurolinguistic programming looks at the 'hows' to provide a quick fix to a solution [1][2][3][4].
  • NLP is widely promoted through the popular psychology, self development, and New Age sections of bookshops, and advertised in various media including the Internet and infomercials.

What I find debatable:

  1. "mis-programming by negative input is the norm". This is correct but easily misunderstood. NLP doesn't say people are normally mis-programmed - it says the brain is programmed, and "the norm" is that good programming to come from good input, and bad programming to come from bad input. etc.
  2. "Like Scientology, rebirthing, and other alternative therapies". I see that Raso and Lilienfeld make this connection?. It's probably true - but it's a tangled up sentence, and it's misleading. Untangling just a bit, the sentence is saying
    • "NLP embraces the Null Hypothesis and the concept of clearing these blocks/mis-programming (just like Scientology, rebirthing, and other alternative therapies do)." ........... Now that we untangle the sentence, we can work out what's relevant.
    1. Given my reply to #1, can we clarify the meaning of "this Null Hypothesis" here?
    2. what does Singer mean by removing blocks? NLP talks about having patterns that are not useful, and learning new useful patterns - but not removing blocks, or even removing mis-programming. Learning better ways, exploring new options, removing unwanted habits. Usually it means leaving the old way of doing things there but building better choices and options.
    3. once we say what NLP does, how many other therapies should we compare this too? Especially if it's just this aspect of the alternative that is comparable.
  3. "to provide a quick fix to a solution". Quick fix has negative connotations, and is sometimes contrasted with "thorough" fix. In this context, NLP programming looks at the "how's", arguing that this works on the patterning directly and is quicker and more effective than theorising "why" something is occurring.
  4. I find it concerning that our overview has no input from actual NLP sources, and only 1 peer-reviewed article (which was 1984 and only regarding the PRS). I don't think I'm disagreeing with any of the references (which are: Alternative Healthcare, Science and Pseudoscience in Clinical Psychology, Singer's "Crazy Therapies", Skeptics Guide, Sharpley's 84 review (not in references?), Mind Myths, and Singer's 1999 'unknown ref'), though I'm attempting to clarify them.
  5. NLP advertisements? I'm not sure where NLP is advertised is relevant. Lots of things are advertised on the internet and infomercials.

I haven't got a new paragraph worked out. Below is a possible rephrase of the above:

  • NLP participants are taught that the human mind can be programmed, and that 'bad' input will result in 'bad' programming. NLP embraces this theory and the concept of fixing bad programming (Singer 1996) (in similar ways to classic New Age concepts, Scientology, rebirthing, and alternative therapies (Raso 1994)(Lilienfeld 2003)????)'. While the more traditional therapies concentrate on solving problems by focusing on the reasons 'why' (Singer 1996), Neurolinguistic programming looks at the 'hows'[5][6][7][8] - arguing that it is quicker and more effective than focusing on 'why' which distracts from what's actually happening and the change process.
  • NLP is widely promoted through the popular psychology, self development, and New Age sections of bookshops.

What do others think about the original overview section? How could we make it more accurate and helpful to readers? GregA 03:02, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

GregA. All of the points you object to are supported by scientific research. You are presenting a set of changes that is either not supported in any literature, or where it is supported, it is from an NLP promotional literature viewpoint. We have already established that this subject is best explained primarily with reference to the more independent researchers of NLP. We have also established that "hype" language is inappropriate for the subject. You also seem to be promotionally presenting NLP manuals as equal to the views of scientists (independent researchers). The opening is representitive of the research presented in the main body of the article. I believe its time for a little bit more realism. Presenting NLP as Comaze.com or Inspiritive.com would like it presented is not an option. DaveRight 03:31, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
WP:NPOV contemplates representations of multiple viewpoints. It's not useful to simply say "but your side is wrong!" (not to mention "it is not an option.") Where disputes exist, the dispute should be enumerated with both sides having their say. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 03:45, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
Hi DaveRight, thankyou for you reply.
  • I think we need to be careful what we call scientific research - Sharpley 94 is the only peer reviewed paper, every other source is a website or book. I wish it was as simple as saying "he's a scientist, he did research, hence it's scientific research".... it would make our lives much easier. Pity!
GregA. You a mistaken. Devilly (2005) is peer-reviewed and it was published in the Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry. Professor Devilly is a Professorial Fellow at Swinburne University's Brain Sciences Institute and his areas of expertise include PTSD, trauma and anxiety. Devilly is very critical of NLP and his paper re-affirms Sharpley's. Devilly (2005) chtracterises NLP as pseudoscience and fundamentally a commercial enterprise. He presents the view that NLP is not worthy of further research and that the burden of proof remains with the NLP proponents to demonstrate its efficacy. Devilly reports that there are no randomised controlled studies that demonstrate the effectivness of any aspect of NLP. Hence, scientific research does say that NLP is ineffective, pseudoscientific and fundamentall commercial. flavius 04:44, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Flavius, Devilly is not only not mentioned in the paragraph I'm saying doesn't have much scientific backing, he is not mentioned in the entire NLP article. What am I missing? GregA 09:43, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
GregA. What are you missing? Devilly was published quite recently and has yet to be added to the article. There is a delay between journal publication and indexing. I found Devilly only a few weeks ago. Given the tumult over the last few weeks I wasn't going to spend time adding Devilly (2005) refactored WP:AGF WP:NPA. The upshot of Devilly (2005) is that it is legitimate to state in the article that scientific research does not support the claim of NLPs efficacy, that scientific opinion is that NLP is pseudoscience and a commercial enterprise, that NLP theory is unsupported by science and that NLP proponents have yet to satisfy the burden of proof that rests on their shoulders. flavius 03:45, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
  • My rewording doesn't contradict what was there before - it even tentatively leaves the relationship between NLP and Scientology for now (I'm attempting to simplify our discussion a little). It does reword "clearing these blocks" to "fixing bad programming" - I don't particularly like either phrase, but in the original "these blocks" refers to "misprogramming".
  • What do you think I have removed from the "independent researchers"?
  • What hype language are you refering to?
  • I agree that "NLP ... arguing that it is quicker and more effective than focusing on 'why'" could also say "NLP ... claiming that it is quicker and more effective than focusing on 'why'"... I think argue and claim were equivalent, would you prefer "claim"?
  • I don't think we've established that NLP is best explained by referencing non-NLP sources. Primary sources seem more useful.
Thanks DaveR. GregA 22:04, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
What are the page numbers for Lilienfield? I did a search on and there is no link between NLP and Dianetics in that book, see [google print]. What are the page numbers for Jack Raso (1994)? --c 00:03, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi Katefan0. Greg Alexander has presented nothing new here. However, I will indulge him and add something new myself:

  • 1. The view that people are misprogrammed is a common assertion of pseudosciences and new age philosophies. The literature on new age philosophies and therapies shows this. Scientists who research NLP also have stated this in many different ways.
  • 2. There is nothing tangled or misleading about the sentence. It is a clarifying sentence from the perspective of independent research. It places NLP in exactly the right group of competing commercial concerns.
  • 3. Quick fix has no particular negative connotations. It is a term used to describe any activity that takes short cuts in order to resolve a problem. It is entirely apt as a description for NLP in all its forms.
  • 4. The references are the most rigorous and independent. WIkipedia requires good research and that is what has been provided. Independent researchers do present NLP texts in their writing as examples of the CLAIMS of NLP proponents. They call them CLAIMS. We could place some of the CLAIMS of NLPers as cited from those independent researchers within the opening.
  • 5. NLP has a strong commercial push. It is important to show this. It can be emphasized more in the opening.

I am sure Comaze.com and Inspiritive will prefer a more confusingly hyped version of NLP, but that is not going to happen - at least, not without it being reverted several times a day. Camridge 05:07, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

No. Reverting will get you blocked. That was the old way -- the new way is that you must find a way to work together. Those who can't will be shown the door. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 05:12, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Katefan0. If the article is unreverted after being [edited] by GregA and co (proof is in the archives), then you yourself will probably want to find the door for yourself. Camridge 05:21, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, you're mistaken. You may find this comment from arbitrator Dmcdevit enlightening: "Edit wars and protection were what happened before arbitration. Now they need to either develop a steep learning curve or find a new hobby." This is the second comment of yours that I've had to refactor in approximately the past 10 minutes, and have earned yourself a block for it. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 05:27, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Wow, that one hour block literally flew by!

Further reply to GregA's suggestions:

  • 1. NLP generally does not normally talk about norms. From the research, NLP generally promotes the idea that we generally operate way below par. This is a typical method used by cults and pseudoscientific salesmen in order to unethically make use of people's insecurities for the sake of financial gain. For example, the notion that we generally work at far below our allegedly imense potential (NLP) is used by Dianetics, the human potential movement in general, the New Age philosophies, and NLP. This is set up in a way as to infer to perfectly normal and healthy individuals that they have maladies that need curing. This notion is literally set up to create misconceptions in people's thinking to the extent that they imbibe snakeoil, believe in the power of eye accessing cues, engage in ritualistic magic circle formation, and perform neo-shamanism.
  • 2.3. Singer et al are talking about the general category that NLP falls into. That of Scientology. A negative block is generally called that because it allegedly impedes success. The NLP literature often talks of blockages, as does Hubbard, David Icke, David Koresh, and so on. To seek a seperation from the very similar subjects in the New Age/Occult category would be great for clouding the issue. To good researchers there is very little difference between Dianetics and NLP. The block removal metaphor is commonly used, and is a simple way of saying "you can fix it really fast, just with a bit of plumbing". This is in contrast to accepted clinical psychology, which generally seeks a far less superficial approach, and involves a deep examination of the problem at hand, a search for meaning and cause, and a concerted effort at solving the problem. NLP and Dianetics are both dubiously superficial, and seek to simply look at the images produced from "aberations" and then change the images and palm the client off with superficial fairy stories and platitudes (as is mentioned in the research). Camridge 07:09, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
Hi Camridge, thank you for indulging.
Following your point numbers:
  • 1 Agreed in large. Scientists who have researched NLP should have found plenty of claims that we can learn better programs than the ones we currently have (the early book "Frogs into Princes" is full of them). Although the programming metaphor isn't used as much these days, it is probable some NLP authors do use the term misprogramming (if anyone knows of a few please that'd be better of course). My point is not that NLP doesn't use the concept, but that they use it far more broadly than you do. They talk about learning from experience (our original says "negative experience creates misprogramming") - we learn the best we can from our experiences, and we often don't learn the best programs. I guess the question is do you agree NLP says that? ("Frogs" is littered with references eg: page 24, "If you have trouble seeing X, it's a statement about your own perceptual programs.... you can learn to do it better")
  • 2 We have to be cautious about associating NLP broadly with another modality. Rather than saying "Like X, NLP embraces Y" - I suggested we say "NLP embraces Y (as do other things like X)". As I said, we have to be cautious about this as there are MANY things we can link that way. Also, NLP may share some concepts but not share others so it can mislead. Later in the article, are we going to relate "Metamodel Violations" to "CBT's Cognitive distortions which are 80% similar? (it WILL help to learn more about the metamodel).
  • 3 Quick fix, short cuts - both have a negative connotation to me. I respect that they might not be negative for you - so how would you suggest rephrase this so we both accept it?
  • 4 See reply to Dave above. Your independent researchers are writing "Skeptics dictionary" etc. What makes their claims of what nlp claims better than just going to the source?
  • 5 NLP has a strong commercial push. This is your judgement. I agree it's more commercial than therapies (if you're using NLP in a therapeutic context), but about the same as coaching, same with self-development, not sure how to compare it in the modeling context.
  • 1(#2) We generally operate below par? . If everyone operates less than normal then we are normal right? Assuming you mean we don't operate as good as we can, this idea is shared by all coaching, therapy, self development, and modeling groups. The fact that some cults use this idea is irrelevant.
  • 2.3. I haven't seen the term blockages in NLP literature, you say it's common. From memory, the only time I see NLP say it can remove something is when talking about habits or inabilities (which is a word play... with both you just learn some better ways of doing something). Where have you read blockages? NLP is not fall into the category of Scientology, even if some principles are shared (eg: both say we can do things better than we do now).
Thanks for your reply.
Has anyone else got some suggestions on a wording that makes clear any inferences it's making, makes things more clear to the reader, and ensures the references are useful? GregA 00:38, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi Greg. I have some comments.

  • 1 The programming term is used any time anybody talks about NLP. NLP means neurolinguistic programming. They say the word programming all the time. Do you agree that the term programming can be better explained through neutral(independent) researchers of NLP than by those with a vested interest in promoting it (NLP authors)?.
  • 2 The view of independent researchers is that NLP adheres to the New Age notions of Scientology etc. That is the view of independent researchers. It is also the view of NLPers as the evidence is written in their books (Bandler VAK VKA) and Sinclaire. CBT is based on science. The metamodel is based on linguistics. They are 99% dissimilar.
  • 3 Quick fix is the term that independent researchers use to describe what NLP does. Of course it is fine in the article.
  • 4 The source is science. Skeptic's dictionary is not the only source we can add. We can add a list of scientifically supported refs a line long to support the concepts that are being presented.
  • 5 The commercial push of NLP is also mentioned by many independent researchers of NLP.
  • 6 the fact that cults make the use of people's insecurities is entirely relevant, especially as NLP has been categorized as a cult by many independent researchers. I conducted a search on blocks and blockages in NLP and there were results straight away. I did also check the book "the unfair advantage" and reference to blocks is made there also.
  • 7 NLP and scientology/dianetics fall into the same category, especially in the new age category, and also in the dubious therapies category.

These points can all be further elucidated within the texts of the article itself. The objections that I have replied to have been presented many times before in the archives. Any further repeats would seem to be obsessively antagonistic to the goals of harmonious editing. Good day. Bookmain 05:47, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Bookmain. Yes I wish to praise your contributions. 1. It is often overlooked that programming is one of the main terms in NLP. You are most definitely correct about point 2 also. CBT and the metamodel are so dissimilar in background it hurts. The linguistics parts of the metamodel are so wrong that they have never been presented in a linguistics book ever. The psycholingistics parts of the metamodel are so pseudoscientific that they closely resemble the pseudo-linguistic parts of Dianetics. Keep up the good work. Camridge 07:58, 14 February 2006 (UTC)


Yes, Greg. I can further clarify point 6, but the rest was so well handled by BookMain that it would be annoyingly repetitive to other editors if I repeated it, even from a different perspective. Sociological research (eg, Alternative Religions, a sociological perspective (Hunt 2003 P196)) states that NLP is about dealing with the unpleasant experiences of earlier life/earlier lives. Hunt also places NLP under the category of Scientology. We could add that to the overview. Camridge 07:35, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Regarding point 1, the notion that we are victims of "bad programming", "mis-programming" and that we carry "outdated programs", "dysfunctional programs" (and other idiomatic variants of the idea) is widesperead in NLP:

  • "'inappropriate' programming"[9]
  • "bad programming" [10]
  • "NLP methods allow us to 'reprogram' or 'debug' those strategies which have become obsolete or are ineffective in our lives".[11]
  • "unlearn out-of-date programs","break through inner obstacles","Remove Negative Beliefs, Emotions, Traumas and Past Programming and Feel At Peace"[12]
  • "NLP is concerned primarily with identifying the ways in which we have been "programmed" to think, act, and feel.",
  • "I am not interested in the story or context of the issue. Discovering, facing and releasing the old stuck emotions allows a person to operate in present time without old programming dictating the outcome."[13]
  • "Your conscious and subconscious are in conflict ast the result of past programming in this life or a previous lifetime."[14]
  • "Your childhood programming and experiences were controlled by circumstantial accidents."[15]
  • "childhood programming and/or habits that create our behaviour"[16]
  • "childhood programming"[17]
  • "Your subconscious is not working against you, it just does whatever it is and has been programmed to do. In many cases it will have received poor programming from various sources."[18]
  • "From birth our unique mental programming is affected by what some call “unintentional hypnosis.”"[19]
  • "Programming’ might sound ominous, but it just implies that we have been moulded by all the beliefs, values, ways of thinking, talking and behaving etc. that we’ve received from parents, peers, teachers, the media and so on throughout our lives. In fact ‘programming’ promises new possibilities too: we’re not born ‘like that’, fixed for ever; if programmes can be created, they can also be undone, and limiting ones replaced with more useful alternatives."[20]
  • "A little reprogramming helped him realise his potential and change the focus of his hypnotic language!"[21]

The "bad program" is functionally equivalent to the "engram" in Dianetics. The common idea is that we carry some "thing" in our neurology which we have inadvertantly acquired and this "thing" is the cause of our problems. Our relief will come when these "bad programs" and "engrams" are eliminated. It is the contamination metaphor which is the kernel of many New Age, Human Potential and even occult beliefs. flavius 01:02, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Flavius that's an excellent list. It also shows a little about how few refer to "past lives" - but does confirm that some do. There were 2 objections I had originally -
  1. one is that the programming metaphor is used far less today than it was originally (in fact, the popular conception of programming has changed since 1975 as well). Still the word is there and often used and you'll notice I didn't object to it in my "official" change request.
  2. The 2nd objection was that it is not "the norm is we are misprogrammed" - this implies we all need to be fixed which is not true. All your quotes above show a bit more clearly that the norm is we are moulded by parents, so these support my suggested rephrasing.
Thanks GregA 03:56, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
GregA. I take exception to your claim that the list supports your second objection. The many URLs don't merely say that we are "moulded by parents". Most of the URLs demonstrate that NLP conceives of human mind as catchment of "programs" -- some good some bad -- originating from all manner of interactions with others. One trainer -- just like Hubbard -- writes of bad programming coming from what most people regard as benign conversation. The alleged sources of "bad programming" extend beyond parents and the alleged effect is much more than moulding. Peta Heskell -- a well-known NLP trainer talks of 'medical hexing' [22]. NLPs concept of developmental psychology is basically the same as that found in Dianetics, i.e. child as bio-computer being passively programmed by every utterance heard, word read and thing seen. flavius 04:32, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
That sounds good Flavius, I agree with this totally (I just didn't want to list all the places and ways in which we are "moulded" as children as stated in your above NLP quotes. In particular I agree with "NLP conceives of human mind as catchment of "programs" -- some good some bad -- originating from all manner of interactions with others." - this is exactly what I've been trying to say.
However, once again, I disagree with the IMPLICATION of your link to Dianetics, though I'mm sure NLP's concept of childhood development could be similar. The concept that a child passively learns and develops from every utterance heard, word read, thing seen is quite common in mainstream psychology also - to imply a specific link to Dianetics is misleading. GregA 09:49, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
GregA. That conception of developmental psychology I described above is not "quite common in mainstream psychology". It is a pseudoscientific and pop-psych notion. There is a very large body of (scientific) evidence that parenting (save the extremes of neglect and abuse) has little -- if any -- influence on mental health, self-concept, intelligence, sexual orientation and criminality. Can you name a school of mainstream developmental psychology that espouses a radical social constructionist view as per NLP and Dianetics? Dianetics and NLP are distinguished by the underlying (quasi-spritual) notion of man's essential perfection, efficacy and power and the loss of this innate unlimited potential as a consequence of malignant programming. NLP and Dianetics are indistinguishable on this matter -- the differences are more apparent than real, stemming largely from different jargon. NLP and Dianetics make heavy use of information technology metaphors and terminology -- the notion of "bad programming" and its removal as a means of actualising human potential run deep in NLP and Dianetics. You repeatedly claim that NLP has no spiritual content yet this is patently false. Both Dilts and Hall -- two major NLP trainers -- incorporate spirituality into their standard NLP trainings. James teaches Huna spirituality in his NLP training. Bandler teaches western magick in his Master Prac. training. Grinder has been promoting Carlos Castaneda's writings in his NLP trainings from the outset. The orgnaisation that you are affiliated with -- Inspiritive -- promotes its Grad. Cert. in NLP with the following slogan "With your mind and this credential you can change the world."[23]. This is New Age par excellence and it is quasi-spiritual. I know of no department of psychology that promotes its Bachelors degrees in such a manner. flavius 03:28, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Comment on Null Hypothesis

Please check Null Hypothesis. To give an example, let's say we are going to compare NLP phobia cure for phobias against no treatment control using randomized control trial. And lets say there are slightly higher persentage of people cured in the NLP arm. However we are not sure whether this is due to statistical fluke or there is a real effect behind this. So, we set up 2 competing hypotheses. The Null hypothesis states the the difference is just due to statistical luck and there is no real extra advantage of NLP over control group. The alternative hypothesis states that there is a real difference. There are 2 possible outcome based from statistical testing, either there is enough numerical evidence to suggest that there is a real difference. In this case null hypothesis is rejected in favour of the alternative hypothesis. Or there is not enough evidence from this testing, which means either there may be a real difference but the test cohort is too small or there no real difference at all. In this case one may accept null hypothesis over alternative hypothesis as the simplest explanation of the given test result. I'm not sure what the author means by saying NLP embraces null hypothesis, since NLP doesn't use statistical methodology. Someone might be able to explain that. --Dejakitty 00:12, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

thanks dejakitty I agree totally on the Null hypothesis confusion GregA 00:38, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
"NLP embraces the Null hypothesis" is from a direct quote from Australian Skeptic Harry Edwards' "Skeptics Guide to the New Age"[24], maybe the author expands on this idea in his book? Does this authors' opinion pass wikipedia standards for authority, quality, and credibility of sources -- currently I do not think so. Words such as "misprogramming", "negative input", "blocks", "New Age concept of clearing these non-existent blocks" are vague and possibly misleading. --c 00:53, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Null hypothesis is a scientific term. This can be further clarified within the article. NLP writers make many hypotheses. NLP writers deny this fact. This assertion is misleading, and science can clarify it. The term New Age can be clarified on its own article. There is also an abundance of literature that can deal with this issue on both the New Age, and the NLP articles. Just remember that NLP developers will vehemently deny that their assertions cannot be tested, even when they have actually been tested. Whether we use the term - null hypothesis or not, the view is that of many scientists. In addition to this, I count many NLP sources which speak explicitly about mental blocks, and a further set of sources that speak explicityly of NLP as a New Age development. NLP developers even advertise their development within the new age categories of magazines, and bookshops. This has all been dealt with before in the archives. There is nothing new in the objections put forward. HeadleyDown 01:57, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks HeadleyDown, Can you be a little more specific? What authors or aspects of NLP 'embrace the Null hypothesis'? Please include a reference with page numbers so I can check. --c 02:10, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

From what I have researched, NLP is considered new age and about mental blocks, in the encyclopedia of pseudoscience, and many others the same. Druckman and swets also refer to NLP as a new age development. NLP developers and writers will not write that they make this hypothesis. THe normal ploy of pseudoscientists is to do their best to immunise their claims against testing scientifically. Thus, NLPers tend to deny that they are doing science (as if that is a valid excuse not to test), even though they claim neuroscience, psychology, computing etc. But that doesn't matter now. We have establised that NLP texts are about as clear as mud when it comes to clarifying matters. The best you can hope for from NLP texts is that of their claims. The scientific research on NLP refers to the claims of NLP proponents. Scientific view will be the best way to clarify that. The claims are very varied, but the main thing is to give a good overview. A more scientific overview would be that NLP claims to deal with blocks, and clear engrams (that is the scientific view as is clarified by Levelt and other such eminent scientists).JPLogan 02:34, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Druckman & Swets is an excellent review of NLP. Note that they place NLP within the Social Processes chapter (the whole book is online - see [25] page 138. They also do have a section on Parapsychology, yet they place NLP under Psychological Techniques. Anyone who hasn't had a look at this review should do so - even if you just read the 2 paragraph introduction. Oh I see no mention of New Age, JPLogan, could you please give a page?. There are some limits to the review - the existing research had almost exclusively focussed on rep-systems, it was done 20 years ago, and although they say NLP doesn't do theory they then evaluate Dilts' theories on why NLP works. Other than that it is a great review.
On the other note, the NLP books share a great deal of their claims and make them quite clear. I must admit that the difference between what's effective and what's "true" confuses a LOT of people, I hope we can make that clear enough here. GregA 03:53, 14 February 2006 (UTC)


The book itself is not available in its entirety, Greg Alexander. Your pseudoscientific issues are discussed in greater detail in the book. Here is the link to the first mention of the term - new age [26]. THe term new age is used to describe NLP in many places in books and on the web, and that is evident in the article itself. The term can be really easy to describe and it will be in the article, especially with reference to a lot of the associated occult applications of NLP.Camridge 04:07, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Kate just refactored your comments (again) due to incivility. And you were blocked for 3 hours. Please heed our rules and stop being uncivil. Stick to the issues. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 04:24, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm fine with the NLP being associated with what Druckman & Swets call New Age (from your link), as it has no spiritual or occult implication at all. The New Age term is so broad though, that any mention of it should consider misinterpretations.
  • As a class, these techniques were considered extraordinary: they were developed outside of mainstream research in the behavioral sciences and were accompanied by strong claims for high effectiveness. The “new age” techniques, many of which grew out of the human potential movement of the 1960s, were getting much attention in the popular press and being widely touted and sold to government and industry training programs. [27]
Can you please answer my responses to your 7 points? GregA 05:10, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Hello Greg. Sorry, but the new age is inextricably associated with the spiritual and the occult. There are even academic books entitles such as "New Age Spirituality". There are many books on the new age and all the ones I have read have some connections with the occult. I believe Dave made some wonderful contributions in the archives regarding this matter. Here is an interesting and authorotative nlp link (NLP qualified writer and Huna occult practitioner) that also phrases NLP's "goals" in terms of the "clearing of negative emotions". It is the webpage of the "Servants of the Light School of Occult Science". [28]. It pretty much says it all, and there are other textbooks I can have a search for, so we can really get to presenting it well in the article. Camridge 09:00, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I only have a moment. Surely the issue here is that the NLP you describe, and the NLP I have learned and read, are 2 totally different things. Our challenge is to either find a description useful to the readers that encompasses the full range of NLP, or to represent the multiple aspects of NLP in a fair and even way.
On the New Age note - I think I've said in the past that to me New Age is linked to Spirituality so you and I agree there (though for me that was my reasoning for not linking it with NLP). Perhaps you should reread Druckman's VERY broad New Age definition that you linked to ("developed outside of mainstream research") - it's the very broadness of some of these definitions that makes them easily misleading if used in our article. Will post again soon. GregA 11:48, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
GregA. Your personal knowledge of NLP isn't definitive of the field. You aren't NLP. NLP is defined by seminars, books and trainings and not merely those provided by Inspiritive. This was your strategem in connection with getting any references to pragmagraphics censored. Bandler and Epstein developed pragmagraphics and much of submodality theory and practice is based on pragmagraphics[29]. Further, Dilts published an article entitled Pragmagraphics in Anchor Point. Druckman and Swets aren't experts on New Age and they weren't convenrned in their investigations with social trends and alternate lifestyles. Their taxonomy was preducated on their investigative aims hence they did not have a New Age category. Also, parapsychology is distinct from New Age. I can elaborate but Katefan0 and Woohookitty have apparaently discvovered some method of argumentation and persuasion that is devoid of all abstract conceptualisations and is at the same time terse which I am waiting for a turorial on. I provided Metabubble four (?) references re New Age, find them in the recent archives (assuming they haven't been deleted). flavius 09:12, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
There's certainly some confusion here Flavius. Let me be very clear about the context of my reply above. We've gone from
  • Me: New Age has no place in NLP as NLP is not spiritual
  • You(? I think): NLP is New age - look at what Druckman & Swets say.
  • Me: Ahh... yes, but they define New Age as "Outside of mainstream". I'm fine with that.
  • You: Sorry New age is inextricably associated to spiritual & occult.
  • Me: I agree, personally I consider New Age to be spiritual. But when Druckman says NLP is New Age he's refering to "Outside of mainstream".
  • You: You're not NLP, your opinion isn't important.
So. I agree. I have experience in one 'type' of NLP, from a group which you describe as "a major NLP training organisation". They have no spiritual aspects at all to their training and yet their teachings fit with the great majority of NLP books out there. There simply is very little spiritual teaching in any aspect of NLP, though some groups do MODEL many experiences including spiritual ones. Anyway, to come back on track - I think New Age is a catch-all phrase and doesn't particularly aid the reader.
Perhaps we can have consensus by replacing New Age with "outside of mainstream research" in several places (though again - the DETAIL will have to discuss the spiritual vs non-spiritual issues) GregA 03:56, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
GregA. That is a mischaracterisation of what I wrote. You wrote,"Surely the issue here is that the NLP you describe, and the NLP I have learned and read, are 2 totally different things." This suggests that we are to use your specific and personal understanding of NLP as the determinant of what falls in and out of scope of the article. My response was to that. It is entirely irrelevant what you or Comaze know about NLP -- your training in NLP doesn't comprise the boundary of NLP and hence the yardstick by which we decide how NLP is described in the article. NLP is described as New Age by numerous authors and many of its practitioners and teachers conceive of it as related to ritual Magick. See for example [30]

[31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38]. Here's an essay by an Magickian/NLPer that compares NLP with Western Magick[39]. The author views submodality attenuation as basically the same as the lesser banishing ritual of the pentagram:"As a protective barrier or to banish a negative force, obcessive thought or impure magnetism: Give a mental image (such as a hybrid being representing what the thought, force or entity feels like or how it affects you) to the force, obcessive thought, impure magnetism, or astral entity , project it with the Saluting Sign of a Neophyte (of the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn), and when the image is about 3 feet away, prevent its return with the Sign of Silence. (See Regardies: THE GOLDEN DAWN) Then imagine the image or form in the EAST, before you, and perform the BANISHING RITUAL of the PENTAGRAM, seeing it dissolve mentally on the other side of the Ring of Fire, with the Pentagrams at the four Quadrants. If advanced enough, different Elemental Banishings appropriate to the Element associated with the thought, energy, or entity may be used, otherwise, the Earth Banishing Ritual of the Pentagram is used." [40] flavius 04:17, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Although this is funny on the one hand, it's frustrating on the other. C'est la vie.
  • You quote me as saying "Surely the issue here is that the NLP you describe, and the NLP I have learned and read, are 2 totally different things."
  • You then say: This suggests that we are to use your specific and personal understanding of NLP as the determinant of what falls in and out of scope of the article.
But you must have read my very next line (these are all 2 paragraphs above):
  • I wrote: "Our challenge is to either find a description useful to the readers that encompasses the full range of NLP, or to represent the multiple aspects of NLP in a fair and even way.
It seems the old issues are continuing. Perhaps a totally filtered discussion is the only way (filtering for personal insults, distractions, etc... as this whole aside has become) GregA 12:04, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
GregA. I don't find the matter funny and you frustration would be eliminated if you quit trying to present NLP as somethng that it isn't. The expert opinions that state that NLP is pseudoscientific, New Age, cult-like, fraudulent, entirely commercial, similar to Dianetics and without evidence of efficacy are authrotitative, unbiased and representative of the majority scientific view. You are attempting to evade the "undue weight" provision of NPOV policy. flavius 05:27, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Please attempt to stay to topic. You were accusing me of bias and of presuming my NLP background was the only interpretation. This has been addressed. GregA 06:16, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Overview clarified with ease using scientific view

I agree that we need good sources in the article. So those views corroborated by the views of scientists being the best. Drenth, Levelt, Singer, and so on are greatest with any corroborated view supporting them. HansAntel 03:26, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Sure Hans. I also agree. Drenth is a great source. The term "removing blocks" can also be attributed to pseudoscience. I suggest that term be added to the overview. The engram stuff can also be added for clarity (to refer back to the core neuro/subconscious pseudoscientific aspects of NLP. DaveRight 03:42, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Surely, Hans and Dave, your suggestions are super. But the sociological view is also a winner. And the views of scientific skepticism (Carroll and others) is about as good as the purely scientific view, as it refers so strongly to the crystal clear viewpoint of science. Camridge 08:03, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Hans, I think if we base the article on the views of the authors of "Crazy Therapies", an article in "Skeptics", and "Anti-intellectuallism in Europe" (plus every view that agrees with them) that we'll be getting a little biased.
Dave - It doesn't matter if "removing blocks" can be attributed to pseudoscience, what matters is whether it can be attributed to NLP. You are taking an NLP idea, phrasing it in the way a separate field phrases it, and then using the wording as proof of connection. Bad research.
Camridge - adding the Skeptics dictionary to the others... it really just avoids presenting NLP. GregA 11:55, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Hello GregA. Crazy Therapies was written by Janja Lalich, Ph.D. Education Director at Community Resources on Influence and Control. She is an Associate Professor of Sociology of California State University. Margaret Singer (RIP) was a psychology professor at the University of California, Berkeley. They are emminently qualified to clarify the NLP article. The most independent and rigorous research places NLP with other such therapies and activities such as Dianetics, Primal Scream Therapy and so on. The organizational psychologist Drenth, is also perfectly qualified to be the most independent of sources. This has been mentioned before many times in the archives. I realise they tend to conclude that NLP is a cult, that NLP is characterized by fraudulence, that NLP is ineffective, and that NLP is pseudoscientific, but that is the view of independent research. Its best to take the most independent sources in order to clarify the actual nature of NLP, without the usual obscurantic hyping from NLP's promotional writers. Regards HeadleyDown 13:09, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
GregA. We also have a very recent review of the NLP literature and a reiteration of the characterisation of NLP as a pseudoscience and as ineffective from Devilly (2005). Again, I provided the full citation and abstract recently, I can't be bothered repeating it. flavius 09:17, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Withdraw my comment on Null Hypothesis --Dejakitty 11:22, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Hello Dejakitty. Its very clear what Edwards means from an interpretive/phenomenological research point of view. He is describing, in terms of his own understanding, the strong relationship between Scientology and NLP, and that it mostly refers to the clearing of blocks and engrams within the usual New Age theme. This is a usefully clarifying point and is a very useful overview of NLP. It corroborates with researchers of the New Age movement, clinical psychologists, scientists, and researchers who use a scientific skepticism point of view. That was explained already in the above replies. The term "null hypothesis" could be better explained as it can have two meanings. Hypothesis, or proposition may be better words. Either way, the core meaning is that NLP and Scientology/Dianetics have the same basic approach to programming or treating the client. More references can easily be provided to corroborate this view. HeadleyDown 12:55, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

To Headley, There is only one scientific meaning for Null Hypothesis. Edwards did use the term "null hypothesis" not just hypothesis or proposition. I suspect he used the term as a creative slang rather than as scientific terminology, meaning worthless (null) idea (hypothesis). I would make more sense to interprete his intentional meaning as "NLP embraces the worthless idea of clearing blocks". But we should find some way to confirm or disconfirm my guess.

Withdraw my comment on Null Hypothesis --Dejakitty 11:22, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Hello Dejakitty. Your luck is in. We do have very reliable research to support the facts that are presented. Certainly, its reliable in comparison with promotional NLP literature. Regards HeadleyDown 17:36, 14 February 2006 (UTC) I should explain more clearly - Its not a conspiracy theory. Its just a normal reflection of what goes on in society. You have a fringe therapy turned human potential effort, built on pseudoscientific theories, with invented hypotheses that turn out to be false, yet continue to be promoted. They happen to be very palatable and saleable. People make money out of the ideas, but that is because they are mainly just beliefs, similar to the ones promoted in Dianetics and other such pseudoscientific subjects. There are other therapies and movements that have followed suit with Scientology and physiognomy, and perhaps that is some kind of excuse for NLP, but the facts remain. NLP is categorized with Scientology for many reasons and the independent evidence is abundant. Regards HeadleyDown 18:03, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

We need to focus on the article. Discussions on the merits of this or that is not the point here. This is not a message board or a soapbox or anything of the kind. It's an encyclopedia. These long discussions are just taking away from our purpose here. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 20:03, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Hi Woohookitty. The discussions thus far have been constructive. We have additional references, and some very useful information to improve both this and the new age article. I suggest that the learning curve (towards behaving more civilly than just about any other set of wikipedians) has been quite dramatic. So far I have only got the impression that mediators ignore good effort to improve. What do you think of my assessment? JPLogan 02:02, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
I wasn't commenting on the civility. I was commenting on the fact that in this discussion, users seem to have a tendency to debate the merits of NLP. We're not here to find "the truth", so any discussion outside of what can be done to settle this dispute is essentially treating this as a message board, which it isn't. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 02:13, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Woohookitty. I honestly can't make sense of your position and I doubt that others can either. Dejakitty requested clarification on the usage of the phrase "Null Hypothesis". Although Dejakitty is mistaken her/his question is perfectly legitimate and entirely relevant to the content of article. The only reason it is being discussed is because it appears in the article. There are at least two ways to respond to Dejakitty's (legitimate) query: (1) ignore; or (2) answer. Ignoring Dejakitty's question will not achieve consensus, it will only generate a disenfranchised editor. Answering an abstract technical concept from inferential statistics will be lengthy and it will be abstract and conceptual. The achievement of consensus amongst the editors will entail dialogue often involving abstract and technical concepts. Technical concepts such as "Null Hypothesis" will often require lenghthy explanantions. Examine the content and assess its relevance to the article content. Clearly you have not done this in connection with "Null Hypothesis". flavius 09:33, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
I realize that some of this will be astract. But that's not my point. Abstraction is ok. What tends to happen here though is that people start on topic and then they veer off into general discussions. That's what we can't have. The idea of a workshop is to take sections of the article and discuss them. We've had 2 or 3 such moves in the last few days. An example of a tangent is deja's comment above:
"I am still waiting for someone to suggest an explaination as to what Edwards mean by Null Hypothesis as in "NLP embraces Null Hypothesis" and clearing mental blocks." This does not sound like the same Null Hypothesis used in statsitical methods and scientific research."
Does that add to the article? No. it's a general discussion question. This is what we are looking to avoid here. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 10:04, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Hello JP. I wouldn't expect praise for progress. Simply getting on with the task below is probably the simplest way forward. HeadleyDown 02:19, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Actually, you are mistaken. We will encourage any progress we see. We don't just have a big stick. The whole purpose of blocking and everything else we do here is to create a good Wikipedia article and to keep the peace in this discussion. We're not here to punish. Blocks are never designed to punish on Wikipedia or they shouldn't be. That's why we are keeping them short. They are supposed to be instructive. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 09:52, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't realize that the "null Hypothesis" line is no longer in the main article. In that case my comment was irrelevant. --Dejakitty 11:22, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

It is in the overview it looks like. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 12:08, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I will nominate that line in the proposed change section once we've finished with Comaze's changes. --Dejakitty 13:44, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "therapeutic wizards", psychoshamanism, new age, cult and occult

Hello all. The sociological view needs further clarification and contextualization. There is a very clarifying way of explaining the view of the sociologists/scientists using NLP/occult examples given in the research.

Banishing negativity is a very strong theme in NLP. This is done by various means, such as focusing on positive imagery in order to banish the negative. For example, the NLP "circle of excellence" and the associated imagery "the shield or bubble of protection", are great examples of how NLP is taught across the board. They are negativity banishing rituals both developed from occult (therapeutic wizardry) origins.

The lesser banishing ritual of the pentagram also includes the core theory of NLP. The five senses have always been a part of the occult pentagram, and also in the context of the nature of subjective experience as taught in occult studies. So as an example, it includes a great many NLP connections and "theory".

Also, the occult/shamanism principle of "knowing by doing", can be explained within this context. So this would be a very brief way of showing the sociologists view that Tony Robbins, Bandler, Grinder and so on, are teaching New Age/occult/shamanic rituals to the public at large. It also shows how NLP has been becoming more involved with more elaborate occult systems recently. I will have a good look through the Carlos Castaneda literature that Grinder and co have been quoting in their seminars/books. Camridge 04:34, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Mathison and Tosey's conference paper[41] cover this type of criticism under the section titled, "NLP as a Movement". I think most of occult/cult/shamanism/pentagram/New Age/Scientology/Dianetics/EST stuff can be excluded from the article as an association fallacy. --c 06:01, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Mathison and Tosey's opinion is that of a minority. They are a small voice crying out for funding a small and redundant research stream in NLP, even though there is no compelling evidence of NLP's contribution to any field. If we exclude the views of all scientific and sociological researchers (who state that NLP is new age, cultlike, ineffective, ritualistic, and scientifically unsupported pseudoscience), in favour of NLP enthusiasts Mathison and Tosey, the article will become promotional fringe minority opinion. Camridge 06:59, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Yes, this is a good line. The banishing ritual is common to many new age therapies. It is quite sanitized in the more management NLP books, and described as the circle of excellence, but it is taken straight from occult imagery/guided fantasy and ritual. In the less sanitized versions (eg Bandler's seminars and audios, Tad James' work, and other's) it is a banishing ritual more rich with imagery of elements, angels, astrological signs and such, and applied to angel and demon invocation, the search for the "perfect self" and past life regression. In fact it is becoming more occult. All of the enactments of NLP (the belief spaces of Dilts, the bubble of protection widely used, and the circle of excellence are all occult in origin and application. We could explain the various formats. For example, the circle of excellence involves anchoring the state to a snap of the fingers or magic word. Whereas the more occult banishing version within NLP can use a blessing as an anchor, or a magic symbol, or worn sigil. This will definitely explain the "occult" in NLP and deal with any claims of "association fallacy". It certainly explains the views that NLP is pseudoscientific, new age occult, and a cult.
Yes a magic symbol could be an anchor. NLP clearly says that ANY visual/auditory/kinesthetic cue can be used as an anchor to a state (including emotion). THis occurs naturally too - for example many people connect the image and feel of a diamond ring to the concepts and beliefs of marriage - though the diamond ring has no innate power to create the association. Any v/a/k can be used - Whether that's a snap of fingers, sound or word, imagined circle... or a bible, keyboard, ring, pentagram, cross, whatever. Our minds connect things, and there's no need to assume anything spiritual etc. You're focussing on one specific example, as if that example is what's important. I'm pleased to say though, that this DOES explain some views that associate NLP with cult thoughts. GregA 13:00, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
There are also some other occult aspects inspired by the works of Carlos Castaneda. He talks of the Otherworld and altering consciousness in a shamanic way, in that the otherworld can be changed through transformation, and this has an effect in the realworld. This parallels NLP's use of the imagination, submodalities, swish pattern, and its ritualistic enactments. This could be also explained in combination with the rituals or negativity banishing of NLP. Regards HeadleyDown 11:24, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Camridge/HeadleyDown, this argument that past lifes/rituals/unlimited potential/angel/astrological signs/crystals/banishing/shamanism in my opinion violates wikipedia policy about WP:OR, "Original research that creates primary sources is not allowed. However, research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is strongly encouraged. In fact, all articles on Wikipedia should be based on information collected from primary and secondary sources. This is not "original research", it is "source-based research", and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia." I urge you both to engage in conflict resolution and attempt to find some middle ground, or atleast work with us to accurately represent all the competing points of view fairly, "The best way to avoid warfare over bias is to remember that most of us are reasonably intelligent, articulate people here, or we wouldn't be working on this and caring so much about it. We have to make it our goal to understand each others' perspectives and to work hard to make sure that those other perspectives are fairly represented. When any dispute arises as to what the article should say, or what is true, we must not adopt an adversarial stance; we must do our best to step back and ask ourselves, "How can this dispute be fairly characterized?" This has to be asked repeatedly as each new controversial point is stated. It is not our job to edit Wikipedia so that it reflects our own idiosyncratic views and then defend those edits against all-comers; it is our job to work together, mainly adding or improving content, but also, when necessary, coming to a compromise about how a controversy should be described, so that it is fair to all sides."NPOV#Avoiding_constant_disputes --c 12:06, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Hello Comaze. According to the original NLP texts of "The Structure of Magic" by Bandler and Grinder, the actual methods are entitled, "the structure of language" (refering to the (erroneous) universal linguistic notions of generalizations, distortions, and deletions). Therapeutic Wizardry (Bandler and Grinder 1975), How to be a sorcerers apprentice, "the structure of magic" (presuppositions etc) and so on!. None of the facts presented here are original work. They are all presented within books and papers that describe NLP as a new age alternative religion, a cult, a dubious therapy, and so on. If you see any material within the article that is original research, then please point it out. For the time being though, NLP requires some clarity and that is being provided. The circle of excellence and the bubble of negativity banishing can be presented as they are representitive of NLP practice and teachings. Literature concerning Carlos Castaneda is also valid here. This can be extremely clarifying in the context of new age therapies. Regards HeadleyDown 16:35, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Headley, you obviously miss the point of "The Structure of Magic" and "Therapeutic Wizardry" -- it is *NOT* to advocate occult and new-age mumbo-jumbo...it is in fact, the opposite -- it is a DISECTION of the occult/new-age rituals and techniques down to the plain, psychological structure which is utterly independant of any occult or new-age religious belief. Thus, it is really ANTI-new-age, essentially saying, "Look folks, you don't have to fall for all of this occult nonsense and new-age claptrap to get the desired effects. The car doesn't move because the driver has a particular religious belief...the car runs because when you release the brake, press the gas, and simultaneously engage the clutch and put the transmission in gear...if you do this, it's going to move REGARDLESS OF YOUR BELIEF SYSTEM." 68.248.73.177 03:24, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Hello User:68.248.73.177. Yes, NLP takes occult rituals, such as the banishing ritual of the pentagram, and New Age principles, and teaches them to business people, and any member of public who joins the seminar. According to many independent scholars, NLP is a New Age development. It started with New Age concepts, New Age promotional material, and originated in the New Age center of California, drawing practices from New Age models such as Virginia Satir, Fritz Perls (at Esalen Institute), and even occult figures such as Milton Erickson. They continue to use New Age rituals such as Grinder's shamanic waking dream ritual. We can only work with verifiable views, and the view that NLP is New Age, and is promoted with occult practices is a verifiable view of the most independent researchers. ATB Camridge 06:07, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


I think that can be very misleading - let me make an analogy here - I find much of what Grinder says useful, but if you wanted to say what I find useful and you simply quoted Grinder instead of me, that would be misleading. Non NLP literature is only valid as far as an NLP author or teacher describes its relationship. For instance, if something is used as a metaphor, then it should be described as such. GregA 13:00, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Oh, there is also some useful information on shamanic guided fantasy within the original NLP material. I believe that could be mentioned, especially in combination with Bandler's recorded audio material. It has some very Hubbardian metaphors in it. HeadleyDown 16:41, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
HeadleyDown, Ok, how can we characterise this dispute fairly without taking an adversarial stance? NPOV#Avoiding_constant_disputes. Carlos Casteneda's is a fictional writer, let's not use words such as "therapeutic wizardry"/magic, etc. out of context here. Bandler & Grinder (1975) "structure of magic" is a book about language and therapy (not magick). Grinder's "circle of excellence" is an example of anchoring which is already covered in the article -- it could be included as an example but only very short. I have not seen "bubble of negativity banishing" in any of the reputable literature on NLP so this can be excluded. Presuppositions should definitely be include, but not under the title, "structure of magic" rather under a section on meta model. --c 22:51, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Hello Comaze. Its all there in the literature and the audio material. Including the banishing process. Its mentioned by multiple sources. The terms that are presented "structure of magic, sorcery and wizardry" are all valid and clarifying and from both NLP literature and research about NLP. It would be impossible to take an adversarial stance against it because when quoted, it becomes fact according to NPOV policy. It can also make the article more clear and brief. HeadleyDown 04:04, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Headley - if someone said it, and we have a reference, then it's a fact that they said it, not a fact that they are reputable or representative - which is an important consideration to give a fair and neutral article. Seriously. GregA 07:39, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Repute and representitive are important as you say, Greg. I believe this can be resolved very easily by referring to Grinder's more recent literature in relation to shamanism. His "first and second attention" are developed directly from Carlos Castaneda new age literature and shamanism and the new age shaman's use of the "unconscious" or trance states [42] [43]. We could also include a small example of shamanic awakened dreaming, as used by native American shamans, and taught as a shamanic ritual to Grinder's followers within his books and seminars. HeadleyDown 12:09, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
There are so very many different teachings which refer to the unconscious and trance, check out some good psych books. GregA 13:00, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Sure, but we will also have to refer to some occult and pseudoscientific NLP tomes to properly describe the NLP negativity banishing rituals, the use of shamanic guided fantasy in NLP, mind/body/spirit channeling, and Grinder's suggestions for accessing the shamanic spirit world, and its liberal use within both mild and agressive cults (Prof Singer et al). The swish, and other dissociation techniques can all be described in relation to Dianetics auditing as devised by Ron Hubbard. There are plenty of sociology refs to back it up and clarify each point, and we also have plenty of science refs to indicate each ritual's clinical ineffectiveness. HeadleyDown 21:39, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
If NLP had occult involvement, you would have to refer to some occult. I'm amazed that you find these obscure interpretations and applications - if there are any major ones they should be represented :) GregA 06:39, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Hello GregA. As a quasi-spiritual new age development, NLP has drawn upon many occult rituals for use in hypnosis, and in seminar sessions. The magic circle of excellence ritual is one such ritual taken from occult activities in wicca, Golden Dawn, Shamanism and other such occult practices. The visualization techniques are also rich with occult symbolism. This can be further expained in relation to the largely new age presuppositions of NLP. These are also developed from new age, new religious movement thinking, and especially from widespread occult and shamanic philosophies. Of course, the effectiveness of these rituals has always been in doubt, and have also been found to be clinically unreliable. The reason some managers rave about NLP is due to the psychoshaman effect (placebo, authority influence, and confirmation bias). Good day. JPLogan 10:46, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Hi JPLogan. This is a very interesting comment.
  • The reason some managers rave about NLP is due to the psychoshaman effect (placebo, authority influence, and confirmation bias)
So you are saying:
  1. Some managers rave about NLP
  2. Some managers see NLP as an authority
  3. Some managers believe strongly enough that NLP will work that it does work (placebo) and they seek supporting evidence.
The interesting thing is that placebo, the influence of authority, and confirmation bias are all documented and understood influences. Why do you consider them psychoshaman effects? You could say:
  • Some managers rave about NLP and see it as an authority. At least part of the reason NLP works comes from a strong belief that it will work.
These both work from the same "facts". GregA 00:28, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Hi GregA. I think you need to understand the psychological effects of authority control. It is a basic feature of stage hypnosis, persuasion etc. It does not mean that NLP is an authority. There is documentation that states NLP's effect is the psychoshaman effect. The scientific explanation to clarify your pseudoscientific argument would be that placebo and authority control are to be weeded out, because they only demonstrate the effect of placebo etc. They indicate very strongly that NLP is ineffective. When a body of scientists sees placebo effect in NLP, they all conclude unanimously that NLP is ineffective. That is what the research shows. Cheers DaveRight 01:47, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Hi Dave. Of course - scientific experiments are specifically designed to weed out placebo and authority control aspects to determine if there is "something else" of value. But we are not discussing that - we are discussing the validity of associating NLP with the occult based on them both sharing some known scientific effects. Seems dubious to me. GregA 02:09, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Greetings JP. Occult and NLP effectiveness "in doubt" is quite an understatement. Such occult rituals are only explainable in terms of magical thinking/correlation, rather than cause-effect scientific thinking. But you are correct also. The more you think about NLP from a neutral angle, the more occult/new age thinking you see in its principles.
The best way to explain these things is to describe the actions of NLPers: eg, 1 NLPer attaining congruence through self-rapport (aka magical equipoise), 2 banishing negativity (drawing an imaginary circle on the ground, and then stepping into it to banish demons and negativity), 3 then using guided fantasy/auditing to tap their "magical potential" using symbols and triggers (sigils, luck symbols, idols etc) for negativity banishing in life and for further spiritual development.
The Tony Robbins style firewalking and seminar chanting and so on can also be good evidence of occult/cult practices within the more popular forms of NLP. NLPers performing Grinder's shamanic awakened dream ritual will also show the occult core of NLP. The public awareness and of these rituals is growing in society now, and NLP is becoming increasingly known as a new alternative religion. The rituals themselves are very striking and certainly the images of NLPers performing such seminar rituals inevitably stand out in the mind of the public. Fascinating stuff! Regards HeadleyDown 11:08, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Hi Headley. Actually, placebo effect, ritual, appeal to authority etc explain many occult rituals - as I think you know. That's not to say some people don't believe the only explanation of a "magic ritual" is magical thinking!
Also, if you have an effective change process, and you add magical words to it, the subject's own beliefs will certainly affect the outcome. But you're setting up a strawman by using obscure and occult words and explanations for standard NLP processes (eg circle of excellence (and other anchors) = "banishing demons and negativity"?). One of NLP's greatest strengths is that it dispells the superstition surrounding "magic" and makes it understandable so people can get rid of unhelpful beliefs.
ps. Apologies to others for repeating what I've said before, in response to what Headley has said before. I think it's necessary. GregA 00:28, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Hello GregA. I have read a great deal about NLP, and I have never seen your opinion expressed in the literature. To my knowledge the view doesn't exist. Banishing demons is one problem within cult mind control that takes months of psychotherapy to recover from. NLP groups actively promote the use of demon imagery. Clinical psychologists are very worried about this, and they are also troubled by the amount of NLP trained amateurs who are likely to cause more harm than good by their insufficient knowledge of basic psychology. Cheers DaveRight 01:52, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
The book "Structure of Magic" is based entirely on this concept - it's a seminal book and I'd be surprised if you hadn't read it. The concept that people don't understand how they do what they do, but that it does have a structure, and is entirely explicable without assigning any spiritual involvement. GregA 02:09, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
GregA. The point is that there is no evidence that NLP enables people to "rid [themselves] of unhelpful beliefs". The apparent efficacy of NLP can be explained with reference to non-specific factors (according to Tye, Devilly, Eisner and Lilienfeld). That is to say, there is nothing specific to NLP that has been demonstrated to have therapeutic value. All rituals -- including the psychoshamnic -- work through non-specific factors especially placebo. Thus, NLP doesn't dispell superstition. On the contrary, it creates it. The results of non-specific factors are passed off as evidence of therapeutic efficacy. Tye covers this (specifically with reference to NLP) as do Devilly and Pratkanis (with reference to all the Power Therapies). There is no evidence -- non-whatsoever -- that NLP provides an effective change process that is more effective than what would be effected through non-specific factors. Devilly makes this much plain. flavius 14:56, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

GregA. Regarding NLPs positive anecdotal evidence and psychoshamanism Tye (1994) offers the following hypothesis:

One must reconcile the null results reported by Sharpley and the NRC (National Research Council) with the remarkable successes reported in the case study literature. An alternative explanation is suggested here to explain the discrepancy between the positive case study outcomes achieved by NLP paractitioners and the frequently lackluster results of experimental researchers. The alternative will be termed the "psycho shaman effect." Like NLP techniques, the psycho shaman effect is a collection of already existing, well understood and accepted ideas. Specifically it has three components: cognitive dissonance, placebo effect and therapist charisma. (from Tye, M.J.C (1994). Neurolinguistic programming: Magic or myth? Journal of Accelerative Learning and Teaching, 19, 309-342.)

I also have this paper in full. This is an expert opinion hence it is quotable. flavius 05:05, 6 March 2006 (UTC)


Thanks Flavius. I'd forgotten the ref, and was about to do a search. I should take better notes:) ATB Camridge 05:18, 6 March 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Refocusing

Does anyone have changes they'd like to make to the article? If so, you should make them, and remember, use text moves instead of reverts. These abstract discussions aren't helping move the article forward. Take it slow, but let's begin to turn to what folks think needs to be done to the article in specific. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 18:23, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Handle Change - From Comaze to 'c'

Btw- I've change my handle to c.. You can still search for my posts by search for "--c". --c 06:46, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Hello Comaze. I will consider posting details when you start attributing your comments to yourself properly. Camridge 02:51, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Hello mentors. I would like to know if you consider Comaze's refusal to give-and-take a form of conflict promotion or not, considering his same action led to a blocking recently? Best regards Camridge 03:58, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
I am having trouble knowing how do address you. People get booted for a day due to their not complying with the username of the user. But why am I telling you this, you know because you were part of yesterdays discussion. What do you want me to call you? Your real name, your initials (SC), or Comaze? Camridge 05:59, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Does that mean that you don't want to conceal your real name, and the fact you are Comaze? I request that you not do anything so awkward as it will make it hard for anyone to search for your comments within discussions. Editors are doing their best to remain cooperative and I suggest that should be honoured in kind. Camridge 06:21, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Need to say this again

We've had to do 2 blocks today. So. Need to restate this. We do not tolerate any incivility or personal attacks. None. Zero. Zip. As long as it is related to this discussion, you can be blocked for incivility and personal attacks per the arbcom ruling. Also, stay on topic. I removed the section above because it was essentially a rant. No rants. Keep it related to this article and what we can do to come to solutions and clean up this article. And no mentioning of people's "real names" unless they have given you permission to do so. Again. No exceptions. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 12:40, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Hello all. I realise people have been calling me Headley for some time, even though I did not give permission to use my real name. In order to reduce the chance of anyone being banned or blocked for calling me Headley in future, I hearby give permission for anyone, be it mediator, arbitrator or editor, to refer to me or address me by the names or nicknames, Headley, Down, Headley Down, Hea, Dr Down, Prof Down, DullardDown, Downy, or any other such nickname. Regards HeadleyDown 13:05, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Sure Headley. Dave's fine by me also. Cheers DaveRight 01:29, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Hello again Woohookitty. I remember a while ago previous editors being threatened with blocks when they suggested other editors to visit a library. I understand that it is because the said editor is inferring that they visit libraries, while others do not. Would you place this inferrence as a good example of incivility? ATB Camridge 02:19, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Hi again. I believe it would be beneficial to clear something up here. The use of real names and business affiliations has been commonplace in NLP discussion. It was most prevelant during the alternative article that Comaze had suggested. Also, an Xnlp-promoter emailed me and hinted as much (that real names was the norm in discussion).
Now I am addressing GregA, and Comaze particularly: Even though your first names and affiliations were known by all previously, would you now prefer to have your real names and business affiliations concealed in discussion? Just so everybody is clear. ATB Camridge 05:31, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I have no problem with being non-anonymous in itself. However, the times my details have been presented have never been linked to a good reason... more a distraction from the argument by talking about who I am, and I was accused of a business relationship with the group who trained me (the only money I earn from NLP is from my private business). So - I'd be happy for everyone to lay out who they are, put it all on the table - as long as it's on a subpage where everyone participates and it doesn't interfere with the discussion. All or nothing. Personally I like the idea Camridge. GregA 06:08, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi GregA. Well I doubt if that's feasible. Wikipedia is full of anonymity so you're not going to get everyone to give their name and rising sign. I don't mind myself. I'm Liz Reiner, a Cambridge (Kings UK) student, surprise surprise! And I prefer to be called Camridge (for the sake of consistency). I just wanted to know if we needed to actually change our habits as much as the mentors (or Woohookitty) had indicated. ATB Camridge 06:42, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Full weight of science with full explanation

Hello Comaze. I noticed your continued pressure to object to large collections of facts. I believe it is time to re-state the commitments that editors have previously made towards explaining in full the state of NLP. Indeed, all of the text moves you have made are consistent with prior actions towards removing evidence that clearly shows the scientifiv view of NLP. I believe that must stop if we are to work cooperatively. It is not going anywhere, and it goes completely against consensus.

I notice that a great many references have been moved for deletion even though page numbers have not been supplied to those references. Patience is important and should be respected.

VoiceOfAll stated that the article will probably grow due to explanations being added by editors to combat demands for removal of fact. Indeed that is going to happen. Arbcom has already ruled that references should have page numbers etc, so there is no need to paste every reference onto the discussion page. The commitment is there to clear up that point.

The scientific view, that NLP is ineffective, will gain further clarification, and the refs that you are trying to remove are part of that clarification. The same goes for the common view that NLP is part of the new age/new religious movement. That will also gain full clarity using the large collection of references you have moved in order to delete. In addition to those views being explained in full, to satisfy all the demands that have been made previously, there will also be some clarifying examples of matching and pacing (rapport), of banishing rituals, of the "universal" nature of the meta model, of shamanic guided fantasy, and examples that show why NLP is classed as new age. This will all be achieved with a strong adherence to NPOV policy. Would you like some clarification of this deeply felt commitment? Regards HeadleyDown 11:32, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I wish to reiterate the previously stated suggestion to work towards consensus, rather than conflict. HeadleyDown 11:32, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Here is an even more practical suggestion. Comaze and GregA. Please focus on much smaller parts of the article if you have any objections. We can then deal with each part in turn without the overload, and without the workshop article being hacked to pieces. Actually, GregA has been quite brief in objections, but please focus on areas that are most likely to gain consensus. IE, removing the views of scientists will not and has never been any where near consensus building. Regards HeadleyDown 11:40, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Hello Comaze, again, it would help towards consensus and cooperation if you replaced all of the many references and statements you have objected to, (you have made 4 or so large text moves) and choose only one brief one (a sentence or two) so we can focus on gaining consensus and moving forward. Regards HeadleyDown 11:49, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm open to negotiation and will respond favourably to specific challenges on wikipedia policy, and verifiability in terms of references and direct quotes with page numbers that can be checked. I'm currently doing comprehensive fact and references check and we're finding some misrepresentations that need to be challenged. Hence, the massive text moves over the next few days. --'c' 11:46, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Comaze, there is a strong feeling that you are working against consensus. Any massive text moves will be antagonistic to progress. If you take a sentence or two that you believe will help towards consensus building, make an objection, and then state a remedy for that brief point, then things will move forward. If you start pasting huge text moves into the discussion, you will gain nothing but further conflict and antagonism. Therefore, I repeat my suggestion for you to replace all the references and texts that you have pulled out of the article. We can work on supplying the page numbers within the article, and making sure that they are consistent. Then when all the details have been presented, then you can take each point in turn, make your objection, and then make a specific suggestion for remedy. Then we can cooperatively negotiate each point in turn. Regards HeadleyDown 11:56, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Comaze is simply following the rules we laid out. We did not make any rules on the size of the text moves. Should he have made the moves smaller? Maybe. But he's doing nothing against what we laid out. Just respond to his moves instead of complaining about them. Complaining about them isn't going to get us anywhere. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 15:39, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I'm willing to negotiate with you, let's see if we can reach consensus on something. When you consider all the text that I have moved in the last few days, what is the highest priority for you to reinsert? Choose one with that is verifiable, include a direct quote with page numbers if necessary - provide references and page numbers - then we can talk.. A direct quote from a peer-reviewed journal article would be ideal. --'c' 12:09, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Hello Comaze. I believe the previously stated figure, baby steps, is key. Simply replace all of the text back into the article, and then choose a single line or two lines together, to present and I'm sure we will find time to discuss and work out if consensus can be reached. In the meantime, others can get on with adding page numbers, and explaining in far more detail, the nature of NLP as viewed by science, the new age/religiosity of NLP, and its promotion. Regards HeadleyDown 12:51, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with HeadleyDown and Camridge. The text moves you have made are too large and too many in number. This approach will only produce conflict. Your behaviour will most likely be answered with "retaliatory" wholesale text moves of sections deemed promotional. Also your handle of 'c' is, well, ridiculous. It is difficult to spot your edits and addressing you as 'c' is potentially confusing. Can you choose a more pro-social handle? flavius 14:30, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Flavius, Please specify the exact statement that you would like to see back in the article - reword it for NPOV and we will probably be able have the mentors check and reinsert it in the appropriate section. --'c' 23:26, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
c (aka Comaze) In the interests of minimising conflict it would be preferable if you reinstated all of the text and moved just one discrete point, argument or fact at at time. The reference checking should be performed in a consensual fashion rather than unilaterally. I don't have an issue with scrutinising any of the content. It's all fair-game. I do have an issue with multiple, simultaneous and unilateral text moves. Before deciding that a statement is unverifiable wouldn't it be more conducive to harmony if you flagged your concern here and waited for a response. If no response arrives within a few days then move the text. One of the problems with what you are doing is that if you are in error regarding verifiability then you will be making extra work for other editors. flavius 04:29, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
flavius, If I am in error regarding verifiability, please provide the specific text and a quote from the relevant wikipedia policy. If I have made an error which is possible given the amount of text moved, then I will you support in proposing a change to the mentors. --'c' 04:35, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Comaze, we are waiting for you to replace all of your text moves back into the article, so we can search for the appropriate citation details. Then we can get on with addressing your objections to the 2 line text move you supply. We have a great deal to do here, and we have to focus on moving forward. Arbcom have already stated that we must add details to references and that cannot be done if you delete them. I repeat, please place them back into the article, and suggest something small (2lines) we can work on towards consensus. Regards HeadleyDown 03:33, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
As I've said, I'm in the middle of a complete fact and reference check so I'll move any unverifiable statements to the talk page. If you want to reinsert some text, please address the relevant wikipedia policy. Decide what you most want in the article, provide the relevant references and address the appropriate wikipedia polcies, I'll assist you in finding the relevant wikipedia policy, and wording. Currently I'm working with GregA to reach consensus on the proposed change to "Swish". When this is done I want to move onto the NLP research / theory sections. GregA's come up with a good way for all of us to work together to discuss and agree on wording - this will help us reach consensus. --'c' 03:50, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Hello users Comaze, GregA, "C", and "SC". I agree with the user HeadleyDown and others that you should start working on the parts of article that consensus can be reached on. As mediators have said, Arbcom will be respected, and things will be done differently. Replace the overwhelming and overdemanding requests to delete facts. Page numbers need adding and checking according the Arbcom legislation. HansAntel 06:00, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

The mentors have asked us to move any contested text to the discussion page so we check them for verifiability and NPOV. Do you have any specific text that you would like to see (re)inserted? If so, please specify it and the relevent wikipedia policy so we work out the details, and ask the mediators to do that. At the moment I'm working with both GregA and flavius on some text to be revised and possibly reinstated. See the Levelt/Drenth and Swish sections. --'c' 06:08, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Hello Comaze, C, SC. As many editors have stated, and as mediators have requested. Baby steps are required, and the request has already been stated many times that you should remove all your text moves, and focus on only one or two lines, so that we can move towards consensus. I look forward to cooperative action. Camridge 06:28, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm willing to co-operate with you but I am not able to reinstate any "text moves" because we need to check the facts, and reach consensus first. Also this will be the job of the mentors. I'm sure if you reword some of the propose for NPOV - the mentors will reinstating the text. If you want to work on one or two lines, please let me know what 2 lines you would like to work on so we can work together on this. --'c' 06:41, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Comaze, does this mean you are unwilling to cooperate? If you notice, the amount of cooperation from other editors has been substantial; no exessive text moves, no demands, and so on. Our requests are very easy for you to comply with, all it takes is a tiny amount of cooperation. I am sure the mentors will appreciate it. Camridge 06:49, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
HansAnsel. I have only made small/2-sentence proposals, and I've never moved text (though I probably should have, as Katefan requested it). If you wish to accuse me of something then please give a link. If you wish me to change and are going to suggest that I'm not following Arbcom - then again, give a link. Subtle or overt - these accusations are no longer allowed on here.
On a brighter note, I do think the concept of consensus and what we can agree on is worth discussing... I have some thoughts - will post soon. GregA 07:04, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Hello Comaze, C, GregA, and SC. I concur with Hans. I believe you should work towards the most likely chance of consensus. Continuing the deletion of scientific facts within the workshop stage of resolution seems to me to be quite uncooperative. Please move forward. AliceDeGrey 07:12, 7 March 2006 (UTC)


Ok, Here's an opportunity for us to co-operate. I've suggested a change to the text attributed to Sanghera. Have you got a suggestion for alternative that passes wikipedia standards? --'c' 06:56, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Comaze, this extra addition seems to be a perfect example of uncooperative behavior, in light of your refusal to remove your excess text moves. I suggest that only one of your suggestions to delete/change be tackled at one time, and only when the previous overload (excess text moves) have been placed back into the article. Cooperation is key here. Chiao! AliceDeGrey 07:12, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Deciding what is cooperative and what isn't and what violates the rules and what doesn't is our job. No further discussion on this unless it involves discussing the merits of the text moves themselves. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 15:42, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Censorship and obscurantism by the NLP community

Hi all. Independent researchers into NLP often give reference to obscurantism, and vexatious litigation incurred by promoters of pseudoscience including promoters of both Scientology and NLP. Please don't get me wrong, I make no reference to editors of this NLP wikipedia article. But the facts concerning pseudoscience in psychotherapy and within HRM do cover the promotion of NLP. For example, NLP tends to promote the use of obscurantisms (scientific sounding pseudoscientific terms) and these terms end up being adopted by unsuspecting management consultants and researchers. The censorship aspect of the more pseudoscientific promoters of NLP needs to be covered more within the article. Independent professors such as Singer, Lilienfeld, and Carrol have mentioned this already, and there seems to be plenty of room to mention it more clearly within the pseudoscience section of the article, and within the opening. Regards HeadleyDown 13:28, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi Headley. I'm glad that this new subject area is being allowed for discussion. Its totally new and very relevant to the research I have been doing. I will show you what I have gained from reading Steve Salerno's 1995 literature:

  • NLP proponents run newsgroups for promoting NLP
  • The mediators there tend to censor any information that states NLP is pseudoscientific, scientifically unsupported, ineffective and so on.
  • They block or ban people who post criticism of NLP, yet allow NLP proponents who use nothing but pseudoscientific argument to promote NLP.

There is a good deal of literature now that describes this phenomenon and I can supply plenty of it here. Concerning the places to add the information: I suggest the pseudoscience section (obscurantism is/involves a sort of censorship), and the cult section (because it is cultlike thatsbehaviour). Cheers DaveRight 01:20, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Great, I also have some relevant information: Ken Riggio (an NLP writer) also talks of censorship within NLP, Singer mentions censorship of information in media within her book "Cults in our midst", as does The Challenge of the Cults and New Religions, by Dr. Ron Rhodes, and Sects, Cults, and Spiritual Communities by William W. Zellner. ATB Camridge 02:12, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
This is all well and good but what does it have to do with the article and any changes people want to make? Stay on task. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 21:48, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Hello Woohookitty. We are collecting facts on the censorship of facts by NLP promoters. This is going to go into the article in the relevant places. Its new information (as opposed to the same old questions). Its fast progress. Regards HeadleyDown 03:16, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Sorry but that's not within the rules we've given here. If you want to make a change, pull out the sections you want to change first. That's how we're trying to do this. Otherwise, it becomes basically a general discussion and this is not a bulletin board. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 15:19, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Of course Woohookitty. As soon as we have dealt with the other text moves, we can fit it to that format extremely easily. Regards HeadleyDown 16:37, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Hello yes. I have a German newspaper reference that shows NLP firms advertized they work with the big companies. However they paid to censor fact that NLP companies train antisemetic groups in Dresden and other south Germany. HansAntel 04:17, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Hi Hans you're right. Sure, I also heard and read about the nazilinguistic programming issue when I was in Berlin. This can go to the pseudoscience and cult section. I believe someone also compared NLP to the pseudoscience of physiognomy and phrenology. You know, those with big round heads are kinesthetic, those with skinny heads are visual, and those who cock their heads are auditory. And the VAK personality typing thing is bogus also. Cheers DaveRight 02:18, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
My god. GregA 10:08, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Oh this is the normal NLP way. VAK personality typing is very usual in NLP books, both the occult and business/persuasion sort. As you can see by the red diagram in the article, they look at breathing patterns and types of thinking. V is high in the chest, and K is belly breathing. Both these are more a function of the body type according to medical physiology, rather than any kind of thinking. So really, the core of NLP is to make ridiculously broad and erroneous categorizations for people (eg, visual managers, kinesthetic managers and so on) and then make assumptional leaps into pure misconception. Its particularly ridiculous in light of personality typing in psychology which clearly show the complexity of the human mind. NLP makes it worse by adding the enneagram concept in NLP, which is based on occult principles also, and works more like astrology than psychology. Indeed, the whole of NLP is based upon these silly assumptions of the senses controling everything. Abstract thought is pruned out in general, and they feed you really easy to parrot candies instead. Its the usual way of doing things in cults. Feed some easy to repeat pseudoscience, and let it spread, and add some rationality reducing rituals to encourage brainless acceptance. Well, I'm sure we can nip that in the bud with the science shears on the article. ATB Camridge 10:30, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
I can't believe you could have read anything about NLP and still believe the above. I'm stunned. GregA 11:27, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Hello GregA. If you read NLP you will probably not believe it. But if you read ABOUT NLP, its pseudoscientific nature, and its commercial push, you will believe it. For example, I have heard (not read) that the Heaven's Gate cult used NLP because they found the principles extremely adaptable to their own beliefs. In fact, NLP has been described as a mind virus that can be used to generate other mind viruses. [44] Regards HeadleyDown 13:15, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Absolutely Headley. It's just like the Internet - I've been using the Internet since 1990, but even 2 or 3 years ago everywhere you turned, you could read about the Internet - about child porn, adult porn, people getting stalked, and other dangers. They had movies about having your identity 'stolen'. I met my girlfriend on the net and some people were shocked that she was normal after everything they'd read ABOUT the Net. Of course anybody actually on the net wouldn't believe the bad press (though it was certainly possible) - but if you read ABOUT the Internet it was easy to mistake one small slice of what the Internet could be used for as "the whole internet". GregA 20:52, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Oh we are not saying NLP is completely bad, GregA. In the same way that we are not saying Adolf Hitler was completely bad. There's no need to state it on the article, as the readers can make up their own minds. Your question was that do we believe NLP has some bad things at its core. And it does, as can be shown on the article. Regards HeadleyDown 21:10, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Such impartiality :) Perhaps we can write "NLP, like Adolf Hitler, is not completely bad"?
Do you believe it necessary to update the Internet main description to say "the Internet is recognised as a hotbed of illegal activities" (there are lots of references to illegal activities on the net - yet they have only one reference to 'illegal' and 3 to 'porn' on the net). GregA 21:44, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Considering the situation, GregA, you may want to temper your sarcasm. I would need to look at the Internet research before stating what people say about it. But your questions are taking us off track, so lets focus please. Regards HeadleyDown 03:26, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
What is the situation that you want me to consider? Although there is sarcasm, this is almost exactly what you wrote (NLP is not completely bad, in the same way that Hitler is not completely bad).
Regarding the Internet - if you never read the fear-based articles regarding the Internet then the analogy is lost on you. GregA 04:46, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Hello GregA. Really, the Hitler example is not sarcasm. The Hitler example was already given by the mediators and helps us to write a better article. The situation as I understand it, is that we have been asked by mediators and mentors to be civil and avoid sarcasm. Stating "Such impartiality", however, is sarcastic and quite unhelpful. Also, the Internet is not NLP. Please lets stay on the subject of censorship, the cult of NLP, and whitewash in the pseudosciences, and show the evidence. Its interesting and quite relevant, and the article will benefit. ATB. Camridge 05:36, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Suggested plan to re-focus the discussion

Comaze,C,SC, you have many text moves that you have requested us to comment upon. Decide which one you want editors to comment upon, remove all the others and replace them into the article. The texts you have presented are too much for anyone to reasonably cope with, and their continued presence in the article will lead to a lack of consensus. Here is a suggested plan to move towards consensus:

  • Comaze, C, SC, assign one particular brief line/two lines to work on
  • Comaze, remove the excess overload (all your text moves) and replace them into the article in order to demonstrate a bit of cooperation
  • Editors in general search for and assign page numbers and proper attribution to the statements in the article
  • At the same time, editors discuss/propose facts about New Age/religiosity/NLP promotional censorship and so on.
  • Then when there is time, Comaze, C, SC, your objection can be dealt with in a cooperative and constructive manner.

Camridge 08:06, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Camridge, Since you have taken the time to outline your issues, I'll respond to each point:
  • I'd like to work on the Sanhera quote first. It is just one statement and should simple to correct this neutrality, attribution and citation issue.
  • Point 2: I'll respond with a quote from mentors: "If there is a section of the text that you have problems with, move it to the workshop's talk page where you will be expected to discuss it and come to a consensus. Text moves may not be reverted. Katefan0(scribble)/poll 15:51, 12 February 2006 (UTC)"
  • The page numbers will definitely help with us verifiability (fact and reference check)
  • If you search for "New Age/religiosity/NLP promotional" as Camridge says you're going to end up with bias. Let's avoid this type of selective research. A more constructive suggestion is to write for the enemy's point of view, "This is a misunderstanding of what the neutrality policy says. You aren't claiming anything, except to say, "So-and-so argues that ____________, and therefore, ___________." This can be done with a straight face, with no moral compunctions, because you are attributing the claim to someone else. It's worth observing that scholars are trained so that, even when trying to prove a point, counter-arguments are included, so that they can explain why the counter-arguments fail." --'c' 08:46, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Comaze,C,SC. GOOD! WELL DONE! Now we know which line you would like to work on. However, to show actual cooperation, we must deal with the article and start working on attribution, and page numbers within the article. So I suggest we wait until mentors give you permission to replace all your text moves. When you have replaced them all, then we can start working on your Sanghera objection.
Concerning your objection to us discussing "New Age/religiosity/NLP promotional". This is a discussion page, and these issues will be placed as proposals for inclusion into the article. Then they will be placed into the article as they are factual and comply with Wikipedia policy.
Concerning your statements about how to write from the enemy. Now I am extremely tolerant, as can be seen by my comments in discussion, and I intend to be an exemplar for civil discussion. However, your comments may be seen by other well versed editors as conflict provoking as they are extremely obvious. As you claim to be a member of the Harmonious Editing club I suggest that you take note of this suggestion. ATB Camridge 08:55, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Camridge, you say, "So I suggest we wait until mentors give you permission to replace all your text moves." The text is only going back into the article if it can be verified and passes NPOV. We're not close to reaching consensus on anything except for the Swish - Metta Bubble, GregA and I are getting close to reaching consensus on this workshop item. We've asked the other mentors and other editors (including you) to comment on this. --'c' 09:21, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Hello SC, C, Comaze. I have just made a request to Katefan0 for you to be given permission to place your numerous and lengthy text moves back into the article. We can await Katefan0's reply. ATB Camridge 09:40, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
I have already responded to you on this topic. We are nowhere near ready to reinstate any text moved, except for Swish which is being workshopped at the moment. --'c' 09:44, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Hello SC,C,Comaze. I leave it totally up to Katefan0 to respond to this. If you are given permission to reinstate the large and oversized text moves, then we can consider responding to your further incrementally oriented proposal. If you are not given permission, then I guess we will have to look for another method of properly attributing and numbering the facts. Either way, we will have to wait. ATB Camridge 09:58, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi all. Yes, really the best thing to do is to work so as not to cause conflict. Basically to follow the mentor's suggestion, but to do it at a much slower pace. After all, any fool can take tons of stuff out of the article, and make objections to it. What we need here is to work forward bit by bit and give quality comments to each proposal. Regards HeadleyDown 12:39, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Headley - your words make total sense. I suggest that as part of giving "quality comments to each proposal" you (or anyone else) not post info (quality or not) which is totally unrelated to the proposal. GregA 13:14, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Another plan?

I think our positions are clear on several topics, and we do not agree. Now, we can approach this one line at a time, or we can examine some of the key issues that permeate the whole article. Those key issues will take longer to form a policy on (I say policy, though ideally we would have consensus), but once found it will make all subsequent minor changes far easier as they won't be laced with other issues.

This is a choice, of course. I don't know whether others see this as a genuine possibility. And we may have different ideas on the key issues we don't agree on.

I believe that at the core the issues are

  1. the representation of science
  2. the representation of occult/Dianetics
  3. the issue of representing an NLP concept from NLP sources, occult sources, or scientific sources

If we got to the point where the mentors helped us to form a standard way of handling these 3, do you think it would be a good way to move the article forward? Are there other ways?

I have tried the single line change on the science issue (see Talk:Neuro-linguistic_programming/Workshop#Proposed_change_to_Scientific_Analysis_of_NLP.2C_by_GregA. The line and entire section can not be worked on without a discussion as suggested above - I think that is obvious. And there has been much discussion, and no mentor involvement as yet - we do require their involvement if we want to find some consensus there.

Thoughts? GregA 09:15, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Hello GregA. Your suggestion, if I am right in understanding it, requires a lengthy discussion on the nature of science. I don't believe that will be to anyone's advantage. The incremental approach suggested by mediators is far more likely to offer consensus. Your brief change above was correct in its format but not in its likelihood of consensus. Removing scientific viewpoints is not an option.
So I suggest the first plan (which is compatible with mediators suggestions) is great, but with far more adherence to the "baby steps" recommendation. The only reason more time was not devoted to your proposal, was because of the many distractions caused by excessive other demands. So, I suggest we can operate just as the mediators suggested, but with a far more civil pace. ATB Camridge 09:34, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments - though you're not understanding my suggestion correctly Camridge. It would be foolish to discuss the nature of science! This is not a philosophy group nor is it relevant to NLP. Presenting NLP with regard to scientific papers and research is the thing to be determined. We already agree on several things, but not enough to present it in a way we agree to.

I didn't pick a sentence because it was an easy one. (Actually that's not true - I picked an easy one (swish), and a hard one (science) :). I picked science because it will have to be dealt with sometime - sooner or later - and I think that with science & spiritual done the rest will fall into place far far more easily (not easy - but more easily!). GregA 11:54, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Note that I'm in no way trying to step on toes here - I've said this in the hope that we, together might be able to propose a way of working together that actually works. I thought that might be a good thing for everyone involved. GregA 12:01, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Hello GregA. Well, I suspect that the reasonable step to solve this silly problem will be to say - if you realised you have taken too many text moves from the article, and made it difficult for other editors to work, then you can simply place them back into the article without having to ask for permission. That would be the sensible action. But lets wait for the mentors to comment anyhow. Regards HeadleyDown 12:36, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Headley, this distracts from this section. If you wish to criticise comaze do it elsewhere. GregA 13:08, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Hello GregA. You misunderstand me. I was addressing you. The plan will be better if it included provision for people to correct themselves. If I swiped half the article and placed it in discussion in order to delete it, then I should be able to realize my unconstructive action, and place it all back. Its a good and constructive provision. Also, I did edit the correct section. This section includes both your and the prior plan. Regards HeadleyDown 13:29, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Text move "behavior occurs in the context" (by Comaze)

  1. All behavior occurs in the context of internal state [45].
'In NLP, the notions of "State" or "State of Mind" refer to a gestalt of the neurological processes (mind and body) within an individual at any given time. A state is comprised of the ongoing mental and physical conditions from which a person is acting...The basic premise of NLP is that the human brain functions similarly to a computer -- by executing "programs" or mental strategies that are composed of ordered sequences of instructions or internal representations...The efficacy and ease with which a particular mental program is carried out is to a large degree determined by the physiological state of the individual...Thus, an individual's internal state has improtant influences on his or her ability to perform in any situation...sometimes particular abilities can be too state-dependent. pp.1300-3 NLP Encyclopedia Also if you remove this premise the flow of the section will be lost as this is a premise that leads to consclusions -- it is part of the "logic" of NLP. flavius 04:23, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Comaze. Please reinstate the above foundational assumption. flavius 12:16, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Actually, the whole point of text moves is to put them here and discuss them. It's still under discussion. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 12:50, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Ok. I think this thread can now be closed. ---=-C-=- 23:22, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Next ("internal state" text move)

The swish discussion has been closed and reworked language reinstated inside the article. This is the next text move. If Comaze is still reading this, he or someone else who agrees with the text move will need to justify why it should be removed or explain how it should be changed. Here's the repost:

  • Text moved: All behavior occurs in the context of internal state [47].
In NLP, the notions of "State" or "State of Mind" refer to a gestalt of the neurological processes (mind and body) within an individual at any given time. A state is comprised of the ongoing mental and physical conditions from which a person is acting...The basic premise of NLP is that the human brain functions similarly to a computer -- by executing "programs" or mental strategies that are composed of ordered sequences of instructions or internal representations...The efficacy and ease with which a particular mental program is carried out is to a large degree determined by the physiological state of the individual...Thus, an individual's internal state has improtant influences on his or her ability to perform in any situation...sometimes particular abilities can be too state-dependent. pp.1300-3 NLP Encyclopedia Also if you remove this premise the flow of the section will be lost as this is a premise that leads to consclusions -- it is part of the "logic" of NLP. flavius 04:23, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Others? · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 20:39, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Are you asking for other suggested things to work on? Greg 03:37, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

No. See "Text moved" above. Comaze or someone else who agrees that this language is problematic needs to justify why and how it needs to be changed by Friday. If that doesn't happen, it'll be reinstated into the workshop. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 03:43, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

My objection was over wording and accuracy. I agree with flavius' logical conclusion, "an individual's internal state has important influences on his or her ability to perform in any situation" and would prefer this to the current statement. ---=-C-=- 01:59, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

OK, well, go ahead and reinstate it. The workshop page is open for any kind of editing, as long as you aren't reverting someone else. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 14:02, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Ok, done. Can we now close this thread, and now it to the archives? ---=-C-=- 23:23, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Politely urging constructive suggestions

Hello all. I wish to move forward constructively. I have a suggestion: Lets start suggesting additions, rather than removals and deletions to the article. We will only manage consensus on items of fact. It is no good trying to delete the stated facts of scientists and sociologists. There has never been any valid reason to delete the views of scientists, and there probably never will (unless Wikipedia NPOV policy starts to favour pseudoscience or anti-science over science).

I believe the changes that the mediators have focused upon (eg JP's suggestion) are quite likely to lead to consensus. Here are some areas that I believe are likely to lead to consensus:

  • Sociological views that NLP is a new age development (placed in the opening and in the overview)
  • The views that NLP is cultlike, a cult or set of cults, and used within cults (the stated views of various authors)
  • The views about NLP's popularity within the new age movement and commercialism

Please add any areas that you feel you are most in agreement with, and then we can have a better chance of altering them slightly, and gaining consensus

PS, lets stick to baby steps, its futile and unconstructive to chop large or diverse parts from the article, and then argue for them to be deleted. Best regards Camridge 04:16, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Definition of Model

Hello Camridge, I'm not sure if this is the most appropriate place for my following remarks. The word models as used below (in the opening paragraph) is ambiguous and perhaps even meaningless.

NLP was proposed in 1973 by Richard Bandler and John Grinder as a set of models and principles to describe the relationship between mind (neuro) and language (linguistic, both verbal and non-verbal) and how their interaction might be organized (programming) to affect an individual's mind, body and behavior.

I can't find a sense of the word in which this use is meaningful. In the context of science, engineering, mathematics, and computer science the term model has a definite though varying (from field-to-field) meaning. NLPs use of the term does not fit any of the above uses. For the sake of clarity the word should either be dropped or if it has a unique NLP usage -- which I can't find -- then this unique meaning should be added. flavius 04:39, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

There is a few deinitions of model in use in NLP this include an "exemplar: a person or group of people worthwhile imitating" (eg. Milton Erickson/Perls served as a model for Grinder & Bandler) or "a hypothetical reduction of a complex process" (computer science) eg. 4-tuple, TOTE model (K. Pribram, G. Miller, Gallanter). These are both standard dictionary definitions and use in NLP. This could be expand in the NLP modeling section to give the actualy definition in NLP. --c 04:48, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
The opening statements use of "models" is not used in the context of modeling exemplary behaviour so that definition is not relevant to my concern. I'm not certain that "a hypothetical reduction of a complex process" is either a dictionary definition or a computer science usage. What you seem to be describing is the process of abstraction. Abstraction can be a part of some models but it is not synonymous with modeling. 4-tuple and TOTE are abstractions but that does not mean they are models. 4-tuple and TOTE are conjectures. NLP is properly described as a set of principles, conjectures, and techniques/rituals. The word model has specific meaning in several established disciplines and NLP proponents usage of the term is not consistent with any of these. In everyday (dictionary definition) usage the word is ambiguous and hence unsuitable for use in an encyclopedic article. flavius 14:18, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I see what you mean Flavius. I noticed that NLP uses the term models to account for all and sundry pseudoscientific things in their "toolbox". EG, the SMART model, is claimed to be NLP's model. Indeed, it seems that you are correct. Models, could be explained in terms of rituals, rather than technologies (the ,VAK AVK, VKA sense nonsense can be termed ritual also, as there is no science to convincingly back it up, indeed I understand that there is no read difference between V and K in internal processing), anyway, the opening is not the place for it. I suggest it be removed. Over the past weeks or so, the consensus seems to be turning towards NLP being a self help therapy type of new alternative religion. That sociological label seems to be appropriate for the opening to frame the rest of the scientific information that shows the techniques to be mere belief rituals. ATB Camridge 05:26, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Camridge, this is a problem with the English language.
  1. model as in "role-models" - "a person used as an example to follow or imitate". In NLP, a model is chosen by the modeler, who then observes the model to replicate their abilities. This is called modeling.
  2. model as in "psychogical model" - the origin of the word came from plans for buildings - but essentially this is a representation of something (how it's put together, how it works).
NLP used model with reference to modeling (#1) originally. The terms use in Psychology has been applied sometimes within NLP. It would be useful to avoid the confusion. Ritual is usually a series of actions - the VAK "model" isn't a series of steps. Matching rep systems IS a series of steps, but NLP refers to this as a process or pattern - so it's not an issue with regards to the word model. I'm not sure what other word to use universally... but I think it can be done individually GregA 05:59, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
The correct psychological term is ritual. Independent researchers of NLP call them rituals (eg Beyerstein) and that is correct. The internal processing (VAK) is certainly a sequence. And as a prescription to "excellence" or a way of mimicking/"modeling" Jesus of Nazareth using NLP(Dilts) it is a ritual. The term model is far too ambiguous. ATB Camridge 06:05, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
This topic is probably best covered in the section, "7.3 Proposed change by DaveRight" whose being mentored by Woohookitty and has not been opened to suggestion as yet. Notice that DaveRight has proposed the addition of the word ritual in the opening paragraph. --c 06:40, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Yes I had noticed and I the research shows it to be accurate (Beyerstein and others). I can give you some good references to 1st year psychology books if you like. ATB Camridge 06:47, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Unfortunately, "ritual" has a few meanings, including "a series of actions" and "a religious ceremony". Given the misunderstandings/disagreements on spiritual already, and that the goal is to avoid confusion, this word should be avoided. Additionally, I believe there is a NPOV ruling that we shouldn't change the words used by the topic to the words used by another topic as this can be misleading... can't remember what that's called. I guarantee I can present the term "model" to you in a way that stays consistent with NLP texts, if you'd like me to do it. GregA 07:14, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Ashley Dowlen (Career Development Journal, 1996) states, "In conclusion Einspruch and Forman state that "neurolinguistic programming is an extraordinarily complex model of human cognition and behaviour and of how to identify behavioural and communication patterns and interrupt these patterns in a deliberate way so as to achieve predictable outcomes". More quotes can be provided. --c 07:22, 6 March 2006 (UTC)


Well, the term model presented in the literature in a very unclear way. I can see the only solution being the view of independent researchers of NLP. They indicate that NLP's "technology" is really just a series of rituals. Luckilly though, all of NLP's rituals fit all of the actual definitions of ritual (eg, its involves religiosity, it involves a series of inexplicable steps, and it refers to magical new age thinking). Ritual is perfect. ATB Camridge 07:26, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Eispruch and Forman have already been dismissed by Sharpley 1989, and by Singer, and by Eisner and other corroborating sources. Downlen does not answer the problems of Einspruch and Forman's study, and they just say it is complex. They reiterate what NLPers claim (wholism pseudoscience excuses) ATB Camridge 07:26, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Camridge, What specific authors use the term ritual to what the majority of researchers call NLP models? A quick search on PubMed...
  • "NLP communication model (neurolinguistic programming)--an introduction. Greater clarity in communicating and observing]"[46]
  • "Fundamental assumptions of the NLP model are discussed and several reframing techniques are described."[47]
  • "Auditory and kinesthetic items, however, did not elicit more changes in eye-position hypothesized by the model to represent auditory and kinesthetic recall, respectively."[48]
  • "An empirical evaluation of the neurolinguistic programming model."[49]
--c 07:48, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Workshop

All,

We have opened a workshop page which you are free to edit. Here are the ground rules:

  • No reverts.
  • If there is a section of the text that you have problems with, move it to the workshop's talk page where you will be expected to discuss it and come to a consensus. Text moves may not be reverted.
  • Non-trivial changes must be discussed on the talk page.
  • No incivility. Anything that's rude will be refactored or removed.
  • Mind the arbcom's directions on sourcing and attribution of views.
  • Any changes that receive a consensus and follow WP's policies can be incorporated into the main page.
  • Those who can't follow the rules will earn a block.

A related note: We are watching related pages and will be enforcing the arbcom's probation on those pages -- including Principles of NLP, Tony Robbins, Engram and any other related pages. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 15:51, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Camridge version of opening line

Neuro-Linguistic Programming (NLP) is a collection of New Age processes/rituals and beliefs promoted as a means of therapy, healing, and self-development.

Hi all. I've made another adjustment to this line. I believe the term New Age covers both quasi-spiritual and quasi-religious. Considering the overwhelming amount of both scientific and sociological literature for the New Age term, it seriously needs a mention in the first line. The therapy side is clearly important. I left out psycho from therapy because nowadays there is a lot of "bodywork" involved. And the healing aspect is clear also in the literature. I decided that the assocations with other New Age occult subjects are more numerous than just Dianetics and EST. So it is too complex to mention in the first line. It could be placed further down in the opening, with the occult facts. Please give some feedback. ATB. Camridge 05:13, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes Camridge. That makes it clearer. The new age term covers spirituality, eclecticism, and inclusiveness of all the other creeds. It also agrees with the empirical research and its use of the new age term in relation to NLP. I also believe the healing movement aspects work well with both the old body/mind and the new reiki/yoga aspects of NLP. Looks right to me. Chiao AliceDeGrey 07:06, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
I agree. It looks clear, simple, and accurate. well done! HeadleyDown 11:09, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
It seems to clearly characterise the scientific view of NLP; and that's about all. Were you trying to encompass the full view of NLP with this introduction? As an introduction to the article it's far worse than the current introduction. The current introduction (Neuro-linguistic programming (NLP) was proposed in 1973 by Richard Bandler and John Grinder as a set of models and principles to describe the relationship between) states the facts clearly and doesn't use POV language like "New Age", "rituals", "beliefs". Peace. ॐ Metta Bubble puff 12:03, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
"Promoted" is too sneering. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 12:21, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
And honestly, what exactly is wrong with "beliefs"? We have to have some way of describing the principles that NLP believes in. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 12:46, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
Camridge I also like your version. I would modify it slightly though just to make the writing clearer:
Neuro-Linguistic Programming (NLP) is a collection of processes/rituals promoted as a means of therapy, healing, and self-development. Critics consider NLP to be a pseudoscience due to its lack of scientific support and New Age beliefs. Alex Krupp 23:18, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Hello Mettabubble. Sorry you are in error, this was the original text move:

Neuro-Linguistic Programming (NLP) is a collection of pseudoscientific self-help rituals proposed for programming the mind (Lilienfeld et al 2003;Raso 1994).

And here is another version with suggested adjustment from KatefanO

Neuro-Linguistic Programming (NLP) is a collection of New Age processes/rituals and beliefs proposed as a means of therapy, healing, and self-development.

Notice the processes/rituals also agrees with Katefan0’s suggestion from the swish discussion.

Regards HeadleyDown 12:27, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

All these dance around saying that it is. Proposed, promoted to, etc., are not acceptable. It should say something along these lines: "... and beliefs practitioners use as a means of..." Then, of course, you may add a corollary sentence saying what its critics believe. That's only fair. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 12:34, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
Hi Katefan0. I think this is what you mean:
Neuro-Linguistic Programming (NLP) is a collection of New Age processes/rituals and beliefs and beliefs practitioners use as a means of therapy, healing, and self-development.
"Practitioners" could be confusing. Sounds like doctors or something. I guess a simpler word would be "user", or "enthusiast"? Regards HeadleyDown 12:40, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
I am not endorsing your version, but I believe you mean "is a collection of New Age processes/rituals and beliefs which practitioners use as a means of therapy, healing and self-development". Again, not endorsing. Just making it clearer. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 12:43, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
"Users use" is too clunky. "Enthusiasts" makes them sound like they're building model airplanes and takes away from the seriousness with which some folks obviously take this stuff. I think practicitioners is the best word. Or maybe adherents. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 12:46, 30 March 2006 (UTC)


Ah! adherents sounds more appropriate, Katefan0. NLP is also a new alternative religion according to some. Here is the adjustment with the additional line you suggested. I kept it short


Neuro-Linguistic Programming (NLP) is a collection of New Age processes/rituals and beliefs adherents use as a means of therapy, healing, and self-development. Critics consider NLP to be a pseudoscience due to it’s magical theories of action and lack of scientific support.

Regards HeadleyDown 12:53, 30 March 2006 (UTC)


In comparison to what you were proposing before this sounds very reasonable... but it just takes us back a few weeks to where we were before the wilder statements were made.
  1. New Age is a broad term with multiple meanings, and broad enough that it can be misleading - and once again I'd request that you define New Age (personally I'm for Druckman's definition). ::#In addition, Katefan did not say to write process/ritual - she said, iirc, that the argument that "ritual was more broad and encompassing" did not ring true for her when she looked up the meanings.
  2. I also have to wonder at the word healing - I think this can be true of any therapy, and I'm wondering what you mean specifically here. The word healing is not used anywhere in the whole article, yet you want it in the first line?
  3. The issue of what we believe comes up again eh?
I wrote these last night before all the responses but it didn't post properly, so I'll have to read them again. Perhaps we don't need these lines at all - as Woohookitty points out, we did have an agreed "beginning" before these lines were tacked on the front of the article a couple of months ago. Greg 20:59, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
I like that progress is being made. I think GregA is right. The terms "rituals" and "beliefs" belong in articles on religion. I suggest "principles and practices" as more neutral terms. "New Age" is a slur. Even our own reference for "New Age" (i.e. Hall) is actually only saying it in the context of pointing out it's erroneous. Peace. ॐ Metta Bubble puff 23:09, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
Woohookitty, my most constructive suggestion is for us all to realise how perfectly apt and uncontroversial the current opening sentence is. I'd be more happy to workshop a new one if someone can point out what is wrong with what we currently have? Peace. ॐ Metta Bubble puff 23:15, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
Since I am new to the discussion, I apologize if this idea has been considered before, but I'm going to toss out an idea: Would it be helpful to have a "definitions" section in this article where we define exactly what use we are making of terms like "New Age", or where we could list a few different uses to show that not all of our references will be using it in the same way? Johntex\talk 23:38, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
Hello Johntex. I like your suggestion, and I believe we have ample sources to clearly define terms. Actually, the science and sociological definitions are pretty standard. However, the NLP's use of terms is often completely unlike the normal usage (eg, the term neurology). Some of those NLP definitions are brief and can be easily placed into the main body of the article. In the case of the more convoluted NLP notions, notes in the appendix may well be useful. ATB. Camridge 02:43, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Hello all. NLP's main marketing sector is New Age. I don't have to cite the research to remind people that NLP authors have bent over backwards to cater for New Agers since 1975. Book covers, new age mantras, new age memory aids, and so on. I feel it is utterly ridiculous to deny NLP's profoundly new age nature. It is even more ridiculous to suggest that NLP authors have not deliberately been designing their teachings with New Age leanings. Beyond that, it seems people either haven't read, or refuse to accept the neutral categorizations of both scientists and sociologists. Please lets be objective. In relationt to the most neutral and verifiable sources, the only things I can consider changing are the terms "magical theories" to "occult theories", and the very acceptable term "healing" to "channeling". Regards HeadleyDown 00:37, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi all. I have a suggestion. New Age is non negotiable. We have far too many neutral sources using New Age neutrally to explain NLP's existence in the world. Without the New Age, NLP would simply not exist. NLP was modeled on New Age heros. Perls, Satir and Erickson are all New Age heros. NLP developers have been credited with that tile also. I walk through a bookshop every day and in the New Age section, there are numerous NLP books. Open a New Age magazine, and you get NLP advertising its magical secrets. NLP developers deliberately choose to advertise to new agers because New Agers are not interested in science, and they would like to learn magic.
NLP is described as a healing movement by sociologists. NLP books themselves talk of NLP's healing nature. Healing is quite a nice term and I don't see any nicer option. I have a lot of literature right here to back all this up, but I don't see that there is any need for it. These issues have been satisfied already in the discussion, and though I would like to, I believe repeating it would only annoy the mentors with overload and redundancy. In addition to this, I can only see the New Age term getting bigger throughout the article. This happens with all the undeniable facts, such as the facts that NLP is scientifically unsupported. We delve, and the facts grow. I don't mind the facts growing, but clearly, some people do. Good day. JPLogan 01:14, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Hello HeadleyDown. Yes, according to my research, your opening line is objective, neutral, accurate, and clear. Especially after the helpful suggestions of the mentors. Its a fair compromise. I have learnt something. Cheers DaveRight 02:01, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi all. This is a joyous occasion for myself and countless others. Tom Jones has just recieved a well earned knighthood. Arise Sir Tom! Thanks Headley, Kate and Woohookitty. From my reading of the science, sociological, and NLP literature, the line is constructive and correct. ATB. Camridge 02:27, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Hi Headley. Considering the pressure to delete verifiable (and quite obvious) facts, I believe you have treated those first two opening lines very kindly. Dianetics is still an option. Also, you have made some major compromises in comparison with the prior opening. I agree with Katefan0's suggestion to change the term "promoted" also. I didn't see the problem before, and on reflection, her suggestion makes for better reading. Nice and clear. Bookmain 04:03, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Bonjour! Yes it looks clear to me. I also have many European resources that neutrally place NLP as new age (nouvel âge etc). They also quite neutrally call it a "secte", and so on. I could add these to the line to clarify matters. Chiao AliceDeGrey 05:19, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Good day Alice. I also have much good book references from European autors who say NLP is new age and mystik. I think Headley version is most sure good enough tho. HansAntel 09:51, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks folks, and well done Tom! I'd like to take a look at the Euro texts sometime. I have collected quite a few Chinese texts myself. I believe for the time being we can stick with the English sources though. RegardsHeadleyDown 10:36, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Hi Folks. There's a lot of hot air about sources, but no actual sources. Simply provide the sources and we have something to discuss. The current source for linking "New Age" in the intro is Michael Hall, but unfortunately he believes New Age is an erroneous moniker, so it's a dead citation. I believe the other references will go the same way. Peace. ॐ Metta Bubble puff 11:30, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Hi mettaBubble. Yes, stating the obvious can seem a little like hot air sometimes. So you want us to provide sources to back up the glaringly obvious? OK! HeadleyDown 12:04, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Hi Headley - thank you that would be good.
Hi Woohookitty - the only problem with saying "Belief" is that it doesn't add anything at all to the opening. As a starter, you could say that any psychotherapy is a collection of beliefs. Also the NLP presuppositions (sometimes called presuppositional beliefs), exist as part of NLP processes - they don't exist independently - so "processes" is enough.
Camrdige - why change "psychotherapy" to "therapy"? You say that NLP is mainly body work - and yet there is NO physical therapy at all involved in NLP.
Headley - If we're going to have the word "healing" in the first line, it really should be spelt out elsewhere in the article. It's not there at all. Additionally, if your sources on "healing" lead you to think you can swap the word for "channeling" then I think your sources are bogus.
JPLogan -Once again - no disagreement on NLP developing outside the academic mainstream, nor with the US commissions definition of NLP & New Age - just that since New Age is so broad we would do well to classify it more strictly (eg NLP was developed outside the academic mainstream). It was, however, based on respected psychotherapists despite any of their other interests. I find it odd that you want to call Perls, Satir, and Erickson "New Age heroes" - if you classify NLP based on the psychotherapists they modeled - it puts NLP on equal footing with other psychotherapies (Gestallt Therapy (Perls), and Family Therapy (Satir)... remembering also that Erickson was a medical doctor and psychiatrist) Greg 13:03, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
How about this? Neuro-Linguistic Programming (NLP) is a model that practitioners use as an adjunct to psychotherapy, management training and self-development. ---=-C-=- 13:58, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
I like it. Model could be confusing for new readers. How about this? Neuro-Linguistic Programming (NLP) is a range of methods and principles that practitioners use as an adjunct to psychotherapy, management training and self-development. What do you think? ॐ Metta Bubble puff 02:14, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
Comaze, that's entirely unacceptable because it isn't true. NLP generally isn't (and never was) promoted as an ancillary practice. This is made plain by Grinder:
2. When you and Richard Bandler were first developing NLP did you have any ideas or expectations about what would happen to it over time? My memories about what we thought at the time of discovery (with respect to the classic code we developed - that is, the years 1973 through 1978) are that we were quite explicit that we were out to overthrow a paradigm and that, for example, I, for one, found it very useful to plan this campaign using in part as a guide the excellent work of Thomas Kuhn (The Structure of Scientific Revolutions) in which he detailed some of the conditions which historically have obtained in the midst of paradigm shifts. 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.[50] Most people that hang a shingle as "NLP Therapists" don't have training in conventional methods of psychotherapy. Only one of the NLP "luminaries" has training in conventional psychotherapy (namely Hall). Bandler, Grinder, Sikes, James, La Valle, McKenna, Breen have training neither in conventional psychotherpay nor management training. 'Self-development' is rather vague and in any event it isn't a substantive field so it can have ancillary components. Also, the term "model" doesn't conform to any established use of the word when it is used by NLPers. When an NLPer uses the word "model" they are using it as private

jargon. Also, the use of the word practitioner implies a professional polish where none exists. I propose:

Neuro-linguistic Programming (NLP) is a collection of rituals, techniques and beliefs that are claimed by adherents to be able to treat mental and physical illness, accelerate learning, improve interpersonal communication, persuade and influence others and to generally improve human performance. flavius 03:07, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
Umm, Flavius... okay so NLP wasn't promoted as a therapy in the beginning etc. I agree. But the very next paragraph (of the article you link to) quotes Grinder saying the following:
in what ways has it conformed and deviated from your expectations?.One of the expectations which I personally carried at the time of discovery and development of NLP was that people interested in our work would cleanly make the distinction between NLP and applications of NLP. My hope at the time was that given this distinction, there would arise a group of committed men and women who would recognize the meta levels tools which we had either discovered (the Milton Model.....), or created (the verbal patterns of the Meta Model or Precision Model, Representational Systems....), and go out and identify and create new models of excellence to offer the world. This has not happened and is very disappointing to me. NLP is popularly represented and commonly practiced at least one logical level below what it was clearly understood to be at the time by Bandler and me. This inability to distinguish either behaviorally or cognitively the consequences and applications of NLP from core NLP itself (modelling of excellence) is extremely commonplace.
A change to mettabubbles comment would be that it's not an "adjunct" but rather "applied to" psychotherapy etc. Are you now agreeing with that representation? Greg 09:35, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Hello All. I am approaching this from an entirely objective research perspective. Whatever the most independent sources say, I will include. So starting with Beyerstein:

  • Beyerstein,B. Beyerstein BL. Brainscams: neuromythologies of the new age. Intern J Mental Health. 1990;19:27-36.

Professor Beyerstein classes NLP as a neuromythology of the new age, and says that NLP’s main presuppositional belief is a New Age slogan. He talks at length about New Age thinking and its problems with NLP as an example.

  • The Story of Psychology Moreton Hunt. Anchor (April 1, 1994)

ISBN: 0385471491 Page 629 Moreton hunt classes NLP as a mis-user of psychology, and “beyond the fringe“. He links NLP to New Age mystical beliefs. He also gives a clear account of why it is not valid. And he talks about its pseudoscientific nature. So historically, NLP is considered quite bogus.

  • Lisa Aldred

Journal of Popular Culture. Bowling Green: Spring 2002. Vol. 35, Iss. 4; pg. 61, 14 pgs Periodical ISSN/ISBN: 00223840 She says NLP is New Age philosophy and relates it to "New Money" counselors. (money/abundance consciousness).

  • The Emerging Network: A Sociology of the New Age and Neo-pagan Movements

Michael York Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc. (April 28, 1995) ISBN: 0847680010 Dr Michael York of the University of Bath states that NLP is a new age development and relates it to its founding inspirations (shamanism). He also talks of it in terms of the sociological view of the New Age: “NLP will not countenance the possibility of the negative or a failed outcome. NLP’s essential affirmation of unlimited human potential is a sine qua non of New Age theory and practice.”

  • Puttick, E. 2000. ‘Personal Development: The Spiritualization and Secularization’, in S. Sutcliffe and M. Bowman eds. Beyond New Age: Exploring Alternative Spirituality, Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press

Puttick writes that NLP is a type of New Age therapy and goes into details about the New Age spirituality of NLP.

  • Kemp darren

The New Age, A Guide. Page 103 Edinburgh University Press (March 10, 2004) isbn 0748615326 Dr. Darren Kemp says the NLP is a New Age development and relates it sociologically to seminars.

  • Drury, Nevill, The new age : searching for the spiritual self 2004

NLP promoters are new age heros and high fees are charged to learn prosperity consciousness in metaphysical transformation seminars etc page 128

  • The Encyclopedic Sourcebook of New Age Religions page 277

by James R. Lewis Prometheus Books (August 30, 2004) English ISBN: 1591020409 He talks of NLP as a New Age development in the gesellschaft structure,

  • New Age Spirituality: An Assessment page 120

by Duncan S. Ferguson He talks of NLP practitioners as New Age wayfarers in his detailed analysis of the new age.

  • Stephen J Hunt; Alternative Religions (2003) Page 195

Notions of wholeness, mental and physical health are intrinsic to NLP’s new age philosophies. Oh! Also, Hunt describes NLP as an alternative version of Scientology. This corresponds closely with other authors I can cite here, such as Singer, Parker, Beyerstein, and others. I believe that is what is missing from the opening line. Its nice and short. So how about this suggestion?:

  • Neurolinguistic programming is a collection of New Age processes/rituals and beliefs adherents use as a means of therapy, healing, and self-development, and is an alternative version of Scientology. Critics consider NLP to be a pseudoscience due to it’s magical theories of action and lack of scientific support.

Regards HeadleyDown 14:08, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

HeadleyDown, you suggestion is good. The only thing I take issue with is that it is more the beliefs that are New Age and less the processes/rituals. Also, the magical theories are those new age beliefs. That is why I still like my version above. Alex Krupp 16:56, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for providing the pages numbers and references. Just a quick note, the proper title for "The New Age, A Guide" is "The skeptics guide to the new age". We need to identifiy any such biases when making characterizing such as New Age, pseudoscience, etc. ---=-C-=- 21:39, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Hello Comaze. I don't think so. [51]I don't think its anything to do with skeptics. That wasn't an April fool was it? HeadleyDown 01:16, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
Hi Alex. The processes/rituals is related to the activities (adjusted according to Katefan0's suggestion) and the beliefs are relevant to the presuppositional beliefs and that it is pertinent to belief change. They are different issues. Regards HeadleyDown 01:21, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
Hello Headley. I don't think we (everybody) needs to paste all the refs here. Truly, there'll be no space left. I can confirm that Hunt, Singer, and the others are correct. I havn't got a copy of Drury, but no doubt I will get hold of a copy soon. Of course Beyerstein considers NLP to be New Age. Its chronologically and philosophically correspondant. He says that the New Age has accelerated the rate at which genuine insights into the brain-mind relationship are being misused. Sure he says that NLP is New Age. In Cults in Our Midst, Singer writes about New Age practices such as NLP being used to "transform" people in the workplace when in fact they are reluctant to change (to adopt New Age beliefs) page 183. The Scientology fact is also confirmed by the research. Thanks for your research. JPLogan 02:14, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
Hello Alex. Sorry, the magical theories were the theories proposed by Bandler and Grinder (five senses and representational systems). The beliefs really are the presups, and the background notions of NLP. Sincerely JPLogan 02:17, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
Hi folks. Even using the citations Headley provided it is clear that New Age is a controversial branding, as is ritual and connections with Scientology. These associations may be found in psychotherapy-world assessments of NLP but they do not encompass the NLP viewpoint. Any introduction we write for the article should be neutral and uncontroversial (just as the Santa Claus article doesn't begin by saying that Santa claus doesn't exist). Um... Merry Christmas. ॐ Metta Bubble puff 02:48, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
Mettabubble, there are numerous NLPers that argue that NLP does contain ritual and rituals are taught within NLP seminars. Are you suggesting that Richard Bandler, John La Valle, Tad James, and Robert Dilts aren't representative of the "NLP viewpoint"? If so, then how so? On what grounds can we exclude the viewpoint of one of the co-founders of NLP? Also there are several second-tier NLP trainers such as Phil Farber that make a point of the ritual aspects of NLP. flavius 03:35, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
Flavius, Mettabubble did not say that multiple viewpoints do not exist (both within NLP, and outside) - he asked that the introduction be neutral and uncontroversial. Personally in the general article I don't mind whether it's neutral through being more general, or through showing all major views - but in the opening this is more difficult. Greg 03:16, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Greetings all. I wish to make a statement and a suggestion for this thread. I've been viewing the NLP article for some months. I have this to add: My Bias; I am a Zen follower, and I do personally find value in NLP. I own a very large collection of new age titles; and I freely admit that Bandler and Grinders books (frogs, structure, and transformations) and Robbins books are new age classics.

Over the months I have noticed quite a few advocates of NLP behaving in a way quite inconsistent with the spirit of NLP. In fact I am sure many other advocates of NLP will view such behaviour with a sense of disappointment. It only validates some of the negative view written clear in the article. I don't believe the disharmony that has been provoked will do anyone any good. All it does is create friction and wasted energy. But I have also noticed some good attitudes. A few practitioners have appeared to encourage harmony and non-judgmentalism in the past; and it has helped.

I've read quite a lot of the results of reviews on NLP from the past, and they did make me dismal at the time. But you can transcend all of this with the right attitude and action. The policies here do give science a strong voice, and I can respect that. The articles posted in this thread above seem to be quite correct. I can only admit that it would be quite justifiable to place the new age and scientology items in the opening line. Yet on behalf of NLP enthusiasts in general, I would like to suggest an amicable and arrangement to for the sake of harmony; To keep the opening clear and simple, let us agree to remove the new age and scientology aspects from that line, and agree that they remain instead within other non-critical portions of the opening. They are quite brief and I certainly would have no hope of convincingly denying that they are factually correct. I hope this goes some way towards resolution. To your best; Wishingwelldone.

Hello Wishingwelldone. I don't think I've seen you before. Welcome. HeadleyDown 13:32, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
Hi Wishingwelldone. Interesting proposal and I respect your positive candour. But we tried to work outside of the research view last time, and that kind of "compromise" didn't get us anywhere. In truth we have hit the compromised level already. We need to make a process whereby people are going to be reasonable. The scientology and New Age items you pointed out are perfectly valid for the first line. I believe they should remain there. Cheers DaveRight 08:35, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
Hello Dave. In this case I am quite compelled by Wishinwelldone's statement and suggestion. As long as it is agreed that the two items are removed from the line (and don't get placed back) while staying in the non-critical part of the opening, then I feel that serves everyone's interests. Regards HeadleyDown 13:32, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
Hello Headley. The independent research shows NLP is New Age and I don't see why we should move the facts based simply upon the wishes of a few NLP advocates. On the other hand, it is nice to see some openness and some kind of compromise from an NLPer. So ok, I think those two facts (New Age, and Scientology) can be removed from the first two lines as long as its agreed they are to be presented as they are in the non-critical part of the opening without any time-wasting or fuss. Cheers DaveRight 02:01, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
DaveRight, Camrdige, JPLogan, HeadleyDown, Alex Krupp, if you are so convinced of the quality of your sources of connection between NLP and New Age, please present the correct characterizations. Based on the POV presented we can probably characterize the others as complimentary therapy skeptics. This is necessary under wikipedia policy for controversial articles. ---=-C-=- 08:44, 1 April 2006 (UTC)


Hello Comaze. No problem, here you go:

Lisa Aldred Ph.D. in anthropology from the University of North Carolina-Chapel .She is currently an assistant professor in the Center for Native American Studies at Montana State University.

Morton Hunt is a psychology historian PhD

Beyerstein is a psychology professor in Canada

Dr Michael York is a lecturer at of the University of Bath

Elizabeth Puttick is a sociologist at the University of Wales Lampeter

Dr Kemp is a lecturer at the Open University, Milton Keynes, England

Nevill Drury is an anthropologist and published over 40 books on the subject of spiritualism and the occult

Professor James R. Lewis teaches at the University of Wisconsin at Stevens Point

Dr Duncan S. Ferguson is a lecturer at Eckerd College Florida

Dr. Stephen J Hunt is a sociology Lecturer at University of West England Bristol.

Regards HeadleyDown 13:22, 1 April 2006 (UTC)


It strikes me that the biggest problem in our agreement is the lack of understanding the term "pattern", and the related concept that NLP processes can be (and have been) applied to many different fields. I can understand Headley's resistance earlier to using the word "Pattern" as some readers would not understand what it meant - though I think it would be lazy of us to skip something fundamental just because it's not easy to describe.
NLP looks for the patterns in what people do. When watching a 'model' perform something multiple times, across applicable contexts, there are certain key things they do repeatedly - and those things that repeat, those things that are a necessary part of what the model does, are their "patterns". Patterns are great as they remove unrelated crap.
An interesting side effect is that sometimes the "pattern" of something New Age is the same "pattern" as in a modern psychotherapy. I've spoken to a "rebirthing consultant" who described what she did, and at a pattern level it seemed to be identical to a behavioural desensitization (for traumas) - the rebirthing consultant believed it was reliving birth though, which was totally unnecessary (hence not part of the "pattern") but her process worked fine (to reduce traumas).
NLP is fundamentally about identifying how someone does what they do - to remove the mysticism and to bring it down to identifiable chunks of experience that require no mystical belief. They are based on the principle that everything is fundamentally explicable in physical terms. In doing that, NLP can be applied to many contexts. NLP unashamedly will study any human experience & interaction, and that has ranged from therapeutic change work through to experiences that people describe as "spiritual". Some people trained in NLP have said "If you are going to reproduce an experience, why not go for the most "profound" ones?"
ps. One of the short criticisms of NLP quoted in here is that NLP is "amoral". Absolutely! NLP can be applied in good or bad ways. If we can clearly separate what NLP is from what it can be (and is regularly) applied to (including the fact that some NLPers and researchers don't make that distinction) it would serve to clean up things significantly.
Hi GregA. I believe your discussion is digressing into deep philosophical debate. I believe we should stick to discussing the subject. Regards HeadleyDown 13:26, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
No Headley, I stand by what I'm saying. Although you may find this complex and deeply philosophical, it's a pretty basic aspect of NLP that is not yet clearly explained (hence appears complex). Spending some time to clarify NLP vs applications may allow the article to come together more clearly. Greg 21:55, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
I'll see what I can come up with overnight, in a practical sense. Greg 22:46, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
Toying around with these 2:
  • NLP is a range of methods and principles that practitioners use in change work - including the goal of reproducing the skills of "excellent" performers. NLP processes have been applied to many other fields including psychotherapy, management training, and self-development.
  • NLP is a range of methods and principles for communicating and interacting with people, used by its practitioners for change work. NLP includes the goal of reproducing the skills of "excellent" performers, and its change processes are often used in the context of psychotherapy, coaching and self-development. As NLP processes are often used in these fields, NLP is often seen as a type of psychotherapy or coaching methodology.
Certainly not there yet. Greg 03:16, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Hi GregA. OK then, trying to be relevant. According to Lilienfeld, Eisner and many others, NLP is scientifically unsupported. But really, this is perfectly well represented in the opening already. Independent researchers state that NLP includes mysticism. NLPers include auras, chakras, spirit, concepts of the relational field, and many other more new age ideas. This is not just my view, its a common view of anyone who has seen NLP firewalking. Its also the view of independent researchers such as Beyerstein, Sharpley, Lilienfeld, and many others. HeadleyDown 00:09, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Hello GregA. Excuse me, do you mean you wish to place and explain the term "pattern" in the opening line? For the sake of clarity, I would advise against it. Pattern places many odd images within the mind of the reader. It also suggests that NLP practitioners have identified a pattern that is eluding even 21st century neuroscientists. According to the literature, it is highly doubtful that there are NLP pattern in the language or thinking of a human subject, or even within the rituals of NLP. So the term "pattern" is highly disputed. This relates to the rather outrageous claim that "NLP is THE study of the structure of subjective experience". Neuroscientists and psychologists have been looking for such a structure, and have yet to get close to it. NLP promoters claim they have it. Empirical studies strongly suggest that neuroscientists and psychologists are far closer to finding such a structure than NLP will ever be. In evolutionary terms, NLP is regressive. It started off with anti-science rhetoric, and now it is actively promoting occult cultism (according to the lit). In ethical terms, neuroscientists will not prescribe any treatment that has not been validated through the scientific method. NLP practitioners have been prescribing rituals and not even bothered to think about testing them. NLP (and to be fair, other pseudoscientific power therapies) is ethically questionable in this regard. So according to the literature the term "pattern" seems to be highly inappropriate for the opening lines. Good day JPLogan 02:37, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Mmm, on reflection, it may well be appropriate to place the term "ethically questionable" within the first lines. There is no significant dispute of that fact. JPLogan 02:41, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes NLP adverts commonly urge consumers to: Learn NLP for free. Grow a bigger penis through NLP. Enhance your sex life with NLP. Seduce anyone with NLP. Gain an unfair advantage with NLP. Change your life with NLP. Heal your body and mind with NLP. Increase your IQ with NLP. And so on. But according to scientists, NLP is characterized by fraud. Some concerned scientists call it snakeoil, and advertising standards authorities have told NLP practitioners to stop calling NLP a new science, yet they continue. So according to independent research, NLP promotional activities and many NLP teachings are quite unethical. HeadleyDown 03:18, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Well at least this proves the point that NLP, and the application of NLP, are commonly misunderstood. And yes NLP is ethically questionable in the sense that it is ethically neutral - just as a hammer can be used for good or bad. Greg 09:09, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Hello GregA. I am not a carpenter, but I suspect that there is nothing ethically questionable about teaching members of the general public to hammer a nail or build a coffee table. I havn't done any research on it, but I am fairly certain no academic will have pronounced it ethically questionable. NLP on the other hand......! (refs in the article already). HeadleyDown 09:53, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Indeed not! :) There's really no question of ethics at all in teaching someone to use a hammer. And further to that - if someone chooses to use that hammer in a harmful way it reflects on the person wielding the hammer - not the individual who taught the person how to use the hammer, the person who sold the hammer, nor the hammer itself. (Though, perhaps, a knife is a more valid example?) Greg 03:16, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

JPLogan says, NLP is "ethically questionable" and HeadleyDown claims that the promotion and teaching NLP is considered "quite unethical" by indepedant research. This is too general to be verifiable and overly skeptical. On what evidence do you base these claims and what are the biases of your sources? ---=-C-=- 01:33, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Hello Comaze. Katefan0 did say that it is only fair to have a second line that represents the critics. The term "ethically questionable" is not appropriate for the first line. It is appropriate for the second line suggested by Katefan0. That is only fair. Cheers DaveRight 01:43, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Hey you've endorsed a source (Novopashin) who says NLP is "amoral" - which is exactly what NLP says too. Explaining that viewpoint from both sides would be fine, but it's hardly introduction material. Greg
If the criticism is written in a sympathetic tone, and the best possible argument is presented for both then that will probably be acceptable under wikipedia policy. ---=-C-=- 02:32, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Thanks Comaze. Yes its presented without the use of the terms cult and occult. Its sympathetic. The argument rule is not to be applied to a single line. It applies to the whole article. So you agree to the line then! Lets get it placed into the article and move forward. ATB Camridge 02:41, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Can you suggest a line written in a sympathetic tone that presents the best argument for both views ? ---=-C-=- 02:49, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
I think we're putting the cart before the horse here. The desire by you guys to have the word healing can be discussed - but for now it's not in the actual article at all, so to me that doesn't make sense. Perhaps we should be working on the details before summarising them into the general? Greg 03:16, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Hi GregA and Comaze. I can't see a more sympathetic way of placing the facts in the first line. We have already been through this, and Katefan0's suggestions proved very helpful. Healing is a really nice way of putting things. All the NLP books talk about healing in one form or another, and htere are specific books about healing using NLP, and many of the NLP applications are directly related to healing, such as the alergy cure, burn prevention, and so on. The most independent sources place NLP within the healing movements of the New Age. Again, its a nice term in comparison with the alternatives. As promised, healing will be dealt with in the article in the nicest ways possible. I am finding it hard to understand why people are trying to resist the nicest sounding terms. Camridge 04:31, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Can you respond to my comment that until healing is spoken about at all in the article, putting it in the opening line is foolish. Greg 09:59, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Greg, I did a search of the academic literature and there is no mention of healing in association with NLP. So there is little chance it will be included in the introduction. ---=-C-=- 10:32, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
This sounds too much like association fallacy. Healing is such a loose word and is normally associated with Reiki or some other New Age practice -- this is not NLP. ---=-C-=- 06:30, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
To me it sounds like a direct quote from an NLP book. The first NLP book I picked up, on page 18 Nlp (The New Technology by Nlp Comprehensive the new age classic (by Andreas and Faulkner) there is an account of how Robert Dilts applies an NLP healing ritual for healing purposes. The NLP literature itself states that NLP was developed from the modeling of successful healers. I'm sure we will be only too happy to provide page numbers, and quotes from any number of NLP books, and more independent books on the nature of NLP. ATB. Camridge 06:53, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Camridge says: "NLP was developed from the modeling of successful healers." -- This is only partly true. Here's an alternative: NLP was developed from the modeling of psychotherapists including the Milton H. Erickson (grandfather of modern hypnosis), Virginia Satir (family therapist) and Fritz Perls (Gestalt therapist). Its primary focus is as a communications model, although it has been applied to x, y and z. ---=-C-=- 07:43, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Hello Comaze. This is easily solved. You provide all the NLP and independent sources that state NLP is not involved with healing, and I or we will provide all references saying NLP is about healing. ATB.Camridge 09:07, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
ingentaconnect: "0 articles with title/keywords/abstract containing NLP AND healing"http://www.ingentaconnect.com/search?title=NLP+AND+healing&title_type=tka&author=&journal=&journal_type=words&volume=&issue=&database=1&year_from=2001&year_to=2006&pageSize=20&x=0&y=0
pubmed: NLP and healing - "See Details.No items found."[52] ---=-C-=- 10:09, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Hello. I know quite a lot about psychology and I live next to a big library. I checked the Dr Michael York reference and it checks out. Same with morton Hunt, Beyersten and Puttick. I had to make a request to the library stacks for the rest of the articles. I can check them in a day or so. Ksinpoint 04:18, 3 April 2006 (UTC)


Thanks much Ksinpoint. Thats extremely helpful. ATB. Camridge 04:31, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Great. If you can, please provide direct quotes from these authors so others can verify. It would assist us to establish what research is criticised by those authors. ---=-C-=- 06:30, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Sure I can but it would be redundant as the above lines are correct. I believe there is no requirement for quotes to be placed in discussion around everything discussed. I wish to assist here in checking the verifiability of the sources. I have now recieved all of the above literature, and it is all verifiable and the statements made are consistent with the literature. It says in clear terms that NLP is New Age, and is a spiritual development (and this is indicated clearly from the publication titles). eg;
Drury, Nevill, The new age : searching for the spiritual self 2004 NLP promoters are considered to be new age heros and high fees are charged to learn prosperity consciousness in metaphysical transformation seminars" etc page 128
Concerning biases, the authors above are as listed by userHeadleyDown. They are professors or doctors of various scholarly subjects (psychology, sociology, anthropology). Ksinpoint 04:40, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Actually, Drury isn't a professor or a doctor, and his special area of authorship is "New Age". He frames everything in the context of New Age. According to ABC Australia, "Nevill Drury is Australia’s pre-eminent investigator and advocate of New Age spiritualities." According to this book he also varyingly classifies psychiatry, psychology, and spirituality as New Age. About the only logical statement we could write based on Drury is:
  • New Age advocate Nevill Drury says NLP promoters are New Age heroes.
But what's the point in saying that? It might be useful in a "New Age" sub-section, but not much else. Peace. ॐ Metta Bubble puff 05:47, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
p.s. This is an odd place to dive right in, but welcome to Wikipedia Ksinpoint. Thanks for providing the quote you cited. It's useful to know the source of your opinions because it allows for discussion of those opinions. Peace. ॐ Metta Bubble puff 05:47, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Little reminder

New topics need to go at the bottom. The "Camridge version of opening line" section was originally placed almost at the top for some reason. Doing that makes it very hard for everyone (including the mentors) to follow the discussion. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 12:51, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] View Corroborating Drenth, Levelt and Beyestein

In Mind Myths: Exploring Popular Assumptions About the Mind and Brain (edited by Sergio Della Sala) -- a collection of essays by prominent psychologists and neuroscientists -- Corballis describes states that "[Neurolinguistic Programming] is a thoroughly fake title, designed to give the impression of scientific respectability. Neurolinguistic programming has little to do with neurology, linguistics, or even the respectable sub-discipline of neurolinguistics" (p.41). Corballis also specifies NLP as one of the "big business" self-improvement programmes that "pay extensive homage" to myths regarding brain lateralisaion (p. 29).

Mind Myths is published by Wiley and it isn't a "sceptical" book. It is a scientific review of popular assumptions about neurology. Thus we have at least four indepedent authors -- Drenth, Levelt, Beyerstein and Corballis -- making the same conclusions about NLP. flavius 03:22, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

On what evidence does Corballis make these claims? ---=-C-=- 08:57, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
Hello Comaze. Are you referring to a particular Wikipedia policy that requires Flavius to give you a detailed account of why the said author has come to his conclusions? I suspect Flavius is perfectly capable of supplying it, but I question whether it is necessary or not. Regards HeadleyDown 13:41, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
It is quite obvious that Corballis view is skeptical and its biases should be identified, see wikipedia policy - guide for controversial articles. If Corballis' view is based on experimental evidence then the specific studies should be identified - not just the bald commentary. ---=-C-=- 22:42, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
Hello Comaze. So there is no particular stipulation to provide in depth analysis of an author's views? I'm not altogether sure what you mean by skeptical then. Do you mean scientifically informed? Regards HeadleyDown 00:01, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Hello Headley. I searched the Wikipedia policy pages and found no such requirement. I believe Comaze needs to explain himself more clearly. As regards Corballis: His writing and support are wonderfully clear, so I am happy to write about his (and many other scientist's) conclusion. He is a Professor of Neuroscience at the University of Auckland. He has written a great many papers on neuroscience, especially the science concerning hemispheric specialization. His conclusions are that NLP is wrong. There are many pseudosciences that use the split brain simplification. Its an historical phenomenon as much as anything. The New Age has promoted a great many comforting and simplistic notions using neurobabble to support it. Its a problem with the "West's" need for "spirituality with scientific support". The left-right brain mythologies are popular due partly to its male female/yin yang dichotomy. NLP still refers to the early misconceptions about dominant/non dominant brain. Its a gross and misleading oversimiplification, about as trite and inaccurate as using the term "bugs" instead of bacteria. Furthermore, NLP books commonly place left and right with certain "brain skills". Right includes intuition, psychic elements, emotion, and so on. Left includes logic, critical skills etc. They base their assumptions on the untested, outdated, and rather extreme opinions of Sperry and Ornstein. The majority of neuroscientists considers that untested notion to be highly dubious. And the empirical studies that have been conducted around such matters indicate overwhelmingly that those notions are false. Corballis and many others, such as Druckman and Swets, Singer, Beyerstein, Sharpley, and so on, say that NLP uses such simplifications in order to make their seminars and books comforting and attractive by "riding on the coattails of the term neuroscience". Adding "neuro" to their product, NLP are behaving fraudulently. This is also the view of Professor Heap, the clinical psychologist. I have not added page numbers to this account because I am explaining Corballis' conclusions. Corballis is a Professor of neuroscience, and his view is verifiable and valid. His clarity and rigour makes it enjoyable to write about his conclusions in this discussion. JPLogan 02:21, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes NLP practitioners and authors claim neurology, but make liberal use of erroneous and pseudoscientific neuromythologies to sell their product. The left-right brain stuff is basically for simple minded drilling –left/right, left/right, left/right. So in this regard, NLP is pseudoscience that uses the most “conveniently misleading” terms in order to fake a scientific pedigree according to researchers. Regards HeadleyDown 03:36, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

You have no answered my questions. In controversial articles it is essential to identify the bias of sources. If the biases are identified and counter-arguments are presented along with the criticism this will be acceptable. A sympathetic tone is also required for the different points of view. "Wikipedia's policy is to fairly represent all sides of a dispute by not making articles state, imply, or insinuate that only one side is correct; however it can be difficult for this policy to be enforced."WP:NPOV ---=-C-=- 01:12, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Hello Comaze. The view of Corballis has already been well presented and he is clearly biased. More specifically he's biased towards independent scientific research (published neuroscience and clinical psychology) and he mistrusts scientifically unsupported testimonials. Drenth, Levelt and Beyerstein the same. I have no problem with that being noted in an appendix. Cheers DaveRight 01:50, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
DaveRight, You've indentified a bias of Corballis in saying "[he] mistrusts scientifically unsupported testimonials" -- can you rewrite this in a more sympathetic tone and present the counter-argument? ---=-C-=- 02:28, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Hello Comaze. Personally, I know I can! Camridge 04:33, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] proposed change - differences between NLP and New Age (Comaze)

  • What portion of the article do you take issue with? (Quote the actual text. If what you want is an insertion, indicate the position for the insertion.)
  • On what basis do you object to this portion? Quote and link to the Wikipedia policy or guideline that justifies your objection.
  1. Present counter-examples and arguments to the claims about New Age associations
  2. Indentify any logical association fallacy
  3. Represent all views fairly in a sympathetic tone
  4. actual quotes to come
  • What new wording do you suggest? (Indicate if your suggestion is a deletion.)
  1. (will include a short counter argument to the claim that NLP is New Age covering collateral energy, five human

senses, sensory based evidence, well-formed outcomes - outcomes must be humanly possible, etc.).

  • What is the supporting evidence for this view?

[edit] Similarities and Differences

If we are going to write that NLP as a movement is in some way similar to New Age movement then we're going to also provide a counter argument and attributed and associations to reputable/reliable sources

Similarities & Differences
  1. NLP is a communication model: Sensory specific language may be used to describe subjective experience including spiritual experience
  2. We are limited to our five senses: The NLP model consists of five senses, what we see, hear, feel, touch, smell & taste. In the New Age movement, followers often claim to have a sixth sense.
  3. we don't know what we don't know." This was presented in Structure Vol.1 (1975a).
  4. There is no energy required or applied in mental process: Grinder (1986) and Bateson (1972, 1979) criticise the "uncritical importation of energy into the discussion of thinking and language" this is a direct challenge to Freud's followers and the New Agers of California. There is a need to differential between "psychic energy" (Freud, New Age) in emotion, physical energy and collateral energy (Bateson/Grinder). New Age people and some psychologists still use the "psychic energy" of emotion - a metaphor which is rejected by many NLP practitioners.
  5. Psychic Energy is commonly discussed by some but not all NLP practitioners - the notion of psychic energy in thinking and language, made popular by Freud, and more recently in the New Age movement is completely rejected by John Grinder anbd Judith Delozier (1986) citing Gregory Bateson (1972, 1979).
  6. Some New Agers buy into the idea of unlimited potential: outcomes and goals can be set and acheived, but should be humanly possible in order to be well-formed
  7. While some critics disagree on this matter, others (eg. x) claim that NLP spiritual elements citing Dilt's Neuro logical levels which has a category for considering spirit or vision aspects of an outcome. Spirit is not necessary in this model and is often replaced with strategic vision for business contexts. NOTE: We'd also need to include criticism of Dilts' model including the fact that it is not accepted by all schools (eg. Grinder) of NLP
  8. For some, the spiritual component of Dilts neurological levels is important, others replace this with strategic vision - some NLP practitioners reject Dilts' model because it is a content (not process) model. They also reject the spirit questions because this is personal content that does not belong in NLP ---=-C-=- 01:16, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion (similarities and differences)

Hello Comaze. It seems to me that what you have presented is original research (OR). The view that NLP is fundamentally New Age is overwhelming. Apart from it being an intuitively correct (and quite nice) term, NLP promoters advertise themselves as New Age, they often advertise themselves in the media as New Age Gurus, or the High Priest of the New Age, or New Age Hero. Most importantly (for the sake of Wikipedia), independent sociologicsts and scientists call NLP a New Age therapy, and they base their conclusions upon NLP's magical theories, its use of human potential concepts, its claimed ethical neutrality (as with magic), and its appeal to the public through pop psychology/pseudoscience. There is no reliable voice to oppose these facts. NLP is New Age and good solid verifiable research has been presented for undeniable support. No matter what, it seems the fact will be prestented in the article with all the clarity required. Regarding the first line, the alternative would be to place the terms "quasi-spiritual/quasi-religious" in the first line. But it seems inevitable that the New Age fact will be clearly presented in the article to help the reader. ATB. Camridge 02:41, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I already responded in the discussion section. The view Camridge, JPLogan, HeadleyDown and DaveRight have presented as very similar and fail to present any counter-arguments. What specific points do you consider Original research? Please move this discussion to the Discussion section below: ---=-C-=- 03:03, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion (please stay on-topic)

  • Spirituality as a component/background of NLP:
  • NLP has a strongly spiritual component. Amongst others, this is clear from Dilt's logical levels (which are a candidate for the overarching Field Theory of NLP). Dilts logical levels includes spirituality as its highest point. So the core field theory of NLP has spirituality as its most important component. Camridge 09:18, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • (Stephen Hunt 2003 P 195) He states that the healing movements that have a spiritual component are mentioned (and he refers to Scientology and NLP)(page 193) Notions of wholeness, mental and physical health are intrinsic to NLP’s new age philosophies. NLP is an alternative version of scientology page 195. Page 135 Hunt says the New Age is becoming more spiritual due to the notion to empower one’s lives rather than transcend them, and the emphasis is on spirituality through self development. NLP is categorized as a healing movement and self development method on page 195. HeadleyDown 15:59, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Oconnor and Mcdermot, (Principles of Nlp 1996 page 203) state that spirituality is an important part of NLP and key to self development. HeadleyDown 15:59, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • In Gonzalez NLP success and personal excellence. 1996 page 33. Spirituality in Dilt's logical levels of NLP is placed at the top of the hierarchy. It is the highest point. He states that people of excellence are conscious of these different levels (page 34) and he states that "the spiritual level points to that which is the cosmos, other people, nature, and God/s"(page 34).Camridge 04:54, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  • In Gonzalez NLP success and personal excellence. 1996 page 35. Gonzalez states that in NLP's perceptual positions, there are the first, second, third and fourth perceptual positions. The fourth position is the highest on the diagram also. This is called the Transcendental Position, or the Creator position. This is where you see the situation from a God's Eye View, and he quotes Dilt's Tools for Dreamers. The fourth perceptual position is seeing through God's/s eyes page 37 according to key NLP practitioners and authors.Camridge 04:54, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  • In Naranjo 2000 (Gestalt Therapy) page 209, He sats Fritz Perls influenced the development of Primal Scream Therapy, Scientology and NLP with his focus on spirituality, especially through the importance he placed upon sensual enactment rituals and mindfulness. HeadleyDown 15:59, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • In his book “"Roots of NLP", R.Dilts, 1983.” Robert Dilts talks about his Energy Meter, which is a method for detecting and changing the spiritual energy level of a practitioner or client. Its used for boosting spiritual energy.HeadleyDown 15:59, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • NLP's New Age sensuality:
  • This view is consistent with much of New Age thinking. And similarly, NLP makes use of magical archetypes and elements in its rituals. NLP's rituals are New Age, as can be seen with the more shamanic ones proposed by Grinder. The pressupositional beliefs are eminently New Age, and contain common New Age slogans. Camridge 09:18, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • In Naranjo 2000 (Gestalt Therapy) page 209, He sats Fritz Perls influenced the development of Primal Scream Therapy, Scientology and NLP with his focus on spirituality, especially through the importance he placed upon sensual enactment rituals and mindfulness. This relates to sensuality as much as spirituality.HeadleyDown 15:59, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Energy in New Age notions of NLP:
  • This is consistent with much New Age thinking. Many NLPers do talk of psychic energy also within the scope of NLP. Camridge 09:18, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • In his book “"Roots of NLP", R.Dilts, 1983.” Page 151 Robert Dilts talks about his Energy Meter, which is a method for detecting and changing the spiritual energy level of a practitioner or client. Its used for boosting spiritual energy. As above.HeadleyDown 15:59, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • New Age Human Potential notions in NLP:
  • NLP is a New Age subject. NLP uses a sliding scale of how "unlimited" the human mind can be, and that is a perfectly inclusive New Age notion. New Age is a neutral term, and I have nothing against it. Its a belief system that NLP developers emulated in the development of NLP. Camridge 09:18, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Beyerstein (neuromythologies of the New Age). Prof Beyerstein says the rise of the New Age human potential movement has accelerated the rate at which genuine insights into the brain-mind relationship are being misused to lend respectability to pseudosciences. He says NLP as a pseudoscience. The list goes on, and I will add to it whenever I feel like it.HeadleyDown 15:59, 3 April 2006 (UTC)


I have provided headings for each subject. Please feel free to add further comment to each point. Lets keep the discussion to each particular topic. Camridge 11:06, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

If you can provide verifiable evidence, I'll include it in my list of similarities and differences. At the moment your points are too general to be verifiable and the connections to NLP are tenuous, ---=-C-=- 11:27, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
I disagree, Comaze. Camridge's points are well supported by the evidence that has already been presented in the discussion and the article. Apart from NLP being profoundly New Age to all readers, the fact can be supported using independent research. I will repeat the facts point by point. HeadleyDown 12:33, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
I think making a list of the contentious issues is worthwhile. I'm assuming you'd put a subheading (eg: Scientology) and then make a list of 3 or 4 POVs with what they say. Once we agree on that we can _later_ work out how best to word that cleanly. ??? Greg 10:48, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Some questions by Comaze regarding Camridge/HeadleyDown's counter-examples
  1. "NLP uses a sliding scale of how "unlimited" the human mind can be" - what does this mean? what is the source for this information?
  2. Beyerstein criticies complimentary therapies that are not supported by experimental research - on what grounds does he base his criticism of NLP?
  3. Stephen Hunt (2003 p.195) states that "NLP is an alternative version of Scientology" - on what ground does Hunt base his opinion?
  4. In 1983 Robert Dilts used EEG as part of his research in Eye Accessing Cues - are you confusing electroencephalogram (EEG) with Energy Meter - can you provide a direct quote from Dilts?
---=-C-=- 01:20, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  • "NLP uses a sliding scale of how "unlimited" the human mind can be" - what does this mean? what is the source for this information?
New Age, according to Hunt, Hunt, Beyerstein, York and Puttick all say that there is some variety within the amount of potential a follower believes is inherent in the human mind/body. Suffice it to say, that not all New Agers say that we have access to exactly 99.9 percent more potential than we are using. Some say that we use only 10 percent of our potential, and others do not specify. But they do agree that we can "create our own reality" using various methods. Beyerstein and Corballis both say that NLP uses the 10 or 1 percent potential usage (in Mind Myths by Sala ed. page 29). So it varies slightly, and that is I believe what is meant by a sliding scale (no fixed gradation). DaveRight 02:08, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
NLP does not use probability or statistics to categorize people. You'd need to present this as a counter-example. ---=-C-=- 02:45, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Beyerstein criticies complimentary therapies that are not supported by experimental research - on what grounds does he base his criticism of NLP?
Beyerstein bases his conclusions on empirical research. As other scientists have stated, there is no reliable evidence of any of NLP's methods being effective, or any support of its "theories". Many of the various methods have been tested. DaveRight 02:08, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
This is too general to be verifiable. On what grounds does Beyerstein make his conclusions? ---=-C-=- 02:45, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Stephen Hunt (2003 p.195) states that "NLP is an alternative version of Scientology" - on what ground does Hunt base his opinion?
Hunt bases his conclusion on that of other sociologists such as Wuthnow, and the fact that NLP's "methods" involve untested scientific sounding terminology. The similarities are many. The idea is that the self must be developed through self development, and this can involve costly seminars or sessions. He does differentiate between them as far as saying that NLP's religiosity is more implied than Scientology. Scientology makes it plain that it is a religion (it has registered itself as such), whereas NLP's followers are religious in the New Age sense.DaveRight 02:08, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
On what basis does Hunt makes his claims? What are the biases of this author? ---=-C-=- 02:45, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  • In 1983 Robert Dilts used EEG as part of his research in Eye Accessing Cues - are you confusing electroencephalogram (EEG) with Energy Meter - can you provide a direct quote from Dilts?
---=-C-=- 01:20, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Dilt's Spiritual Energy Eeter is actually a method as described above. It is a ritual rather than a piece of equipment. Dilts does sell a kind of Emeter technology, but that is different from the Spiritual-Snergy Meter. Cheers DaveRight 02:08, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Are you agreeing that Dilts uses EEG in his research (Dilts 1983)? ---=-C-=- 02:45, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Hello Comaze. We know that Dilts uses an EEG as part of his Emeter (galvanometer). He measures theta waves using this, and he sells the said devices. He is a "psychotechnologist" in the same mold as L Ron Hubbard, according to the literature. That is a different issue from the ritual of the Spiritual Energy Meter. The Spiritual Energy Meter is a ritual involving an arm movement for increasing spiritual energy for NLPers. Camridge 03:44, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
DaveRight's makes these points
  1. Stephen Hunt, M.Hunt, Beyerstein, York and Puttick criticse for rejecting Decartes Mind/body split. NOTE: He considers this to be a "New age" idea
  2. New Agers believe we only use a certain percentage of our potential citing Beyerstein and Corballis (Mind Myths by Sala ed. p.29) - NOTE: I find this very difficult to believe because NLP rejects this type of categorization. This is more likely a general criticism of pop-psychology, not NLP.
  3. "Beyerstein bases his conclusions on empirical research" NOTE: does not specify the specific research or findings being criticised.
  4. Stephen Hunt cites sociologists such as Wuthnow and that NLP has religious elements NOTE: counter examples and biases must be included with this view
  5. (DaveRight agrees that?) Dilts uses EEG (not Energy Meter) in 1983 for research into NLP eye accessing cues.
---=-C-=- 02:45, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Hello Comaze. Sorry, but you seem to have grossly misrepresented DaveRight's account of the literature. I see nothing written about the mind/body split of Descartes. There is nothing critical about the New Age term, it is a term applied neutrally by the said scientists and sociologists.Camridge 03:38, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
NLP does not reject the mind potential idea. It embraces it! It is an intrinsic part of the human potential new age movement. The sociologists do not view it critically at all. It is a neutral belief of NLPers (you have all the resources you need (Dilts et al 1980, NLP The Study of the Structure of .......). Camridge 03:38, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Concerning Beyerstein. It is clear that you have no access to any of Beyerstein's papers or chapters. He cites review studies of Sharpley and Druckman, and more recently cites Lilienfeld and Singer. His views triangulate with other independent sources. Camridge 03:38, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
To my knowledge, there are no counter examples to Hunt and Wuthnow. If there were, I would present them and I understand Dave would do the same. Camridge 03:38, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Dilts uses a technique called the Spiritual Energy Meter. Its not an EEG. It is a ritual using arm movements. Dilts does not use an EEG per se. He uses a galvanometer and EEG (the same as the Dianetics equipment the emeter). Camridge 03:38, 4 April 2006 (UTC)


paraphrased Camridges comments in italics
  1. Contends that "New Age" is used by scientists and sociologists - QUESTION: what are the counter-examples? eg. NLP is criticised as a movement in its own right. The biases of specific authors would need to be identified for this to be acceptable characterization.
  2. Compares the common NLP presupposition that "you have all the resources you need" - QUESTION: The most important part of this was left out - you just need to organise and arrange your personal resources effectively (Dilts et al 1980). Camridge compares this to New Agers idea of "unlimited potential" -- NOTE: this completely ignores NLP's well-formed outcome - it must be humanly possible and you need to be able to make arrangements to bring the resource under your control for it to be a well-formed outcome.
  3. Beyerstein cites review studies of Sharpley and Druckman (1980s), Lilienfeld and Singer (more recently) - QUESTION: now we're getting somewhere :) Can you provide the exact quotes which confirm this?
  4. There is no counter-argument to Hunt and Wuthnow's views - QUESTION: What about David Barrett (sociologist) and the counter-argument from NLP practitioners (eg. John Grinder PhD, Stephen Gilligan PhD, etc.)?
  5. Dilts uses a combination of "galvanometer and EEG" in his 1983 research - QUESTION: I agree with this but don't take this out of context. Attempting to use this to connect it to Dianetics is an error by logical association fallacy.
Please do not move my lists - just quote some text of mine in your reply - the numbers get lost ---=-C-=- 04:56, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Replies from Camridge

Hello Comaze. I did not say or mean that NLP rejects the mind body split. You seem now to have misrepresented my account of things. Camridge 05:16, 4 April 2006 (UTC) No, in this context New Age is not being criticised. It is a neutral term, again you have misrepresented what I wrote. Camridge 05:16, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes this is consistent with New Age thinking. NLPers make liberal use of the human potential movement and so on in order to promote. Bandler states in Time for a change 1983 page i that "NLP practitioners can do today what only a genuis could have done a decade ago" and he talks about amazing human potential. He even states that burns can be prevented using NLP while firewalking. This is not humanly possible (according to medicine), and it is consistent with New Age thinking. Camridge 05:16, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

The quotes of Beyerstein have already been presented. The references section at the back of the papers and books will point you to the correct sources. Camridge 05:16, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

David Barrett presents no counter argument. He states that NLP is not an organized religion such as Catholicism. He says it is explained in his book (Cults, Sects, and New Religions) because it focuses on belief systems. He states that NLP works towards changing both normative beliefs and spiritual beliefs. That is consistent with the New Age human potential healing movements. Camridge 05:16, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi Comaze Nobody is presenting the Dilts emeter as a line in the opening. Please stick to the discussion issues. Camridge 05:16, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Greg's questions

Is this the right place to write this?

  • Camridge says: NLP promoters ... often advertise themselves in the media as New Age Gurus, or the High Priest of the New Age, or New Age Hero, and also "you have presented... original research (OR)"

Hi Camridge. I think you're overstating that (and that's my understatement!). "often" call themselves a High Priest of the New Age? :) At best I'm thinking "very occassionally" or "although rare, sometimes ...." .

I am wondering how we decide how common something is without looking at a few books (or whatever) and saying "yeah, they all say X" or "only half say Y"... is that Original Research or representing something fairly (serious question! mentors ideas too please?) Greg 04:53, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually GregA, to keep on track, we should stick to what is quoted by the most independent sources. As the above list of literature states, NLP authors and promoters are known as New Age Heros, and New Age Gurus. The most independent and reliable sources state that NLP is a New Age development (evidence given above). Of course we can do our own research and check how many NLP books are under the category of New Age in Amazon.com (all to my knowledge) though I believe that is a rather roundabout way of doing things. We have a lot of reliable and eminently verifiable sources presented already. To me it seems to be a done deal in Wikipedia policy terms. Lets just get the lines into the article and move on. ATB. Camridge 05:05, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Are you saying the scientific literature calls them New Age heros or gurus? That would be weird Greg 05:33, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
No I am repeating what is written clear in the literature. NLP promoters are commonly known as New Age Gurus. Camridge 06:07, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Camridge.... sorry, I thought you had said it was scientific literature - how do you class the literature? Greg 10:02, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Greg, Phrases such as "often", "scientist say" or "sociologists say" should be replaced with specific authors who best represent that view. I'm trying to put together a list of similarities and differences between NLP and New Age. Later it might be interesting to do something similar to compare epistemology of NLP with the typical western epistemology. How much weight to assigned to each group of sources will probably require an external (or mentor) comment. ---=-C-=- 05:27, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Comaze... I know you're putting together some form of list and I think my replies may not fit well enough at present - let me know here or on my talk page if there's a preferred method. Greg 05:35, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Lists and OR are inadmissable. Please save everyone's time and effort, and focus on the literature (views of the most reliable sources). Camridge 06:07, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Summary of comments by Camridge
  1. "NLP authors and promoters " are "New Age Gurus" - What are biases of the sources for these claims?
  2. "independent and reliable sources state that NLP is a New Age development" - Without presenting a counter-argument (such as from David Barrett, or from NLP authors) this is in violation of WP:NPOV.
  3. "check how many NLP books are under the category of New Age in Amazon.com" - this would be WP:NOR.
---=-C-=- 05:23, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

My comments on Gonzalez and 4th position

  • So, Camridge quotes Gonzalez: "The fourth position is the highest on the diagram also. This is called the Transcendental Position, or the Creator position. This is where you see the situation from a God's Eye View, and he quotes Dilt's Tools for Dreamers. The fourth perceptual position is seeing through God's/s eyes page 37 according to key NLP practitioners and authors"

1st, 2nd, & 3rd are reasonably well defined as it's based on the linguistic "1st person" "2nd person" "3rd person". 4th person can have some different definitions, though Dilts' definition is most commonly used... So lets see what's out there on the first sites I found searching for "NLP" and "4th position":

  1. "Developed by Robert Dilts, a Meta Mirror is a 4th position added to the 1st. position (as seen through your own eyes), 2nd. position (as seen through the eyes of the other), 3rd. position (observing both your and the other), and the 4th. position which is about how your 3rd position you treat the "you" that is in relationship with the other person. " [53]
  2. "4th Position: The perceptual position of the larger system or systems. The system can see all of the other positions at once, as a whole, and use all of the representation systems to perceive such things as relationships between other positions, effects on the system itself, and systems within systems to any level of magnitude, large or small." [oblique.chthonic.co.za/index.php/2005/06/02/nlp_basics]
  3. "4th Position: The full context and larger system -- company, families, environment, customers, etc." [54]
  4. "This principle is about always opening up to something bigger than the problem. ... It may be similar to what NLP'ers call 3rd and 4th position" Interview with Stephen Gilligan [ppdlearning.co.uk/resources/interviews/gilligan-genius.php]

I didn't find any that talked about God's eye view etc - but I can see where Gonzalez makes his analogy. An overview position sees the whole social situation from a distance (you (1st), them (2nd), and your objective self (3rd))... almost "God's Eye View" of the situation. But only metaphorically. Quoting Gonzalez would be hugely misrepresentative of this.

I'm sure if I'd searched for "4th position" "NLP" and "God" I might have found some using God. But that would be a rather huge filter. Greg 05:33, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Seems like we're getting into content again. 4th or an alternative 3rd position is simply a perceptual position. This is well-defined in NLP. It is sometimes described as a neutral observer position, but the pattern is the same. The personal content that an individual practitioner puts through the pattern or process is totally up to them. The actual content is not part of NLP. ---=-C-=- 05:47, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Hello Comaze and GregA. You seem to be digressing away from the facts as presented by the most reliable sources (and you keep moving my discussoin text around). New age Spirituality, and spirituality are a strong components of NLP according to many writers of books about the New Age, and books about new religions (evidence above). Clear evidence of this is presented in NLP books in general. Dilts logical levels includes spirituality at the top of the diagram. Grinder's perceptual positions was developed from shamanism (according to himself and Dilts) and it includes changing realities and connection with spirituality. NLP is a New Age development. Thats not just my view, that is the view of the most independent, reliable, and verifiable sources, and I believe it is the common view or perception of anyone who has browsed NLP books. Camridge 05:59, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
If you are going to talk to both Comaze and I, please say who you're talking about when you say "you keep doing X". Grinder's perceptual positions do not contain anything spiritual in them - though I must say I have no idea where he developed the patterns from. Dilts' neurological levels place "spirituality" at the top but afaik it's a name given to the same global viewpoint (connection with community and world etc) that I responded to a few hours ago (see Gonzalez a few paragraphs up) - I've definitely heard some practitioners use it in the traditional spiritual sense though!!!. Greg 10:02, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Good gracious, there's a lot to get through here. What's with all the lists and re-stating other editor's comments? This is a very simple issue. State what the sources say about NLP, and explain it in discussion if you have to, without doing original research. To be flexible and constructive, I have a suggestion: Instead of New Age in the opening line, just present the term - quasi-spiritual there instead. Its perfectly valid. Bookmain 06:32, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
How can we characterize these different points of view fairly? ---=-C-=- 07:12, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Hello Comaze. The view that NLP is New Age is commonly held, and to my knowledge, there is no reliable opposing voice. The latest lines of Headley are perfectly clear, accurate, and fair. Even the Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience, (stated neutrally) written by Professor Williams, and about 15 other neutral Phd holders in the book, have classified NLP neutrally under New Age (page 236). Its a neutral term. Its very fair, and it seems to me to be preferable and more accurately descriptive than quasi-spiritual. Camridge 07:25, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Can you please tell us the -full- definition of "New Age" as written by the Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience? Greg 10:02, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
I don't mind you discussing things further as you have given away quite a lot of useful information about EEGs and such, in the process. And I am resigned to having my discussion text regularly moved out of context. But it is clear from the literature that NLP is New Age in every aspect. Every part of NLP attaches and fits tightly with New Age philosophies and beliefs. NLP is commercially, chronologically, philosophically, and in practice, a New Age development. ATB. Camridge 07:25, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Absolutely there's no reliable opposing voice whilever any opposing voice is classified as unreliable :) There are still the original NLP texts and texts from more highly respected trainers. Greg 10:02, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Can anyone answer my question (or does anyone have an opinion) about how to represent fairly whether something is commonly or not commonly said within NLP, without checking a representative chunk of popular NLP books ... where does fair representation start and when does it become OR? Greg 10:02, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Hello GregA. Fair representation relates more to the overall article. That is what matters overall. The line as it stands (Headley's last version) is perfectly objective and fair. ATB. Camridge 10:11, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm sure some of the NPOV tutorial says that it's valuable to represent whether something is a major or minor view, and to disregard entirely if it's an extreme minority view. Greg 10:22, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Hi GregA. Well I'm also looking for resolution here (have been for weeks). So could you give me a couple more lines on why you want to use the human potential term. Regards HeadleyDown 11:12, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
My main issue with the New Age term is that it's too broad and loosely defined. I don't believe in mystical energies, magic, or an afterlife - and nothing I've encountered in NLP requires that belief, including Dilts. I tend to think that NLP can fall under the New Age term but not in any spiritual sense - which is why anytime an author says NLP is "New Age" I want to know how they define New Age. If NLP is New Age in the sense of "developed outside the academic mainstream (US National Committee, Druckman & Swets) - the problem is when people tie that reasoned classification on to 5 pointed pentagrams, to which there's no link. I'm not really up on the term "human potential" except as I've seen it portrayed here, but I'm approaching it the same way - it can be incorrectly tied to spiritual stuff. Greg 11:27, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Hello GregA. You seem to have perfectly described the New Age permissive attitude. Here are some lines from Hunt 2003:
"New Age thinking forces no requirement for the belief in any particular occult or extra-terrestrial existence. Indeed many choose to follow their own light, yet with its scientific bias, the west tends to conflate psychology with spiritual conceptualizations." "The New Age is a pick and mix attitude to spirituality." "The new age therefore is very much an individual approach to spirituality page 136."
We really have to work with the literature here guys. I know some may not like it, but we have nothing better to rely upon. The literature is reliable. JPLogan 02:07, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
On your last comment - which literature though JP? NLP sources should be valid.
It's unclear from your quote as to whether New Age forces no particular belief (but requires _some_ belief), or whether no spiritual belief at all is common in New Age beliefs. I think your quote implies the former as it says New Age is an attitude to spirituality (not that it has no spiritual component).
And do not misunderstand my above post - I am _still_ in total support of saying what NLP says, and how that relates to other concepts if it clarifies and does not mislead. I think New Age can accept no spiritual thinking (as I said) but New Age is generally associated with spiritual thinking (as per your quote) - hence.... say what NLP says, rather than loosely classifying something in a misleading way. Greg 05:24, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Hi Greg. Druckman and Swets do not make a definition the way you say. In Human Resource Development Review, Bjork, Swets, et al say talk about NLP in the New Age human potential movement also. They talk of generals' admission of being in error listening to their gurus. So according to those authors, they really are using the term New Age accurately and in accordance with the sociological literature. I know you said you didn't mind NLP being called New Age, and I respect that. I can also say that New Age is very well defined by the said sociology authors. And it fits perfectly with the clinical psychology/science usage. NLP is as eclectic and encompassing as the New Age, it is as permissive (open minded) in spiritual terms, and the very presuppositional beliefs of NLP correspond with New Age thinking. Cheers DaveRight 04:45, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Firstly - does some new-age group have generals and how does this relate? Secondly, you misinterpret my words - you say I accept placing NLP under New Age- NLP may fall under New Age but specifically as the Druckman & Swets definition which you say I am incorrect about (i'll have to find that quote again - shortly). What I said was that New Age is too broad, and as such can encompass much, but also making it misleading. Greg 05:24, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Druckman & Swets is important as so many future reviewers quote the US National Committees research. And it's online which is great for verification :)
  • "these techniques... were developed outside of mainstream research in the behavioral sciences and were accompanied by strong claims for high effectiveness. The “new age” techniques, many of which grew out of the human potential movement of the 1960s, were getting much attention in the popular press" [55]
  • "The Army's interest ... was propelled by its desire for large and quick enhancements of human performance, by any means available, and by substantial advocacy that fields such as parapsychology offered substantial potential" [56]
  • To put those 2 in context, note that NLP is on page 138, within part II "Psychological Techniques" in chapter 8 "Social Processes" (in contrast to part III "Parapsychological Techniques") [57]
Hope that clarifies this reviews approach to and classification of NLP. Greg 07:19, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry GregA. You have bewildered me! Are you now saying that there is an opposing voice to NLP being called a human potential development? Even after you and Comaze have been pushing for the term human potential? I'm looking for something constructive here. HeadleyDown 12:44, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Sorry to bewilder you Headley. As I said - in my daily life the term "Human Potential Movement" is never used, I may well misunderstand it. I am unwilling to take a definition given here at face value ofcourse as there are too many vested interests. Greg 05:24, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
"NLP is an approach rather than an organization; it is used by several different human potential movements."(Barrett p.431) --'c' 00:22, 8 March 2006 (UTC) Ref: New Believers, David V. Barrett ---=-C-=- 13:37, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Yes, thanks Comaze. That is what I have gathered from the literature in general. [58] When you have NLP titles such as NLP Business Masterclass: Skills for realising human potential[59]its going to be pretty difficult to convincincly deny NLP as part of the human potential movement. And with papers by NLP practitioners such as Richard Bolstad; A global integral vision of NLP for the development of human potential, of course NLP is about human potential. Even companies such as [60] state that Grinder is a human potential author. OK I'll see how it fits in. Regards HeadleyDown 14:32, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Based on HeadleyDown points and sources
  1. Richard Bolstad and Anthony Molden include "realising human potential" or "development of human potential"
  2. According to Inspiritive, "Grinder has written 14 books in the fields of human potential, titles including..."

Note: none of these sources support the HeadleyDown's claim that "NLP [is] part of the human potential movement" It does however support the claim that NLP is used to "develop human potential" which would be another way of saying NLP is used for "self-help", "self-improvement", and "personal development". ---=-C-=- 01:07, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Hello Comaze. Even a cursory glance through the literature and the web is enough to refute your claims. Look at the literature that has been provided for you already. It is going to be exceedingly easy to provide abundant evidence to place NLP within New age-human potential. The NLP literature itself will do it alone. The more independent literature is perfectly clear on this also. NLP's attitudes, practices, and background fit the new age attitudes perfectly - permissive, ecclectic, scientific sounding yet without interest in the scientific method, and so on. Your own admission that NLP is human potential is enough. Lets get the line in and move on! JPLogan 02:12, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi Comaze and GregA. Here is what I have gathered from the literature. Just a few sources:

"The Freudian and Jungian psychoanalysts went on to develop psychosynthesis where you can understand your higher self using the unconscious. Part of the idea was wellbeing was a result of wisdom of the body and body movements. This has made a significant impact on the New Age, in particular that aspect of the New Age known as the Human Potential Movement." Hunt 2003 page 78

And page 137 "There is an observable tendency in the New Age human potential movement to borrow rituals and symbols from ancient magical cultures such as Native American Shamanism, Wicca, and Druidism".

And "New Age Movement" by Dr. Ron Rhodes, Dr. Alan W. Gomes page 6 "The Focus on Human Potential a. The human potential movement is a natural outgrowth of the New Age worldview".

There's a lot more of the same in the books presented above.

So the Human Potential movement really is a smaller part of the New Age movement. The only difference is that the New Age does contain more spiritual elements than the more psychological elements of the Human Potential movement. So as NLP does contain some very explicit spiritual elements it will be both New Age and Human Potential, just as is stated in the literature. So to be both fair and clear it would be best to write the term - New Age-Human Potential processes-rituals - within the first line. Regards HeadleyDown 01:00, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

hehe... I'm not sure whether saying "to be fair" is being fair here :) Greg 05:24, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Summary of HeadleyDown's points
  1. "Human Potential movement" is a branch of "New Age movement"
  2. Human Potential movement uses scientific and psychological terminology whereas New Age has uses spiritual terminology
  3. Claims that NLP is a member of both New Age and Human potential movements
Comments / Reply
  1. The connections made between NLP and Human potential movement are association fallacy - any such association must be attributed to a source
  2. There are more differences than similarities, and the evidence presented is tenuous (observational bias)
  3. Any "New Age" / "Human Potential" characterizations must be attributed to a reputable/reliable source (WP:guilde for controversial articles
  4. identify the biases of the authors making such characterizations. ---=-C-=- 01:07, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Hello Comaze. You have claimed that NLP is not new age, but part of the human potential industry. Your assertion is inaccurate, as the human potential movement is part of the new age. Its like saying the lungs are not part of the body. I believe this matter is settled and good compromise has been made. New Age-human potential is a perfectly accurate and clear way to describe NLP. Both of those terms are correct and part of the literature, and human potential does explain some of the more psychological/obscurantic terminology and notions of NLP. New Age better describes the more spiritual/occult aspects.

I have a copy of Wuthnow and he explains: The new age human potential movement tends to work away from the scientific method, though paradoxically, followers will combine criticism of scientific method with the view that theirs is the future science. Yet the movement has very little interest in conventional notions of scientific testing. page 122 para 1

In the New Age there are various psycho-spiritual systems. The more scientific sounding are the transformative philosophies that are concerned with balance, achievement and personal ecology. page 113 para 2

Does this all sound familiar? All backup can be provided including biases of authors, academic qualifications, and so on. The sources are verifiable and perfectly correct. Furthermore, the inclusion of New Age-Human Potential will be a service to the reader. It is an accurate category and NLP is a perfect example of that sociological/historical/anthropological/scientific area of study. JPLogan 01:54, 5 April 2006 (UTC)


OK, Based upon the facts:

  • NLP is a human potential development (many sources to be added now and whenever very easily) Please add here:----
  • NLP is part of the New Age movement (Lilienfeld, Hunt, Wuthnow, and many others)
  • Human potential development is part of the New Age (Hunt, Wuthnow, and many others above)
  • And that this is a helpful area of study for readers, and it helps them place NLP in their own mental model.

Here is the most appropriate line according to the literature:

  • Latest version according to the literature:

Neuro-Linguistic Programming (NLP) is a set of New Age (Human Potential) processes-rituals and beliefs that adherents use as a means of therapy, healing, and self-development, and is an alternative version of Scientology. Critics consider NLP to be a pseudoscience due to its magical theories of action and lack of scientific support.

The only possible thing to alter (if requested) is the Scientology aspect, and that is only for possible readability. It can remain in the opening as suggested by user Wishingwelldone. Regards HeadleyDown 02:41, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Summary of JPLogan points
  1. New Age movement / human potential movement is an accurate description of NLP. NOTE: this is POV and must be attributed to a source and biases identified. This POV must be avoid in the opening.
  2. psychological terminology and he considers this is to obscure, NOTE: saying that the use of scientific or psychological terminology is obsure is POV and again, this would have to attributed to a reputable/reliable source.
  3. New Age movement has spiritual/occult aspects, NOTE: I agree with this, and some, but not all NLP practitioners buy into the New Age ideas - there are more differences than similarities - counter-arguments must be presented.
  4. New Age-Human Potential is an accurate classification for NLP based on sociological/historical/anthropological/scientific evidence, NOTE: No solid evidence has been provided.
HeadleyDown's points
  1. NLP is classified as a human potential development - QUESTION: by whom specifically? and on what grounds do they make this characterization?
  2. NLP is part of the New Age movement (Lilienfeld, Hunt, Wuthnow, and many others) NOTE: No such evidence has been provided. The links are weak and tenous. For example, there is no evidence that Lilienfeld makes such a statement about NLP.
  3. Claims that Hunt, Wuthnow classify Human potential development is part of the New Age, NOTE: Human potential movements may be a branch of New Age, but there is no solid evidence to say that NLP is a member of "Human potential movement"


All of these points are far too general to be verifiable. NLP is not a single movement or entity, so you'd need to indentify which schools, trainers classify themselves as New Age. If this is criticism, you'd also need to provide the biases of the authors and present the counter-arguments such as Grinder who rejects discussion of energy in discussions of language and thinking, and that NLP is primarily a communications model or approach for modeling human patterning. Also the counter-argument must be presented that some NLP trainers/practitioners who consider spirituality to be personal content and in no way part of NLP whatsoever. ---=-C-=- 04:25, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Hello Comaze. Your summaries of both Headley's and JP's points seem to be larger than the actual points they made. Also, they seem to be different. Please explain exactly why you are interpreting the comments supplied by JP and Headley this way.
The New Age fact is not a criticism at all and does not need any account of biases to have it accepted into the article. I recall that this has been explained over 3 times already. Grinder does not reject New Age at all. He has a particular conceptualization of energy and it fits perfectly with a lot of New Age human potential concepts of energy. The NLPer's view varies on this matter, but it all fits perfectly within the New Age concept. There is already a great deal of literature within NLP books and within sociological, and scientific reviews that says NLP has a strong spiritual component. Dilt's and Grinder, Gonzalez and many others include spiritual elements of NLP as part of NLP. There is enormous agreement on this fact between the various sources. The literature has been presented, corroborated, supported, and the authors have been identified within their various subjects. The facts are admissable. Lets get them in. Cheers DaveRight 04:37, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
DaveRight says, "Grinder does not reject New Age at all" -- on what basis do you makes these claims? What is the counter argument? What baises does Gonzalez hold? Most New Agers belief in this fuzzy kind of energy and things. Grinder's epistemology of NLP makes the point that there are genetic (Darwinian) and learned (Lamarkian) drivers of behaviours in the physical and world of ideas. Both these are fundamentals in NLP and are at odds with the typical fuzzy New Age beliefs ---=-C-=- 04:57, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Grinder's POV on energy
  • "quite intolerant of the fuzzy kind of thinking characteristic of the uncritical importation into discussions of mind of the physical phenomenon of energy" ... "If I specify for you the starting position, velocity, mass, and angle and point of contact of my foot and my dog, Spirit, you will not being able to predict much. " ... "To distinguish this non-conservative interaction - the typical one in living systems - from its counterpart in the physical word, Bateson referred to this as collateral energy." ... "Or again, his brilliant insight that both Darwin and Lamark were correct -- Darwin's evolutionary contracts fit adequately the presently known world of biological forms and Lamark's evolutionary constructs are the drivers in the cultural world of ideas -- is another examples of his steadfast insistence that different patterns are operating in the physical world and the world of mind." (p.xvi Turtles, Grinder & Delozier, 1986)
  • There are neurological limits to our sensory aparatus (that is, we can only sense certain range of frequencies of light, and sound). (Grinder & Bandler 1975; Grinder & Delozier 1986; Grinder & Bostic St Clair 2001) ---=-C-=- 05:33, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Enough II

You know, it'd be wonderful if someone in this discussion said "OK. This is what I want. Remove x and y and replace it with z". Why do you all insist on these long discussions where you just hammer the same points you've hammered for months and months? What does it accomplish? Absolutely nothing. We're now at 500K in this discussion...500K...and nothing has been accomplished. Absolutely nothing. This is not a discussion board. It's an encyclopedia article. I want to see what you want changed and how you want to change it. That's all. Nothing else. I think we all now know what each of you think of NLP. Great. So let's work on the article, shall we? And what I find interesting is that I think everyone here thinks that that's what they are doing. You aren't. You are discussing and discussing and discussing but nothing is being settled. Discussion is wonderful if it leads to something. Discussion just for the sake of discussion is as destructive as an edit war is. It just delays the inevitable conflict that will result once people don't feel like discussing anymore. What I want to know is. Is anybody willing to compromise with others to come to a consensus? That's what we should be focusing on. If we don't, we'll be at this in 2007 and we will be at this same point. I wish I was kidding but I'm not. Enough. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 08:45, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

And I realize that one of the problems with NLP is not everyone agrees on what it is. I think our best bet is to find the things that every NLP group agrees on and then also discuss in the article things that the "fringe" or outside groups see NLP as. I also like the idea of the intro being a sentence of what most NLP groups see NLP as and then a sentence about what the critics say. And I'd also like to see the 2 sides of this debate come to an agreement as to what they want to say...as a group. Right now, we have too many chefs stirring the pot. Let's narrow it down a bit. Again, these are just some general ideas for people to go with. Try to stick to them. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 09:05, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for refocusing us - I absolutely agree with you we need to be firmly focused on the goal. Johntex\talk 11:59, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Change to opening paragraph

Thanks Woohookitty. Well, in addition to my above suggestion, here is another:

  • Adjusted Version (Headley)
  • Neuro-Linguistic Programming (NLP) is a set of New Age (Human Potential) processes-rituals and beliefs that adherents use as a means of therapy, healing, and self-development. NLP proponents consider NLP to be about form and not content, and that NLP can therefore, be applied universally to any subject. Critics consider NLP to be a pseudoscience due to its magical theories of action and lack of scientific support.

I have removed the Scientology phrase (though it could validly be restored), and added another line in accordance with Johntex’s suggestion. The first line is factual and supported by the most independent sources. I consider it to be solid as rock, especially after the huge amounts of support it received above. I have deliberately kept the critic line short (I want things to move forward). Regards HeadleyDown 14:03, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

my changes to HeadleyDown's version...
  1. drop "New Age (Human Potential) processes-rituals" - this is not general enough - I moved human potential to the range of applications
  2. replace "use as a means of" with "have applied to" because NLP is not a complete system in itself it would be more accurately be description as a adjunct to those fields.
  3. drop "and beliefs" - because NLPs attempt to avoid beliefs
  4. drop "use as a means of [...] healing"
  5. drop "due to its magical theories of action" - this is not scientific terminology
  6. replace "lack of scientific support" with "lack of experimental support"
  7. replace "a pseudoscience due to its magical theories of action and lack of scientific support" - this tells the reader nothing. "magical theories of action" and "lack of scientific support" is simply not scientific and does not summarize represent the critics viewpoint accurately.
  8. maybe replace "NLP proponents consider NLP to be about form and not content, and that NLP can therefore, be applied universally to any subject." with a sentence about NLP modeling - .eg. approach to modeling the patterns top performers from any field.
my alternate version
  • Neuro-Linguistic Programming (NLP) is an approach to communication and change, a loosely connected personal development movement, and a set techniques (or rituals) that adherents have applied to various fields ranging from psychotherapy and learning, to management training. It is criticised for its lack of experimental evidence to support its claimed efficacy.
---=-C-=- 00:32, 6 April 2006 (UTC)


  • Headley's adjustment:

OK here is a clarifying compromise

Neuro-Linguistic Programming (NLP) is a set of New Age (Human Potential) processes (rituals) and beliefs that adherents use primarily as an approach to communication, healing, and self-development. Critics consider NLP to be pseudoscientific due to its dubious magical theories of action and lack of experimental scientific support.

  • As before, New Age and Human Potential are probably more solidly supported than any other fact on the article so they remain here.
  • Beliefs are central to NLP, they deal with belief change and presuppositional beliefs
  • “Primarily” is used as we can have a better list further down the opening
  • Change is far too vague and is covered in healing and self development
  • Psychotherapy is too narrow as Bandler and Grinder were healing a wide variety of ills (including allergies) from the start and NLP was based upon the models of 3 healers.
  • I added dubious (a common criticism) to magical theories (which is a term used by scientists such as Sharpley).
  • ”Approach” is a compromise
  • ”Communication” is a compromise
  • Removing the “NLP proponents believe…” is a compromise
  • I changed pseudoscience to pseudoscientific (softening compromise)

Regards HeadleyDown 00:55, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Comaze. Headley's compromises seem generous in the light of the facts. I see no sign of the cult term. NLP is probably the most new age development in existence. I suggest one could say healing and therapy. That would be more accurate I believe. The critic section is quite positively worded. Looks fine to me. Cheers DaveRight 01:59, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Here are some suggested changes to HeadleyDown's comprimises...
  • "New Age and Human Potential" is POV, and could be replaced with more neutral and accurate "personal development"
  • "Beliefs are central to NLP" is inaccurate - actual beliefs are not part of NLP, so this can be dropped
  • "healing and therapy" are vague and undefined - replace with, NLP was initially based on the study of Milton Erickson (hypnotherapist) , Virginia Satir (familiy therapist) and Fritz Perls (gestalt therapist) -- and Transformational Syntax
  • "dubious magical theories" is extreme POV, please remove this.
  • ---=-C-=- 02:37, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Camridge version:

Hi all. Here are my compromises

Neuro-Linguistic Programming (NLP) is a set of New Age (Human Potential) processes (rituals) that adherents use primarily as an approach to psychotherapy, healing, communication and self-development. Critics consider NLP to be pseudoscientific due to its dubious magical theories of action and the negative results of scientific reviews.

  • Again, New Age is extremely well supported and perfectly clarified using Human Potential, (an extremely clear and brief definition of New Age can be provided for the appendix). From the above research, it is clear to me that there is probably no therapy more new age-human potential than NLP.
  • I removed the term beliefs purely for compromise. NLP uses presuppositional beliefs. Its undeniable.
  • Magical theories of action is a perfect and quotable description of NLP's theories, it is based upon psychological terminology, and it is an entirely neutral description of NLP's erroneious core theories according to scientific reviews (Sharpley and others).

ATBCamridge 02:51, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Come on. Surely you can see that "Magical theories of action" is simply commentary and not appropriate for an opening. ---=-C-=- 03:38, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Hello Comaze. There are quite a few therapies with magical theories of action. This is something explained in literature on psuedoscience in therapy in general. It refers to any theory that resembles traditional magic theory. They tend to be associational rather than cause-effect. They encourage magical thinking/magical performance, exactly as NLP does. For example William James' notions have often been described as magical theories. He made quite a few speculative comments in his books, such as those on the subject of spirituality. He is known as a New Age icon, and has inspired the development of NLP according to yourself and according to the literature. ATB. Camridge 03:49, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
This is off-topic. ---=-C-=- 06:12, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Hello Comaze. You asserted that magical theories was commentary, and I have explained that it is a scientifically verified term due to non specific effects and inefficacy after testing. It is as relevant and on-topic as you will get. A scientific or clinical psychology term such as -magical theories of action-, is fine for the first line. It is consistent with both NLP literature and independent studies on NLP. ATB. Camridge 06:43, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
The mentors asked us to work on the article, not engage in endless discussion. This must stop. ---=-C-=- 07:52, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
I agree that some of what Camridge said was discussion, but he is making an attempt to work on the article, which we appreciate. The problem I have with some of what is proposed here is that it is still missing one of the points we've tried to make. We need to make this article as understandable as possible. Who isn't an NLP expert or well versed in NLP is going to have any idea what "magical theories of action" even means. The intro should not have any terms that the layperson will not understand. I'm not saying that magical theories of action is right or wrong, but is there a more understandable way of saying it? I know that the literature uses that term, but that doesn't mean that we can't paraphrase it here.
As far as Camridge's version goes, I want to point out that one of the rules of thumb with Wikipedia is that if someone is confused by a term, they can always click on the link to see what it means. So..."New Age (Human Potential) processes (rituals)" isn't very good Wikipedia form. You can always say "Human Potential" and link to New Age or "processes" and link to rituals. Not saying we are putting a stamp of approval on these usages. Just using them as examples.
My main point here is that we should just make the open as straightforward as possible so that when Joe and Jill Q. Public look at it, they go "oh ok" and not "huh?". Again, we are writing this for them not for experts or people well versed in NLP lingo. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 08:03, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Woohookitty. Here is an adjustment according to the literature and your suggestions:

Neuro-Linguistic Programming (NLP) is a set of New Age processes that adherents use primarily as an approach to psychotherapy, healing, communication and self-development. Critics consider NLP to be pseudoscientific due to its dubious magical thinking theories of action and the negative results of scientific reviews.

Bookmain 08:09, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Close but not quite. :) Again, we can say one thing and link somewhere else. So it'd be [[Human Potential Movement|New Age]] where the text says "New Age" but if you click on the link, it goes to Human Potential Movement. Understood? --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 08:20, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Something more like the description found in "Neuro-Linguistic Programming for Dummies"[[61]] ? ---=-C-=- 08:29, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Woohookitty - may I ask the purpose of saying one thing and linking to something else?
Comaze - what am I supposed to be looking at in NLP for dummies?
Otherwise... I'll see what I can do for ease of reading in the morning. I do think it has to say psychotherapy - maybe I'm too tired.. but the combination of NLP's original models and application should make it an obvious word, it's well understood, and isn't a great deal of the scientific research on NLP refering to NLP applied in a psychotherapeutic context? Greg 13:32, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Sure. The purpose is to avoid using (). There is no reason to say a word and then puts it's definition or an alternate word for the word in (). It's easier to just link the word to the alternate word, especially if we don't have an article on the word you are saying. I know. Sounds confusing. But it really isn't. If the NLP literature uses "ritual" but processes is more straightforward, then it's easier to say processes but make the link to "ritual" than to say "processes (rituals)". Just better style. Looks cleaner. Again, I'm not endorsing the version given here. It's really just to give you guys a small example of what the mentors mean when we say that the article should be as clear and straightforward as possible. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 14:14, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
There was a description in "NLP for dummies" that does not use any jargon. Let's workshop a version of the introduction that we can present to the others. I'll email you. ---=-C-=- 13:40, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks again Woohookitty. I am open to your suggestion. I've made the adjustment above accordingly. Bookmain 08:34, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I changed it again so it says processes but links to rituals. Don't use parenthesis unless it's completely necessary. As I said, it's Wikipedia has this neat function where it says one thing but links somewhere else. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 08:54, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Yes, thanks Woohookitty. Again, thats fine by me. Bookmain 09:28, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Oh interesting! I'd never noticed this before with Wikipedia. Invisible bracketing. Seems to work fine. ATB. Camridge 09:33, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Yes I agree. Good suggestions! I think its fine for the first line. Regards HeadleyDown 10:47, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Now people. Don't get me wrong. :) I wasn't endorsing the first line. So if the pro-NLP folks have an idea that they like better, say so. I was just giving an example of what I mean. Just try to avoid anything that might be confusing to the average reader. And "processes (rituals)" would fall into that category. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 14:17, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Of course Woohookitty. I wasn't assuming so. I was saying I could accept the compromises we have already made. I see no particular problem with removing some well supported aspects, such as beliefs, or adding psychotherapy etc. I do appreciate your help with links. I'd never seen a problem with brackets before. Regards HeadleyDown 15:28, 6 April 2006 (UTC)


Hello again. Actually I have some changes that are more clarifying and more suitable for all parties:

Neuro-Linguistic Programming (NLP) is a set of New Age techniques or rituals that adherents use primarily as an approach to psychotherapy, healing, communication and self-development. Critics consider NLP to be a pseudoscientific cult due to its dubious magical thinking theories of action and the negative results of scientific reviews.

  • I realized that in the literature (NLP, science, and sociology) that NLP uses the term “techniques” in quite a novel way. They use the term techniques, but they all use the term rituals. This is because NLP authors define technique as a kind of ritual, so the clearest way would be to show both.
  • I added the term – cult - because we have a section on that aspect of NLP. I am flexible on this though, and would like to have some feedback from you chaps.

I believe it flows better this way. Regards HeadleyDown 16:25, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes Headley that is clearer. I am also flexible on the cult issue and am open to suggestion. I think it could be possible to add an in-between sentence like you did before. Perhaps, "NLP promoters consider NLP to be the difference that makes the difference." Cheers DaveRight 01:32, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Sure Dave, I don't mind the proNLPers putting the Bateson line in between the two that are already present. Its a bit salesy, but I can't see how we can avoid all promotional language. Thats all you ever get in NLP literature. As long as its not completely misleading or confusing, it should be ok. It really looks like we need to pro-actively present solutions to solve this procedure lag, rather than just wait for suggestions. So:

Neuro-Linguistic Programming (NLP) is a set of New Age techniques or rituals that adherents use primarily as an approach to psychotherapy, healing, communication and self-development. NLP adherents attempt to identify "the difference that makes the difference" in order to make behavioral change. Critics consider NLP to be a pseudoscientific cult due to its dubious magical thinking theories of action and the negative results of scientific reviews.

ATB. Camridge 03:25, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Why do you want to add that line? It's not very descriptive or helpful to readers. And you (Camridge) are saying you don't mind the "proNLPers" putting the line in yet it was Dave who suggested it, and I wouldn't call him a "proNLPer"! :) The only other time it's been mentioned here was by you (at 09:26, 10 March). Greg 05:04, 7 April 2006 (UTC).
Okay - I've had a chance to look at this a bit more. Thank you Headley for the attempt at compromise on the meaning of New Age. You're using the term New Age (which people have a general understanding of), but you say it in the specific sense of "Human Potential Movement" (ie-your link - and this is closer to NLP's history than New Age). I also note that the wikipedia article on human potential also says it is synonymous with Humanistic Psychology which I find interesting and relevant. However, perhaps if we take what you mean by classifying NLP under Human Potential movement (ie the Human potential characteristics that apply to NLP), and combine with what NLP says, we may make it much easier for the reader and more accurate at the same time?
For instance Human Potential movement believes humans can experience an exceptional quality of life, which is certainly shared by NLP. So maybe we could say that NLP promotes a method for enhancing a person's quality of life? The human potential movement also believes that as individuals cultivate their potential it will bring about positive social change at large (both sourced from wikipedia's article, opening paragraph.
How about
  • Neuro-Linguistic Programming (NLP) promotes methods for enhancing a person's quality of life - through helping a person to explore their experiences from different perspectives, by learning how exceptional people do what they do, and with techniques for developing new behaviours. Its approach has been applied to many fields, primarily psychotherapy, communication, and self-development. NLP is criticised for its lack of experimental evidence to support its claimed efficacy.
Just a rough draft but you get the gist. Greg 05:38, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
My only comment on your open is that it's a bit wordy. See if you can trim it down a bit. The "pro" side of the intro and the "con" side should be roughly equal if possible. Otherwise, the language isn't bad. I have problems with "exceptional people". I commented on that below. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 12:40, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi GregA. I’m just suggesting something I think is constructive. It was suggested by proNLPers many times before.

I can’t see much new in your latest suggestion. Quality of life is just one aspect and is already suggested in the personal development term. By saying “primarily” it shows that it can be applied to many fields. The factual information in the line below is correct. But I believe we could add the "exceptional performer" term though. How about this:

Neuro-Linguistic Programming (NLP) is a set of New Age techniques or rituals that adherents use primarily as an approach to psychotherapy, healing, communication and self-development. NLP adherents attempt to learn how exceptional performers do what they do, in order to make behavioral change. Critics consider NLP to be a pseudoscientific cult due to its dubious magical thinking theories of action and the negative results of scientific reviews.

ATB. Camridge 08:25, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Please notice that you're defending the word "primarily" that I did infact _keep_ from your earlier suggestion :). I also note that you're not saying there's anything wrong with what I've said - beyond that quality of life is only one aspect of Human Potential? (I'd be happy to add that people are capable of much more than they normally realise - or is there something else you have in mind?).
Woohookitty has asked us to come up with something we agree on. I disagree with the appropriateness of your cult reference in the opening, especially given the extreme minority of 'magical thinking' theories inherent in NLP. I also still disagree with using New Age when a simple description of what NLP is or proposes (which may be shared by New age) is more accurate, clarifying, and reader-friendly. Greg 08:40, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Hi GregA. I believe we are flexible on the cult term being in the opening. I think the concept you mention (people being more capable) is inherent in the human potential/new age concepts. It also requires further explanation in the article. But it would overload the first line, I believe. The New Age really fits exactly, and with so many strong connections and sources supporting it, I believe it is solid and factual. The cult aspect is also very factual, but I personally have no objection to removing it on the grounds of compromise. I also have no objection to the middle line growing either. eg:
NLP adherents attempt to learn how exceptional performers do what they do, in order to make behavioral change. They believe that NLP can be applied universally to any subject.
ATB. Camridge 09:25, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Looking at Camridge's latest version, my only problem from a clarity standpoint is "exceptional performers". I'd prefer something along the lines of "successful individuals" or "successful people". Why? Well, "performers" could be easily misconstrued to mean only performers, i.e. actors, actresses, etc. And I think it's especially a danger with NLP, which whether it's wanted or not, has alot of celebrity adherents in some of its forms. Plus, "exceptional" is often used for extremely intelligent people and again, that isn't what you mean here unless I am reading this incorrectly. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 10:25, 7 April 2006 (UTC)


Thanks Woohookitty. I see what you mean. Here is an alternative that also includes GregA's suggestions of perspective and universal application, while keeping it brief:

Neuro-Linguistic Programming (NLP) is a set of New Age techniques or rituals that adherents use primarily as an approach to psychotherapy, healing, communication and self-development. NLP adherents attempt to explore experiences using different perspectives and states of mind in order to affect mental, physical, or spiritual advancement. Critics consider NLP to be pseudoscientific due to its dubious magical thinking theories of action and the negative results of scientific reviews.

I have removed the cult term also. Regards HeadleyDown 15:10, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Although we can't have every NLP principle in an opening paragraph :), given that one principle is that 'magic' can be explained through observable means (ie structure of what some people thought was magic) there's no way that criticising NLP for magical thinking will gain consensus. I'm not debating that some people misunderstand NLP in that manner, but you'll notice most scientific studies of NLP don't refer to any magic. Greg 21:49, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Hi Woohookitty,
Regarding "performer", I agree it could be misunderstood and it isn't required so a change is fine.
Regarding "exceptional", the NLP books talking about modeling say "modeling excellence", so that word may be more accurate and answer the issues you raise. For example, my father can successfully bring a boat into a dock, as can I - we're both successful - but my brother has a very natural talent that I considered worth modeling. I'd agree his ability may not be "exceptional" but he was a "model of excellence" for that context. Greg 01:23, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
How about
  • Neuro-Linguistic Programming (NLP) promotes methods for enhancing a person's quality of life. It claims to do this through exploring experiences from different perspectives (and states of mind), reproducing an expert's abilities, and techniques for behaviour change - and its approach has been applied to many fields, primarily psychotherapy, communication, and self-development. NLP is criticised for its lack of experimental evidence to support its claimed efficacy, and some psychologists label it pseudoscientific.
Greg 01:23, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
There are various criticisms of the discipline of NLP (for opening section)
  1. Some of its techniques have had little direct support in psychological and experimental literature.
  2. There are no formally agreed-upon standards for practitioners
  3. There is disagreement and wide variations among individual trainers and practitioners regarding definitions as to what NLP itself is, and what constitutes NLP. There are as many ways of doing NLP as there are practitioners.
  4. NLP has no inherent moral or ethical framework, i.e. it is a set of techniques, whose use are left to the discretion of the practitioner

---=-C-=- 02:10, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

You could add criticism that "NLP does not teach nor use the scientific method". We're not trying to put the whole article (of pros and cons) in the opening statement. In some ways, I guess in an opening statement, it comes down to saying that the scientific community is unconvinced that the experiments showing successful NLP change-work are due to effective NLP approaches. Really, the experiments showing effectiveness don't prove how or why subjects improved - as Camridge and some others said. Greg 02:17, 8 April 2006 (UTC)


Hello I've made some alterations based on the suggestions above:

Neuro-Linguistic Programming (NLP) is a set of New Age techniques or rituals that adherents use universally, but primarily as an approach to psychotherapy, healing, communication and self-development. NLP adherents attempt to explore expert abilities using different perspectives and states of mind in order to affect mental, physical, or spiritual improvement. NLP is criticized for promoting pseudoscientific and magical thinking and NLP is criticized for being ineffective because reviews of experimental studies have shown negative overall results.

  • Scientific reviews such as Eisner 2000, Sharpley 1987, and Singer 1999 and others, call it’s theories magical theories, or magical and mystical theories. It’s a common criticism.
  • I added “expert abilities” and made some changes to the critic section.

HeadleyDown 02:38, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

You are misrepresenting the authors. There is no "scientific review" by Einsner or Singer. Sharpley (1987) is summary of research findings and is probably the most widely published skeptic of NLP. ---=-C-=- 03:03, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
I would say you just increased my disagreement to the whole paragraph :) I doubt you could say that NLP promotes pseudoscientific thinking. Magical thinking may have a specific meaning that I'd agree with (maybe you'd like to clarify), but in such a sweeping statement I'd disagree. You're overgeneralising the scientific findings (though the science discussion belongs in the science section first... then we can reflect our agreement back to the opening paragraph). And your description of NLP now removes general NLP techniques and confuses them in with modeling in a way that I don't think helps understanding.
Again, you haven't disagreed with what I've said have you? - I hope this is because I am deliberately picking something I think we can agree on rather than saying what I think is more accurate (which we would not agree on). Do you agree with what I suggest? Greg 02:45, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
New Age (Human potential), spiritual improvement, magical/mystical is biased POV. Any such characterization would have to be attributed to a source and accompanied by a counter-argument. Its best to leave out the skeptical categorizations from the opening. ---=-C-=- 02:52, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Hello Comaze and GregA. New Age, spiritual, magical thinking, has all been thoroughly supported above. Let me recap: You want to keep out New Age, beliefs, cult, occult, fraud, human potential, spriritual improvement, magical/mystical, and you want to include expert abilities, excellence, quality of life and so on. I know myself and others would like to include extra cult, fraudulent, neurobabble, occult, and remove universaly, psychotherapy, expert or excellence and so on. But we are here to make some kind of cooperative compromise. NLP uses magical terms throughout and calls its books such as "the structure of magic" or "the sourcebook of magic" etc. I belief Headley's version does not need the term universal because it makes it hard to read, so:


Neuro-Linguistic Programming (NLP) is a set of New Age techniques or rituals that adherents use primarily as an approach to psychotherapy, healing, communication and self-development. NLP adherents attempt to explore expert abilities using different perspectives and states of mind in order to affect mental, physical, or spiritual improvement. NLP is criticized for promoting pseudoscientific and magical thinking and NLP is criticized for being ineffective because reviews of experimental studies have shown negative overall results.

JPLogan 03:17, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Compromise. I like hearing that word. This is the kind of discussion we want as mentors. Constructive and on topic. Please continue. :) --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 04:23, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I want to keep general views and not minor views in the opening. I also don't find your comment readable.
  1. The books you quote refer to demystifying magic - ie the opposite of your reasoning
  2. Spiritual is simply an application of NLP, not NLP. Hence my criticism of "New Age" too as it's highly linked to spiritual, and replacing it with what I _think_ we can agree on.
  3. Every NLP training seems to use the word "Practitioner" - so lets use it. Wikipedia policy encourages using terminology the field uses.
  4. You claim we want the word "universally" - I certainly don't want that.
I think my opening covers something we agree on - you don't? Greg 03:46, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Just wanted to comment here. Again, not taking sides. But. I think Greg hit it on the head here. We're going for general in the intro. The body of the article is where we go into specifics. Keep that in mind. As I've said before, I know that NLP is difficult to summarize given that the proponents themselves don't always agree. But we have to attempt. So keep going guys. I'm seeing some progress, which is good. Both sides seem to be trying to work together and that's all we can ask for as mentors. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 04:23, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comaze opening (simple language)

Neuro-linguistic Programming (NLP) is based on the idea that you can find someone who excels at something, find out how they do it, and learn to do it yourself. Its goal is to identify what patterns of relationship between brains, language and bodies exceptional individuals have, to change habits and thinking patterns. Techniques are applied in various areas ranging from psychotherapy and personal development, sports and education to management training and relationships.

There are various criticisms of the discipline of NLP:

  1. Some of its techniques have had little direct support in psychological and experimental literature.
  2. There are no formally agreed-upon standards for practitioners
  3. There is disagreement and wide variations among individual trainers and practiioners regarding definitions as to what NLP itself is, and what constitutes NLP. There are as many ways of doing NLP as there are practitioners.
  4. NLP has no inherent moral or ethical framework, i.e. it is a set of techniques, whose use are left to the discretion of the practitioner

---=-C-=- 03:55, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I was going to mention this before. We'd prefer one paragraph, but NLP is a big subject. If it takes 2, it takes 2. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 04:26, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Hi Comaze. Are you suggesting a replacement for the opening line or more? In some ways it appears as though you're talking about the whole opening section? (ps. I don't agree with the last sentence of #3.) Greg 05:02, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
This is a proposed replacement for the entire opening section - it is currently too wordy and needs to be cut back. There are counter examples to points #1, #2 and #3. eg. Some supporting literature, various standards bodies exist that promote ecological use (NLPta, NLPTRB, Society of NLP). These counter-examples could be presented in the body of the article. ---=-C-=- 05:21, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] HanAntel/DaveRight Opening

Thanks Woohookitty. Here is what I suggest:

Neuro-Linguistic Programming (NLP) is a set of New Age techniques or rituals that adherents use primarily as an approach to psychotherapy, healing, communication and personal development. NLP is criticized for promoting pseudoscientific and magical thinking and NLP is criticized for being ineffective because reviews of experimental studies have shown negative overall results.

NLP is based on the idea that you can find someone who excels at something, find out how they do it, and learn to do it yourself. Its goal is to identify what patterns of relationship between brains, language and bodies, to change habits and thinking patterns. Techniques are applied in various areas due to the claimed ability to use NLP universally.

  • I have kindly kept out occult because magical thinking term are nicer.
  • I go from general to more specified.
  • I didn't list the many applications of Comaze because I would have to list also the seduction, the occult applications, the penis enlargments, the so on...etc.

So I have made compromise in the removing of spirit, in not having occult, and I would like to add also the charlatanry sentence, but I keep it out to move forward. The critik section is small and I think it is generous to NLP if you look at the results of independent literature. Lets go ahead with the facts. Sincerely HansAntel 04:59, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

car

Thanks Hans. Thats very generous. I can make a few subtle adjustments:

Neuro-Linguistic Programming (NLP) is a set of New Age techniques or rituals that adherents use primarily as an approach to psychotherapy, healing, communication and personal development. NLP is criticized for promoting pseudoscientific and magical thinking, and containing exaggerated claims regardless of reviews of experimental studies which have shown negative overall results.

NLP is based on the idea that you can find someone who excels at something, find out how they do it, and learn to do it yourself. Its goal is to identify what patterns of relationship between brains, language and bodies, to change habits and thinking patterns. NLP adherents attempt to identify the relevant factors for success, and apply the results universally to any subject.

Cheers DaveRight 06:51, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi Comaze. People have worked hard to accomodate your preferences here. The terms you mention above appearing in the opening are completely neutral, and supported by the most independent sources, which use the terms neutrally. We have kept out a great many verifiable facts, including mind body and spirit, and the criticism line has been kept very brief for the sake of progress. We have also allowed you to include transformative grammar, when NLP is criticised for not having anything to do with linguistics, neuroscience or programming. Those points could well be placed back into the opening, together with cult, occult, charlatanry etc. However, if you are willing to accept this rather (I believe) generous offer, and accept what is written clear in the literature, then I would say we can continue to move forward cooperatively. DaveRight 07:47, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

DaveRight/HansAntel, We need to be careful when using the terms used by skeptics because it might be setting up a staw man argument - one that allows the opponent (NLP) to be easier to attack later in the article. Let's see if we can define NLP clearly and accurately, presenting both sides (practitioners & critics) in a way that does not imply or state that the other side is more true or correct. Each side should be allowed presents its best argument as per normal scholarly practice. Some POV keywords to avoid New Age, rituals, healing, pseudoscientific, magical thinking, exaggerated claims, "negative overall results", and "universally to any subject" - and also avoid word such as, "cult, occult, charlatanry" because also favour a POV. Some of these points and keywords can be included later in the article if properly attributed to a source, and biases identified. Please point out any terms that I have used which favour a certain POV, and I'll see if I can comprimise. ---=-C-=- 08:32, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Hello Comaze. The terms in the opening are neutral comments of professors of sociology and science. The terms - rituals, human potential, healing, personal development, psychotherapy, and communication are all used within NLP literature. The whole line is entirely correct and neutral. The critic line has been kept particularly short. I present another version:

Neuro-Linguistic Programming (NLP) is a set of New Age techniques or rituals that adherents use primarily as an approach to psychotherapy, healing, communication and personal development. NLP is based on the idea that you can find someone who excels at something, find out how they do it, and learn to do it yourself. Its goal is to identify what patterns of relationship between brains, language and bodies, to change habits and thinking patterns. NLP adherents attempt to identify the relevant factors for success, and apply the results universally to any subject. NLP is criticized for promoting pseudoscientific and magical thinking, and containing exaggerated claims regardless of reviews of experimental studies which have shown negative overall results.

That is more than fair to NLP. DaveRight 08:37, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I object to these lines, phrases, because they are difficult to read, and present a skeptics view without attributing it properly

DaveRight/HansAntel, There is still some POV in your opening - the opening should be general enough so that everyone can agree... Here are some points I disagree with:
  1. set of New Age techniques or rituals
  2. promoting pseudoscientific and magical thinking
  3. apply the results universally to any subject
  4. "regardless of reviews of experimental studies which have shown negative overall results"

---=-C-=- 09:48, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Here is my attempt at rewording DaveRight,HansAntel's version (heavily modified)

Neuro-Linguistic Programming (NLP) is an approach to communication and change. It seeks exceptional individuals to find out how they do what they do, learn it, and teach it to others. Practitioners explore the interrelationships between the brains, language and bodies of successful people, to affect changes in habits and thinking patterns. NLP is criticized for having no agreed upon code of ethics for trainers or practitioners, marketing of pseudoscientific or exaggerated claims, and for having little support in psychological and experimental literature.

---=-C-=- 09:48, 8 April 2006 (UTC)


Hello Comaze. Well, that’s quite different. I don’t wish to get into discussion, but I can see that a reminder is necessary:

NLP is heavily concerned with human potential (clearly stated in NLP literature) and is clearly a part of the human potential movement, as is confirmed by the most independent literature. The most independent literature (sociological and scientific) about NLP places NLP as a New Age development. The human potential movement is an intrinsic part of the New Age. That is clear from the literature. NLP promoters promote through New Age marketing categories. NLP literature is full of appeals to New Age thinking, and it’s core beliefs are fundamentally New Age. Perls is known as one of the founding members of the New Age. Satir and Erickson are both New Age hero’s. Anthony Robbins is known as a New Age guru. Management and human resource researchers also see NLP as a new age development. NLP is a New Age development. It is a neutral term, and many NLPers are very keen on other New Age developments. Sociological and scientific literature on this tend to treat the New Age and NLP very neutrally, and that will be useful for the readers in general. They will all be treated fairly this way. As Dave mentioned, all of the other terms are used in NLP literature (psychotherapy, healing, personal development, rituals, etc). Here is an adjustment.


Neuro-Linguistic Programming (NLP) is a set of New Age techniques or rituals that adherents use primarily as an approach to psychotherapy, healing, communication and personal development. NLP is based on the idea that you can find out how exceptional individuals succeed, and learn to do it yourself. Its goal is to identify what patterns of relationship between brains, language and bodies, to change habits and thinking patterns. NLP adherents attempt to identify the relevant factors for success, and apply the results universally to any subject. NLP is criticized for promoting pseudoscientific and magical thinking, and containing exaggerated claims regardless of reviews of experimental studies which have shown negative overall results.


I have added the term “exceptional individuals”. Regards HeadleyDown 12:28, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I think the method of defining something as New Age has been confused here - it's not a matter of saying "all New Age things have these characteristics!". If "New Age" was strictly definitive, then it would be easy to describe NLP as "New Age" plus certain NLP specific things. However, New Age is a very loosely held term, so if you say "NLP is New Age" it begs the question "in what way?". There are plenty of answers to this question of course - and those answers describe what NLP is.
I've asked many times "in what way is NLP a New Age thing" and made my own guess at how you classify it that way (focussed on improving life, developed outside the academic mainstream) - if you could add to that perhaps it would clarify things. Greg 14:08, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Thats easy GregA. It has been answered in detail in the above discussion, and it can be clarified in the article. Also, New Age is very well defined, and matches NLP in many ways according to the literature. I would also like to remind you that the term "New Alternative Religion" has also been left out of the opening. Regards HeadleyDown 14:54, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
I think it's a little misleading to suggest that "New Age" has been "very well defined" to the lay reader, however I am quite sure that it would serve to conjure up certain images. As a lay reader, when I think of "New Age" I think of chakras and crystals and past life regression hypnosis, and I suspect that's what most other lay readers would think as well. Is that how you mean NLP is defined as new age? Because if not, then it will require a definition, and that is perhaps best left for a later segment. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 15:46, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Yes, thanks Katefan0. That's exactly right. Indeed, a lot of NLP rituals are connected directly with esoteric ideas such as chakras (Dilt's Logical levels is often taught with spirit on the skull chakra and so on) and past life regression is a part of NLP's Time Line Therapy. NLP is New Age in this way because it is eclectic and open in the way it explains those elements. It can refer to "early Jungian or Freudian psychology" to explain it, or it leaves it open to more mystical explanations. NLP allows for openness whether you wish to believe in such things or not. This is a typical permissive and non-judgmental New Age characteristic. Regards HeadleyDown 16:15, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
If I'm understanding you corrctly, you're saying then that NLP can be as much justified by traditional Freudian psychology as it can be through new age practices. Isn't it a little one-sided, then, to only highlight new age in the intro? · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 18:18, 8 April 2006 (UTC)


Oh, sorry Katefan0. I should explain more clearly: New Age philosophies draw from many sources including early pseudoscientific psychology theories of Jung (eg occult archetypes and the use of occult rituals and tarot cards etc) and Freud's more pseudoscientific psychoanalysis notions. They can be mixed up with ideas of energy (scientific sounding), yet with Tai Chi and odic force energy (as in power therapies (eg NLP)). Firewalking is achieved in NLP by "raising one's energy" to the same frequency as the coals. And again these are mixed with common neuromythologies (1percent brain usage, and left and right simplistic dichotomies etc). NLP uses all of these in a very mixed up way and draws them from New Age notions. Some of NLP's higher values are taken straight from Fritz Perls (eg mindfullness he took from Zen, and Spirituality connected to the crown chakra). NLP's higher level concept of nonjudgmentalism is a New Age philosophy (Hunt 2003, Wuthnow 2000 and Heelas 1996). Regards HeadleyDown 00:49, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I had the honour to attend an NLP seminar. It contrasts quite sharply with normal empowerment courses. Instead of having you sit and plan, you are invited to go way beyond your beliefs and connect your goals spiritually with the universe and your fellow mankind. First are the rags-to-magical prosperity stories and transformations, then you are taught how to align yourself with your mental physical and spiritual resources (NLP logical levels). Then you align them with others using body language (mirroring). This in a seminar session leads to "spiritual" experiences of connection. In real life it sometimes leads to irritation and insult. Then you are told to make a magic circle, fill it with light and resources using any symbol of meaning to you, and you test it by stepping in and out to feel the energy contrast. You then step inside and imagine yourself being successful in scary situations (public speaking, presentations etc). Take a look at a New Age book on spells and rituals. The methods are exactly the same. As with NLP, casting a circle is optional, but the visualizations are essential to both. Make sure you wish for something that aligns with your higher spirit or values (ecology is important). Make sure each part of you agrees, and if it doesn't you ask each part of yourself to converse and agree using your higher self as a meeting point (NLP parts negotiation). NLP uses both very esoteric terms, and just like other New Age books on occult, they like to explain things using outdated neuroscience or psychology. I have nothing against people believing in this if they want it to be part of their value system, but I do feel some ethical concerns about it being sold as science or technology for therapy. I think purely as a New Age alternative religion its fine by me though. JPLogan 01:59, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
Sure JP. Here's a typical New Age company: [62] Regards HeadleyDown 02:23, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
I must say that I find this aspect of NLP quite appealing and novel (attachment to eastern philosophies). I believe a lot of readers may take a fancy to it also. These novel connections are abundant in the literature. Regards HeadleyDown 16:18, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Previously I commented in criticism of NLP: "3. There is disagreement and wide variations among individual trainers and practitioners regarding definitions as to what NLP itself is, and what constitutes NLP. There are as many ways of doing NLP as there are practitioners." Thus, it is important to begin to make distinctions about trainers who use new age descriptions and those who do not. The trainer(s) you refer to obviously include new age terminology in their explanation of NLP. Please include their names & any reputable/reliable references. ---=-C-=- 06:22, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
Hello Comaze. There is general agreement between the more independent and more neutral sources (Science and sociology) that NLP is a New Age development. NLP is generally seen as a New Age development (firewalking, magic circles, incantations, structure of magic, sourcebook of magic, advertisements in New Age categories, psychic seduction, NLP shamanism, and so on). There is variety in the (not so different) streams of NLP, but they all seem to agree that NLP is about human potential. The human potential movement is a part of the New Age according to the more independent sources. I understand that there is quite a lot of in-fighting and competition between the various "schools" or companies of NLP. But they all use the same basic New Age beliefs, and they all use ritualistic methods of change or improvement. They are all New Age according to the more independent sources. Regards HeadleyDown 07:48, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
I don't know if we have an adequate definition of new age. Who categorises firewalking, the structure of magic and sourcebook of magic as being new age? Anthony Robbins runs firewalking events, but does not categorise himself as involved in the new age movement in any way. On the other hand, I don't know who practises shamanism and psychic seduction but I assume they would consider themselves part of the new-age movement. Assuming that only a certain portion of practises concerning self-improvement are subsumed under the category new age, it is fair to say that not all NLP trainers or writers involve new age principles. Others do, by their own definitions. The original 'magic' (structure of magic) discussed by Bandler & Grinder was an anti-mysticism perspective, declaring that the skills of experts have are learnable, and not just magical abilities beyond human comprehension. If we can agree that the original books: Frogs into Princes, Structure of Magic & Patterns of Milton Erickson did not involve new age principles then we can make progress. ---=-C-=- 08:42, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
Hello Comaze. Original research is not an option. Independent sources corroboratively state that NLP is New Age, NLP literature claims to be about human potential, that is a part of the New Age, and they advertise in New Age categories and bookshelves. Both Bandler and Grinder (the originators amongst others) practice shamanism and/or Wicca(Western European Magic). They also both explicitly teach shamanic/magic rituals in their seminars. They have never been anti-mysticism. They both have their own definitions of energy, spirit, etc, and they all agree with New Age notions. NLP is built upon modeling New Age heros (Perls, Satir, and Erickson). Like a lot of New Age followings, they use the neuro label. This is not my research, it is the research of sociologists and scientists. Sociologists place NLP as part of the New Age, together with Scientology, Primal Scream Therapy, Rebirthing, Spirit Therapy, Landmark Forum, and others. Scientists place it among the same group. NLP is a New Age subject. Regards HeadleyDown 09:11, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok here’s another option: "New Alternative Religion". I believe New Age is more useful to the reader though. A reader will be wondering several things: Is NLP a kind of programming language? It is a kind of linguistics? Is it neuroscience? When was it discovered? Who uses it? What for?

New Age techniques or rituals will conjure several images: Mainly the use of visualization and altered states involving a set of beliefs/attitudes, and some physical actions. This is exactly what NLP is about. As Katefan0 suggested before, it also conjures images of transcendental improvement, chakras, mantras, magical words, eastern philosophies and therapies etc. Again, NLP uses all of these things and it’s rituals explicitly involve these things.

Amazing human potential, you “create your own reality”, your intentions are ultimately good, and so on… New Alternative Religion is a very correct term, but New Age makes the whole NLP “toolbox” accessible to the reader in the first line. And the most independent research strongly supports the term. Regards HeadleyDown 09:52, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Headley, you have made a number of claims and it is important to examine them carefully

  1. "Bandler and Grinder practice shamanism and/or Wicca"
  2. "Bandler and Grinder explicitly teach shamanic/magic rituals in their seminars"
  3. "Bandler and Grinder have never been anti-mysticism"
  4. "Bandler and Grinder have their own definitions of energy, spirit, etc, that agree with New Age notions."
  5. "Perls, Satir, and Erickson are "New Age" heros"

These are contentious claims and require backing up with references, or striking from the record. Grinder has not practised shamanism, wicca, magic rituals, or talked about 'spirit' in a mystical way He has never stated that you 'create your own reality'. He has said that you create your own maps of reality. Grinder has not said that peoples' intentions are ultimately good, just that they are useful. In his latest publication (Malloy, Bostic St. Clair & Grinder, 2005) Grinder describes his view of embodiment, which rejects the Cartesian mind-body split and the idea of mind as being separate from the body. This is somewhat different to the new age concept of spirit, energy, etc.

Full citation (Malloy, T. E., Bostic St Clair, C. & Grinder, J. (2005). "Steps to an ecology of emergence". Cybernetics & Human Knowing Vol. 11, no. 3: 102-119)

Robert Dilts in his model of Neurological levels refers to something called "spirituality." John Grinder & Carmen Bostic St.Clair, in "Whispering in the Wind," have this to say about "spirituality": "[Spirituality] represents an excursion into content and personal preference... We have no particular quarrel with anyone desiring to pursue any theme on a personal level but we urge that such enterprises ... not be pased off as a legitimate part of the field of NLP."

Thus Grinder does not accept 'spirituality' as a legitimate part of NLP, and it is important to recognise and fairly represent the view of this particular co-creator of NLP. Categorising NLP as a field as "new age" would seem to thus be unfairly unrepresentative.

Fritz-Perls was the founder of Gestalt therapy. Satir was the leading developer of family therapy. Milton Erickson was the founder of modern hypnosis & founding member of the American Society for Clinical Hypnosis.

These people did not describe themselves as having any connection to the 'new age.'

  • HeadleyDown said "Independent sources corroboratively state that NLP is New Age," and
  • "And the most independent research strongly supports the term."

These are opinion and should be cited as such, not as research. Other opinions must also be represented fairly, such as Grinder's, above.

  • HeadleyDown said "As Katefan0 suggested before, it also conjures images of transcendental improvement, chakras, mantras, magical words, eastern philosophies and therapies etc."

Many NLP practitioners enjoy these associations. These NLP practitioners and their beliefs should be represented. However, others practitioners certainly do not enjoy or respect these associations, and thus defining NLP as new age would not be a balanced or fair representation of the field, according to its practitioners and at least one of its co-creators. ---=-C-=- 12:11, 9 April 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Differences among NLP groups

Sorry Comaze, abundant evidence is presented above and there is a lot of other evidence we can add if you really want to. Grinder is a human potential author according to NLP sites[63], and the human potential movement is a part of the New Age. Dilts writes about Grinder: “The double induction process was developed by Grinder from a ritual from Yaqui sorcerer in Carlos Castanedas books. Don Juan's ritual of horizon and hara connection was used to develop NLP perceptual positions which help to completely move the attention or energy (self) to another reality.” “NLP’s first attention and second attention were developed from the shamanic sorcery of the tonal and the nagual”.

Also, spirituality is not a mandatory prerequisite of either human potential or New Age thinking. It can involve mystical and magical theories and activities that do not involve the concept of spirit. I’m not accusing Grinder et al of anything criminal. New Age is a neutral term. Grinder’s works include the Shamanic and New Age works of Carlos Castaneda in their writings, and they include Native American Indian Shamanic rituals in their seminars eg [64] LeDozier states: “I'm going to give you a little exercise to allow you to experience New Coding. It comes from the native Americans and is called active dreaming.” And [65] Coaching presence; Grinder's three components necessary to make a change: Outcome Rapport, Ritual, Holding the Space-way of the Shaman Multitasking drill, Praise vs. Acknowledgment.

[66][67] [68] [69] [70]

Page 18 using your brain for a change Bandler; “When you make up a new reality, you'd better be sure that you get some friends to share it, or you may be in big trouble”

Bandler and Grinder page 54 Frogs into princes: Where you really have a choice is when you can go from one reality to the other, and you can have a perspective on what's going on.

The Right Brain Manager (Alder 1991) “You create your own reality” Page 73.

I could go on giving evidence all night, but I believe that would probably lead to the terms “quasi-spiritual, Scientology, charlatanry, and cult being added to the opening lines due to the resulting indisputable evidence. Lets keep this constructive. Regards HeadleyDown 13:34, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

This is obviously a point of dispute; therefore it must be characterized as such. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 13:43, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
Sure, Katefan0. How do we go about doing that, and what kind of dispute do you mean? Regards HeadleyDown 14:29, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
I mean that there are obviously some portions of NLP that could be considered new age, and some that could not. As comaze said above, some practitioners specifically refute those practices. If you want to use new age in the intro, then I would suggest something along these lines (obviously cleaned up): "Some NLP practicitioners derive their techniques from new age philosophies; others do not." Simple. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 14:46, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
Exactly. NLP is splintered among several points of view. The intro should at least mention that or allude to it. Otherwise, it sounds uniform. It isn't. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 14:59, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
Absolutely worth expressing these differences. Instead of "deriving" their techniques... perhaps "Some NLP practitioners modify their techniques to include spiritual philosophies, others do not". (I still find saying "New Age" a little too open). This doesn't really reflect the greater diversity of NLP applications (yet).
Note of course that there ARE certain beliefs that are endorsed by all of NLP as _very useful_ (though not necessarily true) - and these are called the presuppositions of NLP. And again SOME NLP practitioners believe them to be true, some do not. (And some of these beliefs are shared with other fields, including New Age beliefs - like "you have all the resources you need to make a change"). More soon. Greg 03:01, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
OK, trying to avoid endless discussion here. I have a suggestion for the opening, but I believe the variety between NLP groups is more concocted and "promotional" than real. So:
The various NLP companies claim to have different approaches to NLP.
I believe that could be appropriate. The more independent sources on NLP simply say that NLP is New Age, and refer to presuppositional beliefs, nonjudgmentalism, eclecticism, the claim to a future science-yet refuse to accept scientific testing and so on. NLP promoters wish to promote their own style, much the same as occultists wish to promote their own particular type of magic. It may be more appropriate to state that NLP promoters will attempt to sue each other for the rights to intellectual property. Thus, I actually believe there is really no need for the line at all, within the opening because it is too obvious. ATB. Camridge 03:45, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Wow, that response surprised me. You're actually saying that NLP groups do not differ - it's the opposite of what you and others have said so often (ie "Grinder's approach doesn't reflect all of NLP" etc). As for the rest - it all belongs in the article, just not in the opening. And I'm not sure that using "non-judgemental" and "eclectic" as the reason NLP is New Age is particularly useful. Greg 04:00, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi GregA. I'm not particularly interested in discussing this point. I believe you have taken my statement the wrong way. But I have offered a compromising short sentence that could be appropriate for the opening. What do you think of it? Camridge 04:07, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Want to step in here. "Claim" is not a NPOV word. I'd use "state" or something to that effect. Claim makes it sound like they say it but they don't necessarily mean it. It's your view that there aren't "real" differences between the groups but the article must take a neutral view. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 09:15, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Thanks Woohookitty. Thats nice and easy to alter. ATB. Camridge 09:40, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Energy

Yes I see something about energy. But there are no statements that say Grinder et al do not derive techniques from New Age philosophies. Grinder only mentions the New Age concept of spirit and energy. The only thing we can say is that Grinder disputes the New Age notion of spirituality and energy in NLP. However, he also says you can send your energy to various realities. According to the literature, NLP advocates have been designing their product with New Agers in mind. Thus, it includes New Age concepts of non-judgmentalism, eclecticism, mind over matter, "you create your own reality", neuromyths, elementals, archetypes, and so on. There is no reliable evidence to say NLP is not New Age. There are abundant admissions in the literature that NLP is about human potential. The human potential is a part of the New Age. It is compromise enough to put the useful phraze New Age in the first line, and then link to human potential. There may be some splintering in NLP, but in a general sense its all the same especially regarding New Age. However, I think I have another idea. How about this compromising characterization:

Neuro-Linguistic Programming (NLP) is a set of techniques or rituals that adherents use primarily as an approach to psychotherapy, healing, communication and personal development. NLP is based on the idea that you can find out how individuals succeed, and learn to do it yourself. The goal is to identify what patterns of relationship between brains, language and bodies, to change habits and thinking patterns.

Most of NLP’s rituals and beliefs, and philosophies are derived from the New Age movement. NLP is criticized for promoting pseudoscientific and magical thinking, for being a cult or cult-like, and being promoted using exaggerated claims regardless of reviews of experimental studies which have shown negative overall results.

Actually, I believe this is a reasonable compromise for now, while we clarify the New Age aspects in the main body of the article. Regards HeadleyDown 15:18, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Headley. I do think the new line is inaccurate though, considering there are so many reliable sources saying it is New Age, and no reliable sources denying it. So I propose this slightly more specific version:

Neuro-Linguistic Programming (NLP) is a set of techniques or rituals that adherents use primarily as an approach to psychotherapy, healing, communication and personal development. NLP fosters New Age notions and beliefs such as altered states, altered realities, the collective unconscious, and magic.

NLP is based on the idea that you can find out how individuals succeed, and learn to do it yourself. The goal is to identify patterns of relationship between brains, language and bodies, to change habits and thinking patterns. The various companies and groups of NLP claim to have slightly different approaches to NLP. NLP is criticized for promoting pseudoscientific and magical thinking, for being a cult or cult-like, and being promoted using exaggerated claims regardless of reviews of experimental studies which have shown negative overall results.


Cheers DaveRight 01:50, 10 April 2006 (UTC)


Great, thanks Davey. Thats much better. I tidied it a little bit. ATB Camridge 02:32, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Yes, thats good. It looks in neutral and ready to roll. Bookmain 10:35, 10 April 2006 (UTC)


The sentence looks fine. I'm sure more detal can be provided in the main body of the article. I've added it to the opening with a slight adjustment. Regards HeadleyDown 12:10, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Varying Approaches

My initial thoughts are that it looks foolish to say the groups of NLP 'claim' to have slightly different approaches if in the main article we are showing multiple approaches. I think "the relationship between brains, language, and bodies" isn't very user friendly (I think Comaze wrote that?). And as with all the other objections - altered reality? collective unconscious!?!?, magic & magical thinking?, cult like?, etc. Altered states is okay but why's it New Age? Don't scientists believe you can be happy or sad (that's 2 states!)? Greg 14:15, 10 April 2006 (UTC)


Hello GregA. It is a claim of NLP groups that they have different approaches. There is a split and it is more of a marketing ploy than anything else. There are “new improved” versions, and other alphabet therapies are counted as NLP by the more independent research. I believe you are right about the brains and language thing, but I didn’t remove it because Comaze seemed to like it. Altered realities is a core theme in NLP. You choose to adopt a particular reality. I posted a lot of literature above that demonstrates this. It is a New Age notion. Altered states refers to trance/theta state. That is also a New Age neuromyth. Collective unconscious is a New Age notion and NLP uses it in a very New Age way according to the research. The criticisms are extremely solid and supported by triangulated and corroborating research. Here is another suggestion:
Neuro-Linguistic Programming (NLP) is a set of techniques or rituals that adherents use primarily as an approach to psychotherapy, healing, communication and personal development. NLP fosters New Age notions and beliefs such as altered states, altered realities, and magic.
NLP is based on the idea that you can find out how individuals succeed, and learn to do it yourself. The various companies and groups of NLP differentiate themselves by using slightly different approaches or emphases. NLP is criticized for promoting pseudoscientific and magical thinking, for being a cult, and being promoted using exaggerated claims regardless of reviews of experimental studies which have shown negative overall results.
Regards HeadleyDown 15:20, 10 April 2006 (UTC)15:17, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
I have beed reading the whole discussion about the opening line, and sorry for being late. Sure, there is a split in the NLP community. I have to give a few corrections to some claims. Anthony Robbins is not an NLP trainer and does not teach NLP. When he did, he did not use the "New Age" language to describe what is is. To use Anthony Robbins as a source, you have to use "unlimited power" witch is his only "NLP" product. Anthony Robbins have made his own thing, based upon some of the same thinking that NLP is based upon. Firewalks is not NLP. Anthony Robbins uses firewalks as am metaphor for potensial. There is no firewalks in NLP trainings. Time Line Therapy is not NLP. TLT is a stand alone trademarked "tool". Just as Gestalt therapy is not NLP. There is some time line techniques as a part of NLP, but those does not include Tad James trademarked Time Line Therapy with "age regression". Robert Dilts "spirituality" level in logical levels, plus other claimed "spiritual" elements does not at all repressent NLP and what it is. I have talked to people who have attended NLP seminars and trainings by most of the known NLP-personas since 1988, and have never found any applicable uses of "spirituality" for any reason, and it does not represent what NLP is. "Collective conciousness" is not something that is found in NLP trainings and common books about NLP. In case this really have been found somewhere, it is a single persons own interpretations and does not represent a common view. Tai Chi, meditations and other similar things is not common in NLP trainings, but occour sometimes, if the individual trainer is also into that and the participants are interrested to add that. Those people have the same interrests, but all this is not NLP.
I have no problem understaning that some people can categorize NLP as new age if they believe NLP contains magic, spirituality, collective consciousness, age regression and so on. It does not. Grinder and Bandlers book "structure of magic" is not about magic. It is about "generalisations", "deletions" and "distortions" in language. Maybe a micropart of Tad James branch has more, because Tad James is also a Huna trainer, and tries to sell his Huna seminars when he teaches NLP. Maybe a micropart of what an other NLP trainer teaches has a micromart of the word spirituality, but it does not at all represent NLP and what it is. Further, Ross Jeffries's psychic seduction is not NLP and is not based upon NLP. Yes, Ross Jeffries have made his own product called Speed Seduction which is based upon NLP thinking. There is a big difference and there is no psycic stuff there. If a bookstore clerc or librarian have categorized some NLP books in the new age section does not mean NLP is new age.
My point is: NLP is just as spiritual and new age as clinical hypnosis, gestalt therapy, famliy therapy and coaching. This is an importaint point because most NLP trainers nowadays are working with eliminating false teachings based upon old models and beliefs. Parts defined as pseudo science are being removed there is being added new improved models and teachings. That is why NLP changes over time. NLP trainers and practitioners have always wanted NLP to be treated seriously, and to make changes for that to happen. What is why you will find NLP business trainings, NLP coaching trainings etc. Sure, NLP have been markeded in magazines for new age, meditation and further. Because the trainers/companies have found those magazines to be effective. Not because they believe NLP is in fact new age. Guess what, you will also find advertisement for clinical hypnosis, gestalt therapy, shampoo, aloe vera and webdesign in the same magazines. People will market their product where it is most effective.
I had to say this because there have been many biased claims that is not backed up. Some of you are generalizing a lot just by reading a sentence by someone who have not actual knowledge of the subject (NLP). To write a fair article about this subject you must at least have correct facts.
Regards peaktrigger 01:35, 11 April 2006 (UTC)15:17, 10 April 2006 (UTC) -peaktrigger
Hi Peaktrigger and welcome. Take a look at the literature, specifically the literature of Singer, Eisner, Beyerstein, Hunt, and Lilienfeld. Tony Robbins is considered an NLP promoter according to these and many other sources. He used NLP as a method of achieving the firewalk. The firewalk is still used as a part of NLP training, and NLP became popular partly because of the firewalking ritual. Timeline Therapy and past life regression is a part of NLP according to Hall and Bodenhammer 1999. Many other NLP and more independent sources place these as a part of NLP. Collective conscious is found in multiple NLP sources and it a part of New Age thinking. Spirituality is also a key element of NLP. This has been presented in many sources. The more independent sources call NLP a quasi-spiritual development. And according to that literature, NLP does involve magic, spirituality, age regression, and collective conscious (Hunt, Beyerstein, Sharpley, Singer, Liliefeld and so on. Therefore, it is New Age. NLP authors claim that NLP is about human potential, and they refer directly to human potential movement concepts. That also places NLP as New Age.
The parts you say defined as pseudoscience are still being taught. Eye accessing cues are a part of every new NLP book on the shelf, even though they were falsified over 20 years ago. The neuromyths are also still being promoted in NLP literature, and conflated with spirituality. Shampoo and clinical hypnotherapy is not referred to as New Age. But NLP is New Age(according to both popular media and more independent sources). The facts presented in the latest offering below, are very solid and accord with the most independent sources. A great deal of criticism has been omitted for the sake of progress. ATB. Camridge 03:48, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Hi Camridge, thanks for the welcome. I absolutely agree to much of the criticicm, and think there is some very valid claims. There are some distinctions that is important to get, to know what NLP really is, and what it is not. Tony Robbins USED to be a promoter of NLP. That was when he himself was teaching NLP. His new books, seminars and products does not include NLP teachings. Please give examples from his new products to where he are teaching material from NLP. You can use NLP as a method of acheving anything, just as you can use a hammer as a tool for opening a bootle if you want. That does not mean the bottle is a part of the hammer. The firewalk is still a part of Tony Robbins seminars (which is NOT NLP seminars) and a few others. Firewalks is not part of general NLP trainins. Those are very rare, even if they does occour. Time Line Therapy is not the same as Time Line Techinques. Those are two quite different methods. In Time Line Therapy the client is asked the following quiestion: "Was your first experience of the problem before or after your birth?" If the person believes in past lives, the time line is corrected for the experience that the person believes about the past life. This is the whole past life regression part. This is not part of the NLP Time Line techniques. Tad James (Creator of Time Line Therapy, and owner of the trademark) have had disputes with persons who teach Time Line Therapy in NLP classes, and have sued them for this. I would very much like to know what "key element" part of NLP is considered spiritual, and where the collective consciousness part is explained. Can you give some examples and sources? I know there still are certain pseudosience being taugth, and that is changing. From the start in 1973 to today, there have been added and removed/replaced material. I agree that there still is a bunch of pseudoscience as part of the NLP teaching today. I do not agree that a main part of NLP is spiritual. There are spiritual NLP teachers, who have mixed in some of their own belief. That is not part of the general NLP teaching, and does not occour in the mainstream NLP books, seminars etc.

peaktrigger 21:47, 11 April 2006 (UTC)


Hi Peaktrigger. Thanks for your comments. But we can only go by what is written in the literature. Original research is not an option here. Your objections are to the facts presented in corroborating books about NLP and to the NLP books themselves. What we need here is to present the views of researchers of NLP in order to make a neutral article. Regards HeadleyDown 00:50, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Hello peaktrigger. Robbins pays homage to Bandler and Grinder still, and he is mentioned in both academic books and in the media as teaching NLP. The amount of views that have Robbins as teaching NLP is overwhelming (eg, Singer, Lilienfeld, Carrol, and so on). The Firewalk is only one occult ritual that occurs in NLP There are many others including casting magical circles, sending energies out to the audience, and so on. Both Time Lining and TLT are used to faclitate past lives exploration/therapy. A common New Age philosophy is that you can (if you like) go back and explore your past lives. Bandler and James have claimed that they have found more than 30 of their own past lives. These often include lives of public figures and heros. I have no problem with them believing that. There are several elements of NLP that are spiritual. You will need to look at theories of the human potential movement to really understand it. The obvious are Dilts logical levels, and Grinder's perceptual positions (developed from shamanism and altered realities). And in line with Maslow, NLP uses the concepts of transhuman experiences, such as peak experience (most seminars), connection outside of the self (rapport with others and with your visions). The human potential movement instills spirituality into well formed outcomes, and other such methods. Spirituality was also taken from Perls' concepts and use of eastern philosophies (mindfulness and Zen). Belief is also a key aspect of NLP. All NLP seminars involves indoctrination to a particular set of beliefs (presuppositional beliefs). There is no functional difference between taking on a belief as if it is real, or simply believing it. This is all backed up by independent researchers (Singer 1999, Lilienfeld 2003, Eisner 2000, Carroll 2003, Drenth 2003, Levelt 1995, and so on). Cheers DaveRight 02:09, 12 April 2006 (UTC)


Okay, so you (Headley) and Camridge have both done a backflip on 'differences in NLP'? I've made it quite clear that my training has no magic, no 'new age' beliefs, operates on a pattern level entirely, not sure what a theta state is though there is trance, and no collective unconscious. Each time I've said it you've said something like "the version of NLP you learned is not definitive of all NLP trainings".
If you want to say there is only one version of NLP then we would have to make it the core common threads of different NLPs, which happens to be pretty similar to that defined by the co-creators and a few other notable NLPers in seminal books, and is also the focus of scientific research (which have no spiritual component, unlike books reviewing NLP). I can accept that. It does mean including the fact that they use spiritual metaphors and refer to spiritual experiences, but in the context of reproducing these effects through demystifying them. Personally, I think that it can be done, but it will be misleading if we say all NLP trainings teach this. For instance - NLP practitioners do add their own beliefs, spiritual or not, to what they do. Even Grinder and Bandler have different approaches. Given the broad agreement we had on this for the last 6 months I've got to wonder why you decide to present this difference now.
Also, if research classifies non-NLP therapies as NLP, when NLP does not class them as NLP, what does that say? - and how do we present this research on "pseudo-NLP"?
So let me give it a try:
Neuro-Linguistic Programming (NLP) promotes methods for enhancing a person's quality of life, and is based on the idea that you can find out how experts (or non-experts) do what they do, and learn to do it their way. It fosters a new way of looking at any subjective experience, and also includes processes for exploring experiences from different perspectives (and states of mind), as well as techniques for behavior change. NLP's approach has been applied to many fields - primarily psychotherapy, communication, and personal development.
While the core concepts and approach of NLP is shared by the various NLP groups, many differentiate themselves in their beliefs and how they present NLP. Some promote themselves as teachers of spiritual (or related) experiences - and NLP's claim to be able to reproduce an experience has made it popular for people wanting specifically to have a profound spiritual experience. NLP groups which also teach spiritual concepts sometimes make sensational claims which stand out, and observers confuse NLP with the spiritual experience it is studying.
NLP can study any field, and actually claims to demystify New Age notions and beliefs such as altered states, spiritual experiences, and magic - by studying what the person experiencing these phenomena is actually experiencing. While staying in the physical world, without resorting to any mystical explanations, NLP can also teach someone to have certain experiences - this can be business focussed states to spiritual ones.
NLP does not teach the scientific method, instead it teaches modeling. It is criticised for its lack of experimental evidence to support its claimed efficacy - while experimental results do show people undergoing therapy using NLP do see positive changes, the experiments do not definitively show what is causing their improvement.
That's the best I can do to resolve what Headley in a neutral way. I think it's far too wordy, but I've lost track of what we're trying to achieve.

Greg 01:04, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

ps. welcome peaktrigger :)
Hello GregA. There has been no backflipping. The lines I have presented above are factual and adhere closely to the literature, and especially the more independent literature about NLP. They have been arrived at using a great deal of discussion and compromise. I see no reason to change them simply because people present arguments or objections that have been answered many times already. If you want to make a change, please refer to the literature. Regards HeadleyDown 01:47, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Hello Peaktrigger. Please refer to the discussion and the literature. Your contributions will be welcome. Regards HeadleyDown 01:47, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
I doubt this conversation has any meaning any longer. A 1 line change has bloomed outwards - and I find it unlikely that we can agree on an opening paragraph (or more) when we haven't discussed all the things it needs to summarise. Headley - take a look at Frogs (pg 153) and you'll notice only 1 reference to spiritual - and that was the client decided his change could be experienced through a spiritual experience (which he related to a drug induced "cosmic experience"). Take a look at "The NLP Coach" (McDermott) and it explains Dilts "Spiritual" Neurological level as meaning "Beyond identity" - mission & vision, "bigger picture" - and says "for us as individuals this often means the spiritual". Further in chapter 17 "Being spiritually alive" it says that this does not mean anything specifically religious... and is different for different people "What they have in common is a sense of something that includes yet goes beyond themselves. Words like "purpose', "meaning', 'value', "significance" indicate that they feel there's a link between the daily events of their life and a wider meaning" (pg 347).
Woohookitty has asked us to agree on what we have in common and not argue specifics we disagree on for now - can you create something that encompasses our agreements? (I'm acknowledging of course that our differences will be expressed in the article) Greg 02:45, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Hello Greg. You agreed that NLP is New Age. You said that rituals and so on appears in the litrature also. Woohookitty and Katefan0 have been helping us focus on this. A ton of research has been presented to support the facts. It would help if you allowed for compromise. Can you agree that the literature supports what is stated in the latest lines below? Bookmain 04:12, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Hello GregA. Sorry I see no backflip either. And I believe we can come to agreement. A great deal of compromise has been made in order to satisfy objections, and the criticism section has been kept very small. Woohookitty made a constructive suggestion, and that has been presented in accordance with the literature. The literature says that NLP has some variants, but they are all counted as NLP. The literature says that NLP mystifies scientific subjects, and spreads misconception about empirical science. It adds magical thinking to erroneously applied neuroscience terms. The literature says that NLP has a strong spiritual component (eg Hunt 2003, Singer etc). NLP is advertised as improving body mind and spirit. All of NLP is reliant on belief change. The core of NLP involves the adoption of presuppositional beliefs. Dilts logical levels involves the spirit. Grinder's perceptual positions involves a spiritual element. There are many more examples. There is nothing in the literature that says "NLP doesn't involve spirituality". If anything, the New Code NLP involves more occult and spirituality than ever before. I see you have removed the term "cult". So in order for me to make a constructive compromise, if "cult" was removed from the opening, would you accept the latest Headley (and all) version? I believe you have a golden opportunity to have the terms fraud, charlatanry, cult, occult.... and so on left out of the opening. If we go the way of body first, then opening, those terms will most certainly appear in the opening. DaveRight 02:58, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm just running out the door... I assume you read my quote from "NLP coach" on Dilts 'spirit' which you refer to? Perceptual positions has nothing spiritual in the slightest. Can you please tell me what on earth you mean by "New Code being more occult and spirituality than ever before" - this makes not the slightest sense to me and may be a real indication of your understanding of the whole field. Greg 03:04, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Hi Greg. Spirit is accessed in NLP by floating back and out of the body, by connecting with the collective unconscious, by aligning you spirit with your higher goals and so on. It is not a question of understanding. It is more a matter of presenting what is written in the literature. Grinder talks of New Code and states that the vast majority of NLPers refer to NLP's applications as a part of NLP. So even Grinder says NLP is about its applications according to the majority. He says he doesn't like it, but then he goes on to teach The Soul of NLP and shamanic rituals in his books and seminars. The NLP literature is confusing. But luckilly we have a great deal of more independent literature to help us and that literature is informed by science and social science. That is what makes up the versions we have agreed upon so far (eg Headley's latest version). As Davy mentioned. We have offered a great deal of compromise. There are many other things I would like to write in the opening lines, but I am looking for reasonable progress. I am quite willing to wait for you to reply and to consider what has been compromised upon already. At least, if you offer an alternative opening, please explain all of the changes you are proposing, and argue each one with reference to the literature. ATB. Camridge 03:22, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Can't reply now... just quickly - I disagree with every one of your sentences except the last 4. Greg 03:25, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

To avoid endless discussion, I present another compromise:

Neuro-Linguistic Programming (NLP) is a set of techniques or rituals that adherents use primarily as an approach to psychotherapy, healing, communication and personal development. NLP fosters New Age notions and beliefs such as altered states, altered realities, and magic.

NLP is based on the idea that you can find out how individuals succeed, and learn to do it yourself. The various companies and groups of NLP differentiate themselves by using slightly different approaches or emphases. NLP is criticized for promoting pseudoscientific and magical thinking, and being promoted using exaggerated claims regardless of reviews of experimental studies which have shown negative overall results.

The term "cult" is removed. Camridge 03:29, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi GregA. I think I see what you are getting at. I believe there is quite a lot of literature that shows the kind of differences you mention (Hunt, Wuthnow, Singer and others). So here is another compromise:
Neuro-Linguistic Programming (NLP) is a set of techniques or rituals that adherents use primarily as an approach to psychotherapy, healing, communication and personal development. NLP is based on the idea that you can find out how individuals succeed, and learn to do it yourself. NLP fosters New Age notions and beliefs such as altered states, altered realities, and magic.
The various companies and groups of NLP differentiate themselves using slightly different approaches or emphases. The core concepts of NLP involve the adoption of beliefs, though some groups and seminars convey spirituality implicitly in relation to peak experience, and creating mission and vision, while others use more explicit teachings of spirituality and occult practices. NLP is criticized for promoting pseudoscientific and magical thinking, and being promoted using exaggerated claims regardless of reviews of experimental studies which have shown negative overall results.
AliceDeGrey 05:51, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Thanks Alice. That is clear. ATB. Camridge 06:08, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Yes I think this version will be ok, even though I would like to see more cricicism. Seems to be factual though. Regards HeadleyDown 11:44, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Yes but it depends upon how big the opening is going to be. If this is just the first couple of paras then we can add more later (eg, the NCAHF information). The present opening is also lacking the information NLP as a New Alternative Religion. I reckon we could add it later though. For now, after all the recent balance and compromise, I would accept the above lines as they are, just so we could move forward. Cheers DaveRight 01:52, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Sure Dave. It'll do for now. Though to be fair, more criticism is needed long term. The main body of the article will probably sort that out. ATB. Camridge 03:45, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Hello. The information checks out according to my library search. NLP suffers from these criticisms, and it is in itself a new age production and Fritz Perls is a founder of the New Age through his contribution to the human potential philosophy (in Hunt, Partridge, Carroll, and other references. Ksinpoint 06:42, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Yes, thanks Ksinpoint. Its all valid. I think it works fine as an alternative first part to the opening. We can add further criticism as it appears in the article. JPLogan 11:02, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
OK, I think it works better just to put the above paras in place of the line that was taken from the opening. The rest of the opening can get the same treatment though with more brevity. Once its placed back (and reduced this discussion page's size) we can get to working on the rest. I suggest the Beyerstein passage needs only a little work to get it reinstated. Its basically just a set of quotes. Should be easy and now its definitely attained a high verifiability status. Cheers DaveRight 02:42, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
The current version by Camridge does not meet NPOV - keep working on it. See my previous post regarding the different points of view. ---=-C-=- 03:22, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Yes but the version by AliceDeGrey is far improved and takes into account GregA's suggestion to talk of the different ways spirit is used in NLP. It shows a strong adherence to the literature, it is informed by sociology, science, and NLP literature, and is very clear. It could do with balancing by adding more criticism. However, if it is added to the article in place of the line that was taken out, this discussion will be reduced and be able to move forward to deal with other (smaller) text moves and progress can be made. Bookmain 03:41, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Hello Comaze. We were told not to just claim that a text was not NPOV. Perhaps the mentors could comment on any specific aspect of the latest version they think may not fit NPOV? ATB Camridge 03:50, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Bookmain, it doesn't quite take into account my suggestion - hell, all it says is that some groups teach spirit implicitly, some teach spirit explicitly... it doesn't say anything about those that don't teach spirit at all, nor the 2 different meanings of the word "spiritual".... nor the main use of the term as a reference to the non-psychic/non-religious/non-energy -experience- of "meaning" and "connection" with family, friends etc. Greg 05:28, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Hello GregA. We can only go by what is written in the literature. From New Age and Human Potential concepts, there are automatic spiritual connotations. This is discussed at length in the works of Maslow, Perls, Satir, Dilts, Hall and Bodenhammer, and many others of the human potential and New Age movements. Tony Robbins could be seen as one of the less explicitly spiritual. However, he clearly talks of spiritual experiences of connection with others (rapport), and connection with a higher purpose or vision (spiritual purpose in life). Grinder, Bandler, and all NLPers teach this either implicitly or explicitly according to the literature (Hall, Wuthnow, and many others). Your view, opinion, or word, does not negate the text of independent sources. This is a basic guideline of Wikipedia NPOV policy. If anything, the latest text presented is biased towards promotion of NLP. I understand that some NLP companies would prefer to advertise themselves as a science. But if they call themselves "Inspiritive", "Unlimited Potential Associates", "Soulwork", "Insight Institute", "Mindsight", "The Inner Sphere", and "Wizard of Wisdom", and include shamanism, higher purpose, spirit level logical levels, and so on, they will be seen as at the very least "quasi-spiritual". ATB Camridge 06:15, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Hi again GregA. I have added links to the passage in question. This deals with your objections, and mentions spirituality and wellbeing, exactly as is taught in NLP seminars and texts, both explicitly and implicitly through New Age/Human Potential philosophies. ATB Camridge 06:35, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Neuro-Linguistic Programming (NLP) is a set of techniques or rituals that adherents use primarily as an approach to psychotherapy, healing, communication and personal development. NLP is based on the idea that you can find out how individuals succeed, and learn to do it yourself. NLP fosters New Age notions and beliefs such as altered states, altered realities, and magic.
The various companies and groups of NLP differentiate themselves using slightly different approaches or emphases. The core concepts of NLP involve the adoption of beliefs, though some groups and seminars convey spirituality implicitly in relation to peak experience, and creating mission and vision, while others use more explicit teachings of spirituality and occult practices. NLP is criticized for promoting pseudoscientific and magical thinking, and being promoted using exaggerated claims regardless of reviews of experimental studies which have shown negative overall results.

Camridge 06:35, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I refer to my previous post titled, "Not all NLP practitioners are New Age": "Robert Dilts in his model of Neurological levels refers to something called "spirituality." John Grinder & Carmen Bostic St.Clair, in "Whispering in the Wind," have this to say about "spirituality": [Spirituality] represents an excursion into content and personal preference... We have no particular quarrel with anyone desiring to pursue any theme on a personal level but we urge that such enterprises ... not be pased off as a legitimate part of the field of NLP." See full citations in my post. The other objections raised in that post have not yet been delt with in an adequate manner. ---=-C-=- 06:54, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi Comaze. I think Camridge is defining spirituality in a way that doesn't involve spirit... which becomes a tad confusing. He says spirituality in relation to peak experience, mission, and vision... Maybe he's saying we have to define spirituality in a new way here as well. I find the whole thing misleading. Greg 08:54, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Hello Greg and Comaze. The lines presented above encompass exactly what you are talking about in terms of spirituality. Take a look at the spirituality link. It is not considered as a wholly religious thing. Just as with Scientology, NLP authors contradict themselves. Grinder may say that NLP can involve spirituality, and then he goes on to talk about the soul of NLP. Grinder's perceptual positions are also taught with spirituality as an intrinsic component (in the forth position). And furthermore, Dilts and many others talk of spirituality as intrinsic to NLP. They present a confusing set of contradictions. This is all clarified very well when you look at the sociology and science literature on NLP. Sociologically, NLP is a New Age/Human Potential development, and as such, the trans-human (personal wellbeing) side of goal setting and communication is spiritual. This is all handled very well in the link to the Wikipedia spirituality article. The more scientific literature calls NLP - mystical, quasi-religious, or quasi-spiritual. GregA, you suggested the spirituality lines in your version above, and this was adjusted in accordance with the literature. I believe (apart from the possibility of adding more criticism) it is ready for the article. ATB Camridge 09:26, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Hi again. According to The NLP Encyclopedia: NLP treats spirituality through the concept of neurons. They say spirituality is experienced through the nerves, through the relational field (an extra-human nerve system). Vision and mission are also taught in relation to spiritual goals. NLP uses Bateson's philosophy about the awareness of the whole. They also refer to spirituality in terms of the group mind or group consciousness. In NLP spirituality is also related to "distance healing" whereby you connect your spiritual self to a prayer and call upon higher forces. The spiritual experience is taught in terms of warped experiences of seeing close, but hearing things far away, seeing visions and hearing inner voices. They refer to manifesting the spirit, connecting with the larger nervous system, and it is inspired by the New Age author Carlos Castaneda. Its all in the NLP encyclopedia under spirit. This has been correctly represented in the lines above. ATB Camridge 09:47, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
I think yours is fine, Camridge, but here's another version that also takes into account the above discussion:
Neuro-Linguistic Programming (NLP) is a set of techniques or rituals that adherents use primarily as an approach to psychotherapy, healing, communication and personal development. NLP is based on the idea that you can find out how individuals succeed, and learn to do it yourself. NLP fosters New Age notions and beliefs such as altered states, altered realities, and magic.
The various companies and groups of NLP differentiate themselves using slightly different approaches or emphases. NLP has an implied religiosity and a few NLP groups teach how to apply NLP to spirituality and occult practices, while the others teach spirituality and magic as an intrinsic part of NLP. NLP is criticized for promoting pseudoscientific and magical thinking, and for being promoted using exaggerated claims regardless of reviews of experimental studies which have shown negative overall results.

Regards HeadleyDown 11:32, 13 April 2006 (UTC)


From your suggestion Camridge:
  • The various companies and groups of NLP differentiate themselves using slightly different approaches or emphases.
Disputed. Mainly due to some NLP groups bringing spirituality in with a new age emphasis.
  • The core concepts of NLP involve the adoption of beliefs,
Disputed. The core involves lots of things, including taking advantage of certain beliefs during change work. Adopting the beliefs is not required. This is why they are called presuppositions (as taught within the metamodel).
  • though some groups and seminars convey spirituality implicitly in relation to peak experience, and creating mission and vision,
Disputed. People have certain ideas of what spirituality means. Althought this sentence DOES define it as the NLP books do.. it can be worded far better.
  • while others use more explicit teachings of spirituality and occult practices.
Agreed that they teach spiritual in the sense of "spirit" (like Christianity etc).
  • NLP is criticized for promoting pseudoscientific
Agreed. Criticised by SOME people.
Disputed as a general view. NLP's whole basis is the opposite. Agreed that some people might read the title of the book and not go any further - and that some groups include spiritual concepts (as above) so we're getting repetitive?
  • and being promoted using exaggerated claims regardless of reviews of experimental studies which have shown negative overall results.
Agreed that some have exaggerated claims. Dispute that there are any conclusive results. Greg 11:39, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps
Various companies and groups using NLP can be differentiated by their approaches, beliefs, and emphases - including in what contexts they apply NLP. As an example, NLP's modeling has been used to demystifying spiritual concepts so that anyone can have the studied experience - however NLP groups often refer to peak experiences (and our feeling of connection to family and others, and our "vision" and "mission" of life) and call this "spiritual", while some groups do believe in unseen forces and call these "spiritual" (much like the traditional religious idea - these groups have been criticised for such magical thinking).
Some groups promote NLP with exaggerated claims and NLP has been criticised for this. Furthermore, NLP is criticized for not using psychological research methods to support their claims and for promoting pseudoscientific thinking (including ignoring experimental studies which have shown negative results while focussing on positive results).
Greg 11:39, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Hello GregA. Most readers will understand what spirituality means. The ones that don't have a perfectly good link, and the sentence in my latest version gives a good and literature-guided coverage of each type. I believe your explanation here may be ok for the main body of the article, but as an opening it is too circlular. The more independent sources manage to state quite simply that NLP has a spiritual component. I believe what I have presented is perfectly factual and clear. As for ignoring experimental studies which have shown negative results while focussing on positive results, well, thats not criticism. I am looking for constructive compromise. I present an alternative:
Neuro-Linguistic Programming (NLP) is a set of techniques or rituals that adherents use primarily as an approach to psychotherapy, healing, communication and personal development. NLP is based on the idea that you can find out how individuals succeed, and learn to do it yourself. NLP fosters New Age notions and beliefs such as altered states, altered realities, and magic.
The various companies and groups of NLP differentiate themselves using slightly different approaches or emphases. The adoption background beliefs is core to NLP, and a few NLP groups teach how to apply NLP to spirituality and occult practices, while others teach spirituality and magic as an intrinsic part of NLP. NLP is criticized for promoting pseudoscientific and magical thinking, and for being promoted using exaggerated claims regardless of reviews of experimental studies which have shown negative overall results.
I can’t see how you can dispute the “various companies and groups differentiate themselves” as it is a fact. The magical thinking aspect refers to the magical theories criticized by Sharpley, Eisner, Lilienfeld and many others. A presuppositional belief is a background belief. I don’t mind calling it presuppositional, but I believe background is more understandable to the reader. HeadleyDown 13:12, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Man :) You didn't even read my replacement for the differentiate. Various companies and groups using NLP can be differentiated by their approaches, beliefs, and emphases - including in what contexts they apply NLP.. Miscommunication :) Greg 11:59, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Hello GregA. I suggest that accusations not be a part of discussion of these issues. If my suggestions seem a little strict, it is because of my adherence to the most clarifying literature. Not due to any kind of dismissal of anyone's views. I wish to take everyone's suggestions into account in relation to the literature. I hope you understand the gravity of your accusations. Regards HeadleyDown 13:39, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
The gravity of my accusation? Now I'm confused. Perhaps your criticism (to which I refer) was overly general and I misunderstood (still misunderstand)? I thought you were trying to say that I saw no difference in different NLP teachings, when I think I've made the opposite clear. While I'm sure that, like any company, various groups advertise themselves in different ways with different emphases (based on their own personal interests and strengths, hopefully) - I think it's obvious that I disagree that NLP groups have the same core beliefs etc (for example, the fact that the core books and New Code have nothing occult, and you keep saying some groups do...). I'm assuming good faith on your part and thus that there MUST BE groups with different beliefs encompassing spiritual/occult stuff. Working out how small or large a group would be good but I have no idea how. Greg 23:20, 14 April 2006 (UTC)


Here some suggestions:

  • is a set of techniques or rituals -- remove completely
  • "replace "psychotherapy, healing, communication and personal development" with "model or approach for learning, communication and change"
  • replace, "NLP fosters New Age notions" with "Aspects of NLP have been influence by ..." -- add other influences such as Milton H. Erickson, and TG.
  • "NLP is criticized for x, y, z" -- see alternate below.. pseudoscience is already covered by marketing hype and lack of experimental evidence.
  • replace "promoted using exaggerated claims" with "marketing hype"
  • replace "experimental studies" with "psychological and experimental studies"
Neuro-Linguistic Programming (NLP) is a set of techniques or rituals is an approach for learning, communication and change. It is based on the idea that you can find out how individuals succeed, learn from them and teach the patterns to others. Some aspects of NLP are influenced by New Age notions, others aspects were based on the work of Erickson, Satir, Perls and Transformational Syntax.
NLP as a movemment is splintered with no inherently agreed upon standards for training and practitioners. The various companies and groups of NLP differentiate themselves using slightly different approaches or emphases. The adoption background beliefs is core to NLP, and a few NLP groups teach how to apply NLP to spirituality and occult practices, while others teach spirituality and magic as an intrinsic part of NLP. It is criticized for promoting pseudoscientific and magical thinking, and relying on testimonial evidence, marketing hype and for having little support for its assumptions and effectiveness in psychological and experimental literature.

---=-C-=- 00:35, 14 April 2006 (UTC)


  • Hello Comaze. I believe we need to work on a common goal here. This is Wikipedia. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. So we need to write clearly, and include all verifiable views. NLP is a confusing subject, and clear independent texts about NLP are very important, especially those written by the more independent academics such as sociologists, historians, and scientists. The opening should largely be clarified by the corroborating views of scientists and sociologists. Thus:
  • Removing techniques and rituals removes clarity. I have comprimised by adding techniques, rituals and the useful and flexible link on beliefs (it is not just about religion)
  • "psychotherapy, healing, communication and personal development" are clear and true, are based on the literature of scientists and sociologists, and need to stay to help the reader
  • NLP fosters New Age notions" with "Aspects of NLP have been influence by ..." -- add other influences such as Milton H. Erickson, and TG. This is unclear and a false dichotomy (perls et al are New Age heros). The independent literature calls these people New Age proponents or founders.
  • Once again removing criticism is not an option. Adding it is. There are a great many points of criticism that could be added (fraud, charlatanry, cult, and so on)
  • NLP is not criticized for being promoted using marketing hype (the criticisms are directed to the theories and the false claims written clear in the text of the books)
  • I removed the sentence on spirituality even though it is completely valid and clear. It can be replaced later of course.
Neuro-Linguistic Programming (NLP) is a set of techniques or rituals and beliefs that adherents use primarily as an approach to psychotherapy, healing, communication and personal development. NLP developers state that NLP is based upon neuroscience, linguistics, and the assumption that behavior can be programmed. NLP fosters New Age notions and beliefs such as altered states, altered realities, and magic.
The various companies and groups of NLP differentiate themselves using slightly different approaches or emphases. NLP is criticized for promoting pseudoscientific and magical thinking, and for being promoted using exaggerated claims and regardless of reviews of experimental studies which have shown negative overall results.
  • All of these points are supported by corroborating views of scientists and other independent authors. They can also be verified in NLP texts. The only options I see now are to add more criticism.
  • I found that the line on learning from others was not useful at all, and could describe any kind of learning, so I added something more specific (and I believe quite positive towards NLP).

HeadleyDown 01:18, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

HeadleyDown makes a few points that I think we need to consider carefully and request third party comment.

  • "The opening should largely be clarified by the corroborating views of scientists and sociologists."

This recent proposal is unfairly unrepresentitive of some views of sociologists while dismissing and ingoring others. It almost completely dismisses the academic literature, that supports some aspects of NLP. And it does not accurately present NLP as defined by its trainers and practitioners. To define all of NLP as "New Age rituals" builds a staw man argument and favours a single POV (for example, Stephen Hunt, 2003 and alternative therapy skeptics such as Jack Raso). You could say that some aspects of NLP were influence by New Age, but you'd also have to mention the other influences, such as Milton H. Erickson and Transformational Grammar.

  • "The only options I see now are to add more criticism."

The criticism section should also state that there are anecdotal evidence and case reports for the effectiveness of NLP. It fails to represent the general view that more psychological research is required. It fails to represent the view that many practitioners and trainers want the discipline of NLP to become "a scientifically based endeavour with its precise focus on the extremes of human behaviour: excellence and the high performers that actually do it" (Grinder, Whispering, 2001). It fails to represent the criticism that there is currently no inherently agreed upon standards for practitioners or trainers.

---=-C-=- 00:45, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Just on the supporting evidence - there is anecdotal and case reports. Naturally enough, they are nowhere near as supportive as the psych-based research using multiple cases (to remove errors due to random effects etc) and control the environment as much as possible. But there is also supportive outcome based research. From memory - there were 14 NLP research studies indexed in Medline, 7 were pre-1990 and they all focussed on just one NLP principle (PRS, or RS), and unsupportive. The other 7 were post-1990, allowed any NLP technique to be used, and all showed positive results (though they did not have the controls the earlier experiment had - a valid criticism - and there are a few more criticisms). I know Headley etc have judged these experiments to be unimportant - but these were the 14 experiments deemed worthy of publishing in peer-reviewed, medline-indexed journals and I think they're an excellent way of getting fair representation. (These MAY be the same 7 experiments that Devilly refers to when he says NLP has not shown itself to be substantially better than existing psychiatric care?? I don't have his paper)
Anyway.. back to the opening sentence. We don't want to get into this kind of detail. That's my reason for adding that NLP is criticised for ignoring non-supporting evidence while emphasising the supporting. It implicitly recognises that there is supporting evidence, while also arguing one of the points of pseudoscience.... seemed to be a nice balance. My actual suggestion was "NLP is criticised... for promoting pseudoscientific thinking (including ignoring experimental studies which have shown negative results while focussing on positive results)" Greg 01:34, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Multiple influences

Greetings all. I have been following proceedings for quite a while here, and I believe I understand how the editing process works now. I have some expertise in NLP after studying it for a few years, and after gaining a certificate in NLP. I suggest this opening:

Neuro-Linguistic Programming (NLP) is a set of techniques or rituals and beliefs that adherents use primarily as an approach to psychotherapy, healing, communication and personal development. NLP developers state that NLP is based upon neuroscience, linguistics, and the assumption that behavior can be programmed. NLP fosters New Age notions and beliefs such as altered states, altered realities, and magic, and has methods developed by studying public figures such as Fritz Perls, Virginia Satir, Jesus of Nazareth, and Sherlock Holmes.
The various companies and groups of NLP differentiate themselves using slightly different approaches or emphases. NLP is criticized for promoting pseudoscientific and magical thinking, for being a cult, and for being promoted using exaggerated claims regardless of reviews of empirical studies which have shown negative overall results.

The models of NLP are developed by a range of people, and I have presented such a range. The studies on NLP are detailed and have concluded that NLP is ineffective. There is no reliable review of NLP that states otherwise. I have looked high and low and it doesn't exist. No review at all. None! However, having read the reviews in question, the view of NLP being a cult is significant, and I notice there is a section on the cult of NLP. Thus it is mentioned briefly in my version. Medius Maximus 02:42, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi Medius and welcome. Thanks you for your research. Your Perls Satir Jesus and Holmes is a good balance, and shows the healing aspect that GregA wanted some clearifying. Though I think we should keep it in small incremental movements when we looking for the reasinable compromises. Cult is valid and correct. I think can be for later. So therefore here is my slight more increment adjustment:
Neuro-Linguistic Programming (NLP) is a set of techniques or rituals and beliefs that adherents use primarily as an approach to psychotherapy, healing, communication and personal development. NLP developers state that NLP is based upon neuroscience, linguistics, and the assumption that behavior can be programmed. NLP fosters New Age notions and beliefs such as altered states, altered realities, and magic, and has methods developed by studying public figures such as Fritz Perls, Virginia Satir, Jesus of Nazareth, and Sherlock Holmes.
The various companies and groups of NLP differentiate themselves using slightly different approaches or emphases. NLP is criticized for promoting pseudoscientific and magical thinking, and for being promoted using exaggerated claims regardless of reviews of empirical studies which have shown negative overall results.
HansAntel 03:50, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Dilts' models of Jesus of Nazareth, and Sherlock Holmes is not widely acceptable as a model in NLP. These are minor views, see "Satir, Erickson, Perl" below for a comparison. ---=-C-=- 05:12, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Satir, Erickson, Perls

NLP was influenced by the work of Milton H. Erickson, Virginia Satir and Fritz Perls as demonstrated by the following quotes and citations:

Cybernetics

Bradford Keeney's Cybernetic Project and the Creation of Recursive Frame Analysis. The Qualitative Report, Volume 1, Numbers 2 and 3, Winter/Spring, 1990/1991: "In the Bandler and Grinder studies, a close scrutiny of the work of Virginia Satir, Milton Erickson, and others (Davis & Davis, 1982) from a linguistics and language metaphor (e.g., transformational grammar) led to a new qualitative research method connected with the transformational grammar tradition, but different, and to a different therapy model which embraced some of the Satir-Erickson style of clinical practice, but added some interesting meta-communicative distinctions. The research method was presented as a formal notational system in The Structure of Magic II: A Book about Communication & Change (Grinder & Bandler, 1976, pp. 164-193), but was never fully realized as a distinct research approach, partly due to Bandler's and Grinder's emphasis on their therapy model. This new clinical approach, Neuro-Linguistic Programming, was explicated in numerous works such as The Structure of Magic: A Book about Language & Therapy (Bandler & Grinder, 1975), Frogs into Princes (Bandler & Grinder, 1979) and Trance-formations: Neuro-Linguistic Programming and the Structure of Hypnosis (Grinder & Bandler, 1981) and has reached a notable level of popularity in the clinical fields." (citation: Davis, S. L. R., & Davis, D. (1982). NLP and marital and family therapy. The Family Therapy Networker, 6(3), 19-21, 46.) [71]

Psychology
  • Donald A Eisner. (2000) The Death of Psychotherapy: From Freud to Alien Abductions. page.153: "Neurolinguistic Programming relies on ideas from Gestalt Therapy as well as Milton Erickson and a family therapist named Virginia Satir."
  • Feeney, Don J. (2001) Motifs: The Transformative Creation of Self: "Utilizing the work of Milton Erickson, Virginia Satir and Fritz Perl" (p.73)
  • Howard Rosenthal (2002) Encyclopedia of Counseling: Master Review and Tutorial for the National Counselor Examination: "professor John Grinder and mathematician/computer expert John Bandler. ... most notably, Virginia Satir, Milton H. Erickson, and Fritz Perls to discover ..." (p.245)
  • Jurg Siegfried (1995) Therapeutic and Everyday Discourse As Behavior Change: Towards a Micro-Analysis in Psychotherapy: "... inquiry is provided by the work of Bandler and Grinder (1975) who, viewing the taped transcripts of therapeutic interviews by Satir, Perls, and Erickson ... (p.55)

"[Bandler & Grinder] decided to do an in-depth study of Fritz Perls (the founder of Gestalt therapy), Virginia Satir (a founder of familiy therapy and systemic therapy) and Milton Erikcson (founder of the American Society of Clinical Hypnosis). They looked at their patterns of language and behaviour - what they actually said and did when doing their work, as opposed to what they said they were doing - what we would call their 'map of the world'. The modellers discovered a rich variety of extra unconscious (out-of-awareness) attitudes and skills. Thus the field of NLP was born, in people, and incorporated relevant skills, information and models from the fields of systems theory, anthropology, behavioural psychology and linguistics." p.160 .[72]

Social Science
  • Dimmick, S. (1995) Successful Communication Through Nlp: A Trainer's Guide: "[Bandler & Grinder] studied the behaviour and communication patterns of recognised experts and high achievers in very different and diversified fields, who were recognised by their peers as possessing originality and the ability to influence others with their communication. The original people they chose to study were Dr Fredick perls, the creator Gestalt theory, Virginia Satir, a family therapist and Milton H. Erickson MD a medical hypnotist. They wanted to following questions to be answered, "What behaviour if any do these experts have in common. Could these behaviours be taught to others so they could become more effective at what they do (Eicher, Jones, Bearly, Neurolinguistic Communication Profile and Rapport, Trainer Guide, page 2, Organization Design and Devlopment, Inc.)" (p.3)
  • Quinn, Michael (2001) Qualitative Research & Evaluation Methods: "Bandler and Grinder (1975a, 1975b) founded neurolinguistic programming (NLP) by [modeling] effective therapists: Milton Erickson, Fritz Perls, and Virginia Satir" (p.245)
Political Science
  • Fatout, M. (1992) Models for Change in Social Group Work: "The knowledge based for neurolinguistic programming is derived from linguistics, neurology, psychophysiology, cybernetics, communication theory, and theories of psychphysiology. Bandler and Grinder (1975, 1976_ have especially drawn on the work of Virginia Satir, Milton Erickson and Fritz Perls. Cybernetics is the study of communication and human control funcation involves a comparison of human nervous system with mechanical-electrical systems.... Basically, Bandler and Grinder (1975, 1982) do not identify therapeutic techniques of NLP. They propose a meta-model to enhance and expand the worker's treatment procedures that have already been identified by other therapists. They do, however, identify techniques and procedures that can be supplemented and enlarged by their paradigm."(p.177-178) ...
Medical
  • Ruth Hadikin, Muriel O'Driscoll (2001) The Bullying Culture: "early therapists such as Milton Erickson, Virginia Satir and Fritz Perls" (p.70)
  • Chelly M Sterman (1990) Neuro-Linguistic Programming in Alcoholism Treatment: "These people were Virginia Satir with her great innovations in the field of family therapy, Fritz Perls, the father of Gestalt Therapy, and Milton Erickson," (p.12)
Self-help
  • Harry Adler (2002) Handbook of Nlp: A Manual for Professional Communicators

"[Richard Bandler and John Grinder] identified the verbal and behavioural patterns of Fritz Perls... Virginia Satir... and Milton Erickson..." (p.10)

  • Additional sources that support the view that NLP was based on the language and behavioural patterns of Erickson, Satir, Perls: [73][74][75][76]

[77][78][79][80][81][82][83][84][85][86][87]

---=-C-=- 05:12, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi Comaze. Here's an incremental compromise:

Neuro-Linguistic Programming (NLP) is a set of techniques or rituals and beliefs that adherents use primarily as an approach to psychotherapy, healing, communication and personal development. NLP developers state that NLP is based upon neuroscience, linguistics, and the assumption that behavior can be programmed. NLP fosters New Age notions and beliefs such as altered states, altered realities, and magic, and has methods developed by studying public figures such as the human potential and gestalt therapist Fritz Perls, Virginia Satir, Jesus of Nazareth, Albert Einstein, and Sherlock Holmes.
The various companies and groups of NLP differentiate themselves using slightly different approaches or emphases. NLP is criticized for promoting pseudoscientific and magical thinking, being a cult, and for being promoted using exaggerated claims regardless of reviews of empirical studies which have shown negative overall results.
I added, gestalt/human potential therapist, and the cult statement. NLP has modeled a lot of people. There is a whole book on the NLP patterns of Jesus of Nazareth. No other public figure has had a whole book devoted to a particular character. Sherlock holmes has a whole chapter dedicated also, Einstein the same. Cheers DaveRight 05:27, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Dilts' studied the writing and biographies of Jesus of Nazareth, Albert Einstein, and Sherlock Holmes; this view can be excluded from the opening because it is a minority view and is disputed. Why did you leave out Milton H. Erickson MD who is probably more influential than Perls and Satir. See above and below ---=-C-=- 06:27, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Erickson's influence

Counseling (Psychology, Anthropology)
  • "John A Rush (1999) Stress and Emotional Health: Applications of Clinical Anthropology: "In the mid-to-late 1970s the hot item was neurolinguistic programming (NLP) (Bandler & Grinder 1975b; Grinder & Bandler 1976; Dilts et al 1980). NLP is based on the Ericksonian hypnotherapeutic techniques (Grinder & Bandler 1975a; Grinder et al 1977) and the linguistic position of Noam Chomsky (157; 1968; see also Pinker 1994), which involveds generative grammar. This is, the language/symbolic process is innate to the human mind (and perhaps other animals as well), and the specific language(s) learned represent content. The content or grammar, therefore has unlimited possibilities... "
  • "[Bandler & Grinder] decided to do an in-depth study of Fritz Perls (the founder of Gestalt therapy), Virginia Satir (a founder of familiy therapy and systemic therapy) and Milton Erikcson (founder of the American Society of Clinical Hypnosis). They looked at their patterns of language and behaviour - what they actually said and did when doing their work, as opposed to what they said they were doing - what we would call their 'map of the world'. The modellers discovered a rich variety of extra unconscious (out-of-awareness) attitudes and skills. Thus the field of NLP was born, in people, and incorporated relevant skills, information and models from the fields of systems theory, anthropology, behavioural psychology and linguistics." p.160 .[88]
Grinder (linguist and co-founder of NLP)
  • Grinder & Bostic St Clair (2001) Whispering in the wind: "From the beginning contact with Grinder and Bandler, Milton unselfishly offered full access and constant guidange to them, [] greatly facilitating their work"(p.94)

---=-C-=- 06:27, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "neither witchcraft nor sorcery was involved"

Counselling and Psychotherapy
  • Introduction to Counselling and Psychotherapy: The Essential Guide, edited by Stephen Palmer: Bernhard Trenkle (2001) The Ha-Ha Handbook: "Structure of Magic is the title of a book by Grinder and Bandler. The inventors of NLP assumed that neither witchcraft nor sorcery was involved in the astoundingly successful results acheived with almost magical swiftness and sureness by the masters of psychotherapy. They believed, instead, in underlying principles that can be taught and learned. They analyzed and interpreted the forms of communication used by "the masters of the trade," such as Erickson, Perls and Satir. Later this method of analyzing complex therapeutic behavior was also applied to other masters of communication. However, according to some psychotherapists, interpretation was often stretched too far, resulting in an overemphasis on the magical aspect of communication." (p.113)

---=-C-=- 06:03, 15 April 2006 (UTC)


This makes no difference to any of the statements in the opening. It merely states that they propose some kind of ritual or method. This is also not a primary source. Statements from BnG will be more valid. Regards HeadleyDown 13:37, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] (Dianetics) or (Erickson, Perls, Satir)

Hello Comaze. I have added a little more clarity (Dianetics). The New Age aspects are admitted by NLP literature whenever they talk about those aspects, and NLP books talk of magic, human potential, altered states (eg theta), and altered reality. No scientist or sociological view is required. It is all clearly written in NLP literature.
Do you have quotes? I.e. names of these books? Also, "altered state" doesn't necessarily mean or refer to theta. A lot of real scientists use those terms, from psychology to anthropology. --213.191.86.35 12:57, 26 April 2006 (UTC)


Here are the changes:

Neuro-Linguistic Programming (NLP) is a set of techniques or rituals and beliefs that adherents use primarily as an approach to psychotherapy, healing, communication and personal development. NLP developers state that NLP is the study of the structure of subjective experience and is based upon neuroscience, linguistics, and the assumption that behavior can be programmed. NLP fosters New Age notions and beliefs such as altered states, altered realities, and magic, and as with other New Age developments such as Dianetics, the various groups of NLP differentiate themselves using slightly different approaches or emphases.
NLP is criticized for promoting pseudoscientific and magical thinking, for being a cult, for being intellectually fraudulent, and for being promoted using exaggerated claims (charlatanry) regardless of reviews of empirical studies which have shown negative overall results.
I am flexible here though. If you and GregA agree to this whole passage being added to the opening, I would be willing to remove the Dianetics term. JPLogan 02:11, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Yes JP the Dianetics term is both clarifying and correct according to sociologists and scientists. Though I will also be flexible if the lines presented below are accepted into the opening. Here is a tidied version:
Neuro-Linguistic Programming (NLP) is a set of techniques or rituals and beliefs that adherents use primarily as an approach to psychotherapy, healing, communication and personal development. NLP developers state that NLP is the study of the structure of subjective experience and is based upon neuroscience, linguistics, and the assumption that behavior can be programmed. NLP fosters New Age notions and beliefs such as altered states, altered realities, and magic, and as with other New Age developments such as Dianetics, the various groups of NLP differentiate themselves using slightly different approaches or emphases.
NLP is criticized for promoting pseudoscientific and magical thinking, for being a cult, and for being promoted using exaggerated claims characteristic of fraud and charlatanry, regardless of reviews of empirical studies which have shown negative overall results.
Regards HeadleyDown 02:57, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
The only way you could include Dianetics is if you have ignored the evidence that NLP was influenced by Milton Erickson (hypnotherapy), Fritz Perls (Gestalt therapy) and Virigina Satir (family therapy). The evidence that NLP was infuenced by Dianetics is tenuous, and is a view shared by a minority of alternative therapy critics (eg. Jack Raso of Quackwatch), these guys seem to want to put everything that is not mainstream into the one box. ---=-C-=- 02:41, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
No Comaze, NLP and Dianetics are one in the same from a broad perspective. In fact, NLP is considered to be a sort of Scientology according to the more neutral sources. But if you and GregA agree to move the opening lines as they are into the opening, then I would be willing to remove the Dianetics term. JPLogan 02:35, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
As I said, there is no solid evidence to add Dianetics, so your offer is not really a comprimise at all. It's going to take a while. ---=-C-=- 02:55, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Comaze. I've not seen any evidence for a direct link between NLP and Dianetics, even though they do appear similar in some of their claims. Also, if neutral sources can be quoted that consider NLP a sort of Scientology, then I suggest adding their claims with reference to the sources into the article.

HeadleyDown/JPLogan, here are some issues with your latest version:

  • "such as Dianetics" is minority critics POV, use hypnotherapy or CBT for an example of NLP approach to psychotherapy, you'd need to include criticism that some practitioners are trained, other untrained.
  • [removed text not related to Dianetics]
---=-C-=- 03:25, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
JPLogan, headleyDown - I find it unfortunate that you think representing NLP fairly involves trading off what can be said. I'm not here to negotiate a truce that requires us both to offer an untenable solution (to the other) and gradually trade off until we get a compromise - I'm here to present NLP as it is, from multiple perspectives.
If the mentors say this is now a trade-off on NLP, rather than representing NLP (which I doubt anyone would ever say), then I'll switch to that as necessary. Greg 06:01, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Hello GregA. There is nothing I can do about the facts. They will be presented, if not by me, by some other editor. This has to be accepted. Many opportunities and options have already been presented. I present another version below. (in the continued improvement section).HeadleyDown 10:38, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Please stick to the topic. Your "deal" sounds more like a threat. Greg 11:37, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] continued improvements to first lines

Here is a new version with all objections answered:

Neuro-Linguistic Programming (NLP) is a set of techniques or rituals and beliefs that adherents use primarily as an approach to psychotherapy, healing, communication and personal development. NLP developers state that NLP is based upon neuroscience, linguistics, and the assumption that behavior can be programmed. NLP fosters New Age notions and beliefs such as altered states, altered realities, and magic, and has methods developed by studying public figures such as the human potential and gestalt therapist Fritz Perls, Virginia Satir, Milton Erickson, Jesus of Nazareth, Albert Einstein, and Sherlock Holmes.
The various companies and groups of NLP differentiate themselves using slightly different approaches or emphases. NLP is criticized for promoting pseudoscientific and magical thinking, being a cult, and for being promoted using exaggerated claims regardless of reviews of empirical studies which have shown negative overall results.

HeadleyDown 13:31, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Notice that I've used alternative rather than New Age. Alternative is more general (and far less pejorative)

Suggestions
  • Replace first sentence: with "Neuro-Linguistic Programming (NLP) is an alternative approach to learning, psychotherapy, healing, communication and personal development."
  • Replacement for last paragraph: NLP as a movement is splintered, with no inherently agreed upon standards for trainers and practitioners. It is criticized for relying on anedotal evidence, and case reports, and has little support in psychological and experimental literature.

---=-C-=- 14:13, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Hello Comaze. NLP is similar to Dianetics in that it is a set of varying groups, rather than a centralized religion. This is one New Age aspect, so I joined the two sentences together to clarify this point. I deleted the troublesome line on NLP models. I repeat; NLP is not criticized for relying on anecdotal evidence or case reports, and there is no reliable evidence of NLP’s effect. It is ineffective according to reviews. That point can be enlarged upon. However, I will keep it brief for now:


Neuro-Linguistic Programming (NLP) is a set of techniques or rituals and beliefs that adherents use primarily as an approach to psychotherapy, healing, communication and personal development. NLP developers state that NLP is based upon neuroscience, linguistics, and the assumption that behavior can be programmed. NLP fosters New Age notions and beliefs such as altered states, altered realities, and magic, and as with other New Age developments, the various groups of NLP differentiate themselves using slightly different approaches or emphases.
NLP is criticized for promoting pseudoscientific and magical thinking, being a cult, and for being promoted using exaggerated claims regardless of reviews of empirical studies which have shown negative overall results.
HeadleyDown 15:49, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

HeadleyDown made a claim that is worth looking at very closely...

  • HeadleyDown: "I repeat; NLP is not criticized for relying on anecdotal evidence or case reports, and there is no reliable evidence of NLP’s effect."

---=-C-=- 23:53, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

From the books and academic papers I have read, and on close inspection, HeadleDown seems to be both correct and accurate. He also seems to be offering you a sweet deal. The Penguin Dictionary of Psych says that NLP sells five minute phobia cures and there is no reliable evidence of its effect. I have papers and chapters that state Perls goaded many of his clients into suicide. I have a chapter that states Erickson was abusive to his female clients. I have legal statements by Bandler that say he threatened a prostitute with murder, and when she was murdered he left her to bleed to death then tried to NLP himself out of the memory by taking copious amounts of alcohol and narcotics. I also have newspaper reports of NLP practitioners teaching NLP to white supremacists in southern Germany (Bavaria). NLP is considered a dubious therapy. It is characterized by fraudulence. NLP is generally thought of as a set of banal fortune cookie sentiments, designed to make you feel insecure enough to attempt magical rituals for empowerment. I could go on. I suggest the term "intellectual fraud" be placed permanently into the opening lines. Medius Maximus 02:00, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
Yes Medius, intellectual fraud is quite a corroborated criticism. I think we can keep it in the main body for now though. NLP does use anecdotes and wild claims according to the literature, but the main criticism is that it is trying to use them in place of scientific evidence, and it fails to show anything reasonable. The evidence shows NLP is ineffective (according to reviewers). Its a simple and neutral statement, appropriate for the opening lines. Regards HeadleyDown 03:26, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
Medius Maximus says "The Penguin Dictionary of Psych says that NLP sells five minute phobia cures and there is no reliable evidence of its effect." You'd need to present the biases of your authors and the counter-arguments from those who disagree with this view. Digging out dirt about Bandler or Erickson, or some minority group who uses NLP) are all examples of guilt by association fallacy. If these were to be presented, both side of the argument would have to be presented fairly as with normal scholarly practice. You are both being very selective with your sources - there are counter-arguments to your claims that there is "no reliable evidence" -- also, "reliable" is not a NPOV term. ---=-C-=- 03:38, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
Hello Comaze. Could you please focus on the subject of this discussion: The opening lines presented above. Thankyou HeadleyDown 03:58, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
Hello Comaze. The term "reliable" does not appear in the lines presented. However, I have made a NPOV addition to the lines:
Neuro-Linguistic Programming (NLP) is a set of techniques or rituals and beliefs that adherents use primarily as an approach to psychotherapy, healing, communication and personal development. NLP developers state that NLP is based upon neuroscience, linguistics, and the assumption that behavior can be programmed. NLP fosters New Age notions and beliefs such as altered states, altered realities, and magic, and as with other New Age developments, the various groups of NLP differentiate themselves using slightly different approaches or emphases.
NLP is criticized for promoting pseudoscientific and magical thinking, for being a cult, for being intellectually fraudulent, and for being promoted using exaggerated claims regardless of reviews of empirical studies which have shown negative overall results.
I suggest also that the term "Neuro-scam" be a possible addition to the criticism line. Regards HeadleyDown 04:15, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
I think we should be clearly presenting NLP in a way that anyone taking a look who knows about NLP - whether proNLP, antiNLP - would say "yeah that's about right". AND it should be descriptive for people who know nothing. I think it worthless to get a text out that will continue to have comments every couple of weeks from readers (non-editors) like "This is nothing like NLP". Otherwise whatever article exists will be constantly in flux as people change it and change it back.... what's the point Headley? Greg 06:01, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
Hello GregA. Does this sound more familiar?
Neuro-Linguistic Programming (NLP) is a set of techniques or rituals and beliefs that adherents use primarily as an approach to psychotherapy, healing, communication and personal development. NLP developers state that NLP is the study of the structure of subjective experience and is based upon neuroscience, linguistics, and the assumption that behavior can be programmed. NLP fosters New Age notions and beliefs such as altered states, altered realities, and magic, and as with other New Age developments, the various groups of NLP differentiate themselves using slightly different approaches or emphases.
NLP is criticized for promoting pseudoscientific and magical thinking, for being a cult, for being intellectually fraudulent, and for being promoted using exaggerated claims regardless of reviews of empirical studies which have shown negative overall results.
Regards HeadleyDown 07:26, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
(No idea what you mean Headley... More familiar in what way? Greg 06:05, 17 April 2006 (UTC))

Hello GregA. Does the term “study of the structure of subjective experience” seem more familiar? Will NLP fans recognize it? Will it sound right to them? You asked me the point of presenting the well researched and highly neutral facts presented in the passage. If you remember, even when NLP advocates were allowed to present their own highly sanitized version of NLP (minus the normal NLP claims) they still continued to delete scientific facts and criticisms from the article. It doesn’t matter how things are presented, the article will move forward fine as long as the facts are restored civilly, and as long as regular editors here realize that this is a controversial subject. Thankfully we have some good researchers here who have provided the article with some very neutral and high-level viewpoints of science and sociology. Those views will be presented and no doubt will need to be restored on a regular basis. Its just one of those things. Regards HeadleyDown 10:08, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Headley - yep "study of the structure of subjective experience" is quite familiar. No need to respond to the rest, you answered my question in your 1st line. Greg 11:41, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
HeadleyDown said, "no reliable evidence of NLP’s effect" then Medius Maximus said nearly exactly the same thing, "The Penguin Dictionary of Psych says ... there is no reliable evidence of its effect." HeadleyDown presented POV as if it were fact. Medius Maximus cites "Penguin Dictionary of Psych"; on what psychological evidence does "Penguin Dictionary" make its claims? ---=-C-=- 00:59, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
A small adjustment (too much discussion is unconstructive):
Neuro-Linguistic Programming (NLP) is a set of techniques or rituals and beliefs that adherents use primarily as an approach to psychotherapy, healing, communication and personal development. NLP developers state that NLP is the study of the structure of subjective experience and is based upon neuroscience, linguistics, and the assumption that behavior can be programmed. NLP fosters New Age notions and beliefs such as altered states, altered realities, and magic, and as with other New Age developments, the various groups of NLP differentiate themselves using slightly different approaches or emphases.
NLP is criticized for promoting pseudoscientific and magical thinking, for being a cult, for being intellectually fraudulent, and for being promoted using exaggerated claims (charlatanry) regardless of reviews of empirical studies which have shown negative overall results.
Regards HeadleyDown 01:28, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

These need to be recast as claims, and get rid of the passive voice. Critics say NLP is... · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 01:34, 17 April 2006 (UTC)


Who says that NLP is based on "neuroscience, linguistics, and the assumption that behavior can be programmed."? This could be misleading. It is more commonly accepted that NLP was based on the language and behavioral patterns of expectional psychotherapists, such as Milton H. Erickson, Virginia Satir and Fritz Perls. see evidence above. ---=-C-=- 01:40, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
These lines don't say NLP is (although they need to be recast a little more strongly as claims, as I suggested above), they say NLP critics say NLP is.... We're not out to discover the "truth" about NLP; it's proper therefore to characterize what its critics think, just as much as it is to characterize what its practictioners think. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 01:42, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
The line "NLP fosters New Age notions" could be reworded so that it is clear that it is critics POV...
  • Critics (eg. Stephen Hunt, Jack Raso) say that... "NLP fosters New Age notions and beliefs such as altered states..."
An alternateive may be that some practitioners or some aspects of NLP are influenced by x which is considered a New Age belief by Y. ---=-C-=- 02:00, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't get your argument. How can a line that says "critics say NLP fosters New Age notions" be considered representative of the practitioner's view of NLP? I daresay a "critic" is not an active practitioner. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 02:05, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I refactored my post. thanks ---=-C-=- 02:14, 17 April 2006 (UTC)


Hello Comaze, this is a continued improvement to the first lines. Please do not move it to any other section.
Neuro-Linguistic Programming (NLP) is a set of techniques or rituals and beliefs that adherents use primarily as an approach to psychotherapy, healing, communication and personal development. NLP developers state that NLP is the study of the structure of subjective experience and is based upon neuroscience, linguistics, and the assumption that behavior can be programmed. NLP fosters New Age notions and beliefs such as altered states, altered realities, and magic, and as with other New Age developments such as Dianetics, the various groups of NLP differentiate themselves using slightly different approaches or emphases.
Critics say that NLP promotes pseudoscientific and magical thinking, that NLP is a cult, and is promoted using exaggerated claims characteristic of fraud and charlatanry, regardless of reviews of empirical studies which have shown negative overall results.
Thanks Katefan0. I only just noticed your helpful suggestion to change from passive voice. Its much easier to read this way. Again, if this is agreed upon for the opening, I will also be willing to remove the Dianetics term. Regards HeadleyDown 03:15, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure about the last clause. I think it's enough to say "is promoted using exaggerated claims of fraud and charlatanry." The last portion is presupposed by saying critics believe it's a pseudoscience. If you want to introduce specific studies later in the article, that's be okay. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 03:24, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Sure Katefan0:
Neuro-Linguistic Programming (NLP) is a set of techniques or rituals and beliefs that adherents use primarily as an approach to psychotherapy, healing, communication and personal development. NLP developers state that NLP is the study of the structure of subjective experience and is based upon neuroscience, linguistics, and the assumption that behavior can be programmed. NLP fosters New Age notions and beliefs such as altered states, altered realities, and magic, and as with other New Age developments such as Dianetics, the various groups of NLP differentiate themselves using slightly different approaches or emphases.
Critics say that NLP promotes pseudoscientific and magical thinking, that NLP is a cult, and is promoted using exaggerated claims characteristic of fraud and charlatanry.
Regards HeadleyDown 03:28, 17 April 2006 (UTC)


Further to GregA's suggestion above, I present a more multi-view version of the opening.
Neuro-Linguistic Programming (NLP) is a set of techniques or rituals and beliefs that adherents use primarily as an approach to psychotherapy, healing, communication and personal development. NLP developers state that NLP is the study of the structure of subjective experience and is based upon neuroscience, linguistics, and the assumption that behavior can be programmed. NLP fosters New Age notions and beliefs such as altered states, altered realities, and magic, and as with other New Age developments such as Dianetics, the various groups of NLP differentiate themselves using slightly different approaches or emphases.
Critics say that NLP promotes pseudoscientific and magical thinking and ethically questionable behavior, that NLP is a cult, and that NLP is ineffective and is promoted using exaggerated claims characteristic of fraud and charlatanry.
The offer to remove the neutrally stated sociological/scientific view that NLP is like Dianetics or in the same group, is still open as long as the version is accepted. HeadleyDown 10:41, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Any chance that you could do something to make your suggested texts "stand out" visually? Perhaps italics, or bulletpoints/italic? (In the interests of good editing). I stand by my earlier suggestion as neutral, but will attempt to merge some with yours shortly. Greg 11:41, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
ps. Which suggestion of mine are you suggesting you're adding in this?
ppps. In a medium where indentations are used to indicate responses or a different editor, I think an indent for suggestions is confusing. Appreciate the attempt though. Greg 13:22, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Nah.. no good. I can't answer all your claims without doubling the length to represent the opposing POV. I think we've stretched far beyond a 1 line replacement. There's no point.
  • Neuro-Linguistic Programming (NLP) promotes methods for enhancing a person's quality of life, and is based on the idea that you can find out how experts (or non-experts) do what they do, and learn to do it their way. It includes processes for exploring experiences from different perspectives (and states of mind), as well as techniques for behavior change. NLP's approach has been applied to many fields - primarily psychotherapy, communication, and personal development.
  • NLP processes can be applied in 'good' or 'bad' ways, it's up to the individual using the processes - and critics say that NLP is ethically questionable. The NLP developers and later practitioners attempted to demystify the "unknown" things people do, though critics say that (conversely) NLP often encourages spiritual beliefs. NLP has no centralised control, and various companies and groups using NLP vary in their approaches, beliefs, and emphases - including in what contexts they apply NLP. Some groups promote NLP with exaggerated claims and NLP has been criticised for this.
  • Although NLP studies people, it does so far differently to Psychology - for instance it looks at the subjective experience of individuals (how an expert does what they do), it does not attempt objective measurements by averaging group responses nor does it use the scientific method of study. Critics say that NLP does not back up its claims of effectiveness with psychological research, and that when research has been done NLP practitioners ignore any negative results while focussing on any positive results.
I think no matter what 'paragraphs' we use to replace the single line, it'll be out of context with the rest of the opening. I still maintain that until we've represented science, pseudoscience, criticisms, etc in the subsections, we won't be able to represent them fairly in our summarising opening. Greg 13:22, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Hmmm.. just quickly reading over what I'd written before, and your responses... my original suggestion was the single paragraph:
  • Neuro-Linguistic Programming (NLP) promotes methods for enhancing a person's quality of life. It claims to do this through exploring experiences from different perspectives (and states of mind), reproducing an expert's abilities, and techniques for behaviour change - and its approach has been applied to many fields, primarily psychotherapy, communication, and self-development. NLP is criticised for its lack of experimental evidence to support its claimed efficacy, and some psychologists label it pseudoscientific.
I note that no-one actually disputed anything in my paragraph. I assume we're still supposed to be working towards finding something we all agree on and moving on rather than getting into arguments? On that note, Camridge said that I wasn't adding anything new. Perhaps we can take the single paragraph, or we can just dump the 1st line altogether as the rest of the opening is still rather important. Greg 13:27, 17 April 2006 (UTC)


Hello GregA. Your versions really do add very little, and are very misleading.

  • Quality of life is included in healing, psychotherapy, and self development.
  • Your version also leads the reader to believe that the choice of the user is ethically questionable.
  • You are saying that a criticism is that NLP is spiritual. It is not presented as a criticism at all.
  • Your version also infers that NLP has been criticized because only some groups have acted badly (unwarranted claims). That is both incorrect and misleading. NLP as a subject is full of unwarranted claims according to the literature. Promoters also use unwarranted claims. Nobody is saying that some groups do not.
  • There are some things to possibly add: NLP proponents claim that NLP is ethically neutral. Indeed NLP has no centralized control, and that can be added.

Neuro-Linguistic Programming (NLP) is a set of techniques or rituals and beliefs that adherents use primarily as an approach to psychotherapy, healing, communication and personal development. NLP developers state that NLP is the study of the structure of subjective experience and is based upon neuroscience, linguistics, and the assumption that behavior can be programmed. NLP fosters New Age notions and beliefs such as altered states, altered realities, and magic, and as with other New Age developments such as Dianetics, the various groups of NLP have no centralized control and differentiate themselves using slightly different approaches or emphases. NLP adherents also state that NLP is ethically neutral and promotes non-judgmental attitudes towards any behavior.

Critics say that NLP promotes pseudoscientific and magical thinking and ethically questionable behavior, that NLP is a cult, and that NLP is ineffective and is promoted using exaggerated claims characteristic of fraud and charlatanry.

Regards HeadleyDown 14:12, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Headley, having some feedback allows improvement. I am attempting to remove things that we disagree on so as to get agreement. We could remove the "quality of life" thing but in doing that we remove the basic "what NLP is". The whole point is that NLP can be applied to Psychotherapy, it's not actually Psychotherapy - Perhaps you can suggest a way of making that clearer? I guess we could say NLP goal is to study the structure of subjective experience, and has many techniques - these have been applied to various fields...
Okay so that's the only criticism that applies to my short version (I haven't made the passive voice change as Kate suggested yet).
Regarding your suggestion - beyond all the previous objections, note also that NLP is not based on the assumption that behaviour can be programmed - it's based on the assumption that we've already got 'programming' from our life experiences, and the assumption that people can change and learn. I'm also wondeirng - if we say "NLP developers say that NLP is X" we imply POV - should we add other POVs, or remove "NLP developers say"?
Back to your comments on mine - you say I imply the choice of the user is ethically questionable - and that's true. Like a computer is not ethically questionable, but it can be used for those things.
You say I'm implying spirituality is a criticism - you are right, oops. I should make it clear that some practitioners actually use NLP to encourage spiritual beliefs (and perhaps that critics have said that encourages magical thinking????)
I don't actually use the term 'unwarranted claims' - but I do say that only some NLP practitioners make exagerrated claims. Other unwarranted claims are covered in the WHOLE next paragraph.
Thanks. Greg 22:51, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I changed the lines according to GregA's suggestion:


Neuro-Linguistic Programming (NLP) is a set of techniques or rituals and beliefs that adherents use primarily as an approach to psychotherapy, healing, communication and personal development. NLP developers state that NLP is the study of the structure of subjective experience and is based upon neuroscience, linguistics, and the assumption that behavior is programmed. NLP fosters New Age notions and beliefs such as altered states, altered realities, and magic, and as with other New Age developments such as Dianetics, the various groups of NLP have no centralized control and differentiate themselves using slightly different approaches or emphases. NLP adherents also state that NLP is ethically neutral and promotes non-judgmental attitudes towards any behavior.

Critics say that NLP promotes pseudoscientific and magical thinking and ethically questionable behavior, that NLP is a cult, and that NLP is ineffective and is promoted using exaggerated claims characteristic of fraud and charlatanry.

It does say NLP is an approach, rather than psychotherapy pers se. The lines are all correct according to my reading of the literature. ATB Camridge 03:02, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Camridge. I believe we can go further though:


Neuro-Linguistic Programming (NLP) is a set of techniques or rituals and beliefs that adherents use primarily as an approach to psychotherapy, healing, communication and personal development. NLP developers state that NLP is the study of the structure of subjective experience and is based upon neuroscience, linguistics, and the assumption that behavior is programmed. NLP fosters New Age notions and beliefs such as altered states, altered realities, and magic, and as with other New Age developments such as Dianetics, the various groups of NLP have no centralized control and differentiate themselves using slightly different approaches or emphases. NLP adherents also state that NLP is ethically neutral and promotes non-judgmental attitudes towards any behavior. NLP is also known as a power therapy, or alphabet therapy.

Critics say that NLP promotes pseudoscientific and magical thinking and ethically questionable behavior, that NLP is a cult, and that NLP is ineffective and is promoted using exaggerated claims characteristic of fraud and charlatanry.

Regards HeadleyDown 12:43, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes Headley, this is all perfectly verifiable and takes into account all significant views. Its a bit generous to NLP though, I'm sure we can balance that out later. Bookmain 03:27, 19 April 2006 (UTC) PS does anyone have the Sharpley 87 ref in soft format? Bookmain 03:29, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
Sure Bookmain, but I'd be willing to remove the Dianetics bit if the passage was accepted without any further fuss. Other editors have made the gesture, and I think its cooperative to follow suit. I just got a ton of new refs and softcopies emailed to me from some ex-editors. Its trippled my database. I'll send them over to you. Stay in touch! Camridge 04:28, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
Hello Camridge. I can also send some to Headley to send to others. Some in German, some Swedish and lots English. I think you suggestion for the opening is good. HansAntel 05:05, 19 April 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Main Points for Opening

The opening should be the "management summary" of the article, shouldn't it? I propose to remove any mentioning of "new age" and other potentially POV words (it might sound neutral to you, in most of Europe, "New Age" rhymes with "pseudoscience bullshit"). I further propose to list the important aspects of NLP in the opening paragraph:

  • Started in 1973 by Linguist John Grinder and graduate student Richard Bandler
  • Much of the original work was the attempt to "model" Erickson, Satyr, Pearls
  • Exists today in many different variations, from scientific approaches to New Age healing and human potential versions.

I've done my share of NLP research, and it appears clearly to me that there is a fairly small "core" of NLP belief, and a very large area of "extensions" where different people have plugged in different views. There's the "marketing and persuasion" angle (which is not part of Bandler/Grinders work until at least the 80s), there's the New Age angle (which apparently Bandler alone took to, probably for reasons of market share) and so on.

I suggest splitting the article likewise, maybe along a time-table, saying "original work" and "later extensions". Especially in light of the fact that many practitioners of NLP today have a very dim view of what Bandler has done to it during the past 10 years or so.

--213.191.86.35 12:25, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Archived (IMPORTANT)

I just archived most of this page. I did it for a few reasons. One is that we've reached the point where some of these discussions are a month old and they haven't had any action in awhile. Secondly, it's for size reasons. The page had gotten to be so large (530K) that for slow connections like mine, it was taking well over a minute to open. If a user wants to reopen a discussion from the talk page, bring it back onto this page IN FULL. If you don't know how to do this, ask one of the mentors. Thank you. As note at the top, the archive is here. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 16:25, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Woohookitty. I'm sure thats helpful to all. Regards HeadleyDown 00:52, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
Especially me! :-D --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 01:18, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] remove text

Hello Comaze. Firstly, we need to agree with the literature-founded facts in the first line of the article above. Once that is done, it would be constructive to first explain to us why you want to strike the fact from the article. We need to focus on being constructive. One agreement at a time. Regards HeadleyDown 04:16, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I want to reword this text (and similar) for NPOV: "who attempted legal action to claim the bulk of the field as his own personal intellectual and commercial property because he could not resolve the dispute through the use of NLP". Any suggestions? The strikethrough text would be the first to go. It can wait until after we find some agreement in the opening paragraph. ---=-C-=- 04:49, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Archive unused references

Follow is a list of unused references:


Unused
  • Strean, H. (1995) PSYCHOANALYTIC THEORY. Kegan Page Publishers
  • ↑ Bateson, Gregory (1979). [- Mind and Nature: A Necessary Unity (Advances in Systems Theory, Complexity, and the Human Sciences)]. Hampton Press, -. -.
  • ↑ Griffin, N., & Goldsmith, L. (1985, March). The charismatic kid: Tony Robbins, 25, gets rich peddling a hot self-help program. Life, 8, 41-46.. -.
  • ↑ Bandler, Richard (1993). [- Time For a Change]. Palo Alto, CA: Science & Behavior Books, -. -.
  • ↑ Christopher, P. (2004). [- New Religions: A Guide : New Religious Movements, Sects and Alternative Spiritualities]. Oxford University Press, -. ISBN 0195220420.
  • Barrett, D. (1997) Sects, Cults and Alternative Religions: A World Survey and Sourcebook. Pub Blandford.
  • ↑ Bradley, E J & Heinz J Biedermann (1985). "Bandler and Grinder's Communication Analysis: Its historical context and contribution.". Psychotherapy, Theory and Research 22: 59-62.

Von Bergen, C W, Barlow Soper, Gary T Rosenthal,Lamar V Wilkinson (1997). "Selected alternative training techniques in HRD". Human Resource Development Quarterly 8(4): 281-294.

please move the unused references to an archive. best regards, ---=-C-=- 05:47, 14 April 2006 (UTC)


Hello Comaze. Your request to archive these references may highlight various sources that show clarity towards NLP in general. If that is your objective, then I applaud and encourage it. Regards HeadleyDown 13:43, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

There are a few that may be acceptable for a subsection on Education (Craft 2001) and "Marketing communications" (Skinner, H. and Stephens, P. 2003); we can discuss it closer to the time. we could use such as in a subsection about Education and Marketing. But we can discuss that when it comes up. The objective is to clear out the unused references - any objections to movings to an archive? ---=-C-=- 23:47, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
If it's agreed to, I'll make it a subsection of the workshop for now. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 04:17, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Many of the references are being used, but over the months of deletions, a lot of the attributions have been removed. Keeping the sources in one spot (the article) will help thought processes and attributing statements, rather than moving sources to disparate areas of wikipedia. Thus, I will disagree with any such movement, at least until the present opening lines have been dealt with and placed into the opening. I find this "unused ref move" quite unconstructive. Cheers DaveRight 05:18, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Further to this... would it be useful making a separate page which just lists references - including some brief info on where it was published, possible biases, and actual quotes. These references may or may not appear in the article - but at least in 6 months time if someone adds a "new" reference, they can always check to see if it's already been looked up or whatever. What do you think? Greg 06:23, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
There was an article created for that purpose, it is now outdated... [[89]] ---=-C-=- 08:29, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Do NOT use sockpuppets

DaveRight has been proven to use sockpuppets. Specifically, he created and used the accounts of JPLogan and Medius Maximus. All 3 accounts have been blocked indefinitely. Please. Do NOT use sockpuppets. It is not going to help you. If anyone here is using sockpuppets right now, I would suggest ceasing. Thanks. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 02:19, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Obviously, I support the blocks. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 02:41, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Hello KatefanO and Woohookitty. What is there to do with you? I have spoken to Dave and JP on Skype myself and they are both very different people. Dave is Black and JP comes from Cork in Ireland. If you feel sore enough to block me, then go right ahead. Au revoir AliceDeGrey 05:23, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
We do not block people because "we're sore". We block them because they have violated a specific policy that we have set down for this article (with the full endorsement of the arbcom) or they have violated a general Wikipedia policy. Your comments do neither. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 06:13, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Yes I understand wikipedia policy is biased towards editors who are middle-class enough to afford their own home computers. (I would never suggest you don't like black or Irish people). Never mind. The offer is still open. If it makes you feel any better, you can still block or ban me if you like. I'm not American, white, or middle-class either. I'm French-Arab. I'm sure it doesn't make any difference, but I also have meatpuppets to work with. Au revoir. AliceDeGrey 07:11, 18 April 2006 (UTC)


Hi Alice. I'd actually like to come to the defence of the mentors this time. I reckon they've been quite ok recently. They have a set of (perhaps biased) wikipedia recommendations to follow and they are actually being fairly straight about it. And it makes no difference if we all get our accounts deleted. The facts will be presented some way or other. The persistence level is just overwhelming. And the more that some editors struggle to remove facts, the more solid, neutral, and impassive those facts become. ATB. Camridge 07:27, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
We appreciate the compliments. Thank you. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 08:44, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Maybe you're right Camridge. Perhaps I feel a bit left out. I've not got blocked yet. I guess I'll just sit back and watch the farce unfold. AliceDeGrey 07:56, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Well you've been blocked now, Alice. I don't understand you guys who refuse to follow our rules. I really don't. Our rules are not that hard. And you seem to think that if you give the mentors the finger long enough, then maybe you'll get your way. It's not going to work. Just like anyone else, we can ask for CheckUser. CheckUser is pretty foolproof. As I said, I don't get it. You guys who don't follow our rules do not have a right to be here. Everyone can edit Wikipedia, but this article is restricted to those who follow our rules. And we have backing by the arbcom, so it's not as if we're going to be overturned here. If you look at [blocks] that we have done, not a one is on anyone's opinions about NLP. Not a one. What does this say? It says that if you stay civil and don't use sockpuppets or some other method to unfairly influence the debate, then you will be ok. It's that simple, people. You guys who want to flaunt the rules can sit here and claim bias or claim that we're racist or whatever you want. We're none of those things. We've yet to block someone because of their views. We've blocked people based on what they've said or their actions. It isn't that difficult. But hey. As we've said all along, if you don't want to follow our rules, go somewhere else. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 08:29, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
With respect Woohookitty, I don't believe Alice's views are representitive. I personally have become very happy with your rules, and am coming around to the idea that your permanent presence in the NLP article may well be very beneficial. ATB Camridge 08:38, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Sorry. I didn't mean to label everyone. I should have said those who refuse to follow our rules. Apologies. I changed my comments to make it clear that I meant those who refuse to follow our rules, not everyone. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 08:44, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
I've just blocked another sock, Addsquad (talk • contribs). We can continue on in this fashion, but really it's pointless to bother. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 15:31, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New discussion heading

Now let's get back to discussing proposed changes... Johntex\talk 00:48, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Next steps

All, editing on the workshop dummy of the live page has dropped to almost zero, while discussions on the workshop talk page drone on endlessly with no resolution. While I don't want to discourage discussion -- indeed, it's integral to dispute resolution -- I feel as if people have become too comfortable sitting in their entrenched positions instead of reaching out for true compromises where they can be had. To that end, I and at least one of the other mentors have decided to unprotect the live article. Everyone is free to edit, keeping in mind that the arbcom's decisions (such as requiring discussion of substantive edits and reverts [90]) and Wikipedia's rules will continue to be enforced. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 05:17, 19 April 2006 (UTC)


Thanks much Katefan0. Camridge 05:27, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I want to move the entire current Workshop page to the live page. There were many updates including the auto inline citation format as per featured article standards. ---=-C-=- 07:32, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

There was also much excising of text, most of which was disputed and none of which has been resolved. It may be a bit much to ask that all those deletions be preserved in the live version. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 15:11, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
Yes Kate. I believe it would probably be the most unconstructive way of doing things. Lets head for baby steps, and agreement (at least agreement that some of the more obvious facts are verifiable). Regards HeadleyDown 17:15, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NLP Variants

After reading most of this page, I think this justifies its own discussion:

How much of the various ways NLP is taught/marketed by various people should be included in the main NLP article?

The Firewalk is one example. It's mentioned here extensively as an example and yet after reading a dozen books on NLP and visiting a week-long seminar, this is the first time ever that I encounter it in the context. Likewise, I am surprised at the mentioning of "casting magic circles, sending energy out to the audience" and like comments. Nothing even remotely like that was part of the seminar I attended, nor could I possibly imagine it there.

Also, a huge amount of crap is marketed as NLP, even though it's got little or nothing in common with it. That's not surprising, that's marketing. If quantum physics were suddenly the hottest thing on earth, you'd bet shampoo would be sold as "especially well quantum-entangled", and yet we wouldn't be discussing changes to the quantum physics article, would we? SS, TLT and all the other blabla should be listed with links to their own pages somewhere at the bottom under "related topics" and that's it.

Also, one should be careful with Bandler. Lots of what he says today is plainly refused by most of the NLP community. Many NLP people I've met shrug when you mention Bandler and tell you they think that nowadays he's only in it for the money and his seminars are a rip-off. That doesn't sound like your typical cult to me.


So, in essence, I plead for seperating between what NLP claims to contain and what other things claim about NLP. Just because the pseudo-science cult I'll invent this evening claims it's the merger of christianity, pure logic and the theory of relativity doesn't change what any of these are about.

</endrant> --213.191.86.35 12:48, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Please move your comments to Talk:Neuro-linguistic programming, where discussions are ongoing. Thanks. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 13:14, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Done. If this page is not watched/monitored/active anymore, maybe a notice could be added to the top? --213.191.86.35 13:20, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed Change to 2nd Paragraph

current:

NLP is based on New Age principles [3] such as body language cues derived from the observation of “therapeutic wizards” [4]. Some techniques include behavior change, transforming beliefs, and treatment of traumas through techniques such as reframing [5] [4] and the "meta-modeling" [6] proposed for exploring the personal limits of belief as expressed in language.

alternative - formulations could probably be improved, I am not a native english speaker:

NLP is based on the observation of the well-recognised psychotherapists Milton Erickson (hypnotherapy), Fritz Perls (Gestalt therapy) and Virigina Satir (family therapy). Grinder and Bandler constructed models of the behaviour of these therapists, and NLP claims that any successful person's methods can be modeled and then replicated.
Critics claim the principles and techniques derived from these observations, such as body language cues, "reframing" and "meta-modeling" are pseudoscientific and link them to the "New Age" movement and Dianetics.

Something like that contains all the content that you seem to insist on, while the formulation is neutral without supporting either POV.

--213.191.86.35 13:17, 26 April 2006 (UTC)


I have recently come across the NLP page and was somewhat shocked by the overall accusatory tone (please look at my member page for some of my biases). After perusing the discussion threads and the current workshop page, here are my suggestions:

a) I am working on some detailed technical explanations of various aspects of NLP and their tie-ins with other psychotherapy theories and techniques. Please stand by for more. One example, the "reframing" cited in the section above is a technique from Family System Theory that predates the first book by Bandler & Grinder (B&G) by at least several years if not a decade; developed at the MRI in Palo Alto, and influencing many family therapists thereafter, it is standardly taught at University counseling psychology grad programs and included in textbooks - e.g. Nichols, "The Essentials of Family Therapy"; at the program I am in, it was also touched upon in one of the introductory "Counseling Skills" classes.

b) Neither reframing nor meta-modeling (which derives from Bertrand Russell's Theory of Logical Types) are New Age concepts or have anything to do with dianetics. The only time I have ever come across the term "Theta" in NLP is in connection with the brain wave patterns of various states of consciousness, from Beta (waking), via Beta (drowsy), to Theta (sleep) and Delta (deep, non-REM sleep) when discussing the ranges for hypnotic trance states (low Beta to high Theta). These brain wave patterns can be found in any psychiatry/DSM diagnosis textbook under "sleep disorders", etc.

As for the "unblocking" or "clearing" terms, NLP like most of psychotherapy does discuss the unraveling of certain dysfunctional or disempowering beliefs, etc. (refer e.g. to the Wikipedia page on Cognitive Therapy, the relative poster-child for experimentally supported therapies, "Depression" section: "Negative thinking can be categorized into a number of common patterns called "cognitive distortions". The cognitive therapist provides techniques to give the client a greater degree of control over negative thinking by correcting these distortions, or correcting thinking errors that abet the distortions, in a process called cognitive restructuring.") To what extent the proponents of dianetics want to claim connection to these concepts I am not qualified to discuss, however I do know that in the NLP trainings I have attended nothing relating to Dianetics was ever discussed or made reference to. Similarly, the "enneagram" term that was linked to Virginia Satir was never once brought up, and I find it curious that it would be brought up on the NLP page when neither Wikipedia's Satir page nor the Enneagram page reference each other in any way. If there were any connection, then it should be made on those pages first.

Also note that the of importance "body language cues" that are supposedly linked to "New Age believers" are pervasive in the study of psychology and human behavior, e.g. very notably in developmental psychology, where any introductory class will mention the concepts of synchrony, attachment, and social referencing between infant and care-givers, in essence the body-language-based wiring up of the paleo-mammalian portion of the triune brain. The counseling skills textbook we used introduced rapport and mirroring as fundamental skills for any counselor regardless of theoretical orientation.

c) In general, I find it fascinating what kind of tactics have been resorted to at times on this thread, many of the "discussions" followed the pattern: "I say you are lazy, incompetent, and practice poor personal hygiene; I am willing to drop the reference to hygiene if you are willing to admit to the rest." That appears to be no way to conduct a discussion, even if the subject is hotly contested.

The pervasive claim of lack of experimental support for NLP concepts and techniques is one that afflicts most psychotherapeutic approaches. Given that the study of the human mind-brain (to speak with cognitive science) is by definition a difficult one, due to the epistemological issue of the "knower" and the "known" (the subject of inquiry and knowledge) converging in this case, we should not be surprised that most if not all psychotherapies are an amalgamation of more or less speculative theories and concepts, plus a set of techniques (or technologies in the sense of "sytematic prescription of a skill"). Note that science still does not understand everything about electricity, yet we have been using it for well over 100 years.

If one would care to look at the theoretical basis underlying e.g. Cognitive Therapy (and I only use it as an example because it has the strongest claim to systematic experimental study; in fact, I will show later how much NLP has in common with CT), one will find that the main propositions are that it 1) "is based on the idea that how we think (cognition), how we feel (emotion), and how we act (behaviour) all interact together. Specifically, our thoughts determine our feelings and our behaviour. Therefore negative thoughts can cause us distress and result in problems." 2) "Negative thinking in depression can result from biological sources (i.e., endogenous depression), modeling from parents, peers, or other sources. The depressed person experiences negative thoughts as being beyond their control: the negative thought pattern can become automatic and self-perpetuating." Note how relatively "thin" of a theory this really is; notice how reference to a possible substratum for "thoughts" (i.e. how the patterns are held in the mind) is avoided; note that the term "automatic thoughts" does not explain how they become automatic; note the use of the term "modeling", which is rather pervasive in psychology since the days of Bandura's social learning theory.

d) Note also that there are deep philosophical issues in regard to science, scientific verifiability and measurement (in an age of quantum mechanics and Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle), post-positivism vs. social constructionism (e.g. in the debate over quantitative vs. qualitative research), that are all worthy of debate but do not all have to be dealt with on the NLP page. One brief issue I would like to point out is the idea that ANY form of interactive "talk-therapy" regardless of theoretical orientation cannot be tested in a true double-blind study, because the interaction between therapist and client (subject) cannot be free of the therapists own beliefs about the efficacy of the therapy, and may thus be subject to subliminal "transmission" to the client's state of mind, creating possible "placebo effects" (this idea of possible transmission, however accomplished, is admitted by the research community by the very existence of the double-blind requirement, e.g. in the case of a new drug, the administering doctor or staff is not allowed to know whether they are administering the real treatment or the placebo, whether the subject before them is of the control group or not, etc.; the therapist in our example will have some internal opinion about what she is doing). If your client has any notion or hint that you feel you don't know what you are talking about (e.g. reading from a novel/strange or even placebo treatment script), that you have doubts about what you are doing, the "treatment" will be influenced and likely fail. BTW, NLP would use its pragmatic theory of the unconscious mind to explain the placebo effect, an effect which is otherwise ill understood (reference the Wikipedia page on placebo) yet of course acknowledged by virtue of the double-blind requirements. More on this later.

e) I move to have all criticisms of NLP moved to the appropriate Criticism section(s) as appears customary on Wikipedia pages. I have found no other pages about psychology where this "statement 1 plus instantaneous statement casting the previous statement 1 into doubt" pattern is used. The charge of unethical uses by some cannot be used as a blanket claim about NLP. The very claim of "dangerous uses" BTW is antithetical to the claim that it is completely ineffectual. Which is it? I am certainly against unethical uses of NLP for e.g. dating persuasion, however one has to realize that persuasion, suggestion, etc. is going on in the world ALL the time from all sides (the suave guy at the bar, the Marlboro team girl, the media, marketers, etc.), regardless of whether somebody specifically knows about NLP or not. It is best to know about its principles (especially in regard to suggestion and hypnotherapy) in order to guard against unwanted suggestions from all sides. Any NLP trainer worth their salt will stress issues of ethics and ecology, and a therapeutic outlook can certainly go a good way toward ensuring sound ethics.

As to the more "New Age", spiritual, or esoteric extensions of NLP, those can all be discussed and if necessary criticized separately. One thing I would like to point out: Richard Bandler has drawn the concentrated ire of many in the psychotherapy field, largely due to his "wild man" antics and behaviors. However, that does not justify throwing out the entire topic of NLP, any more than the fact that some people berate Freud for his long-term cocaine addiction or his sexualization of psychology, should have his body of work be summarily dismissed.

Again, I move to have all criticisms of NLP moved to the appropriate Criticism section(s), and have the Wikipedia main page replaced by this Workshop version very soon. Even the current workshop version is much better than the old page "dripping with vitriol".

--Whas 20:01, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Just so you know, this page really isn't active anymore. Talk:NLP is the place to discuss things. --Woohookitty(meow) 00:50, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you KatefanO. I would like to request a pagelock on the new workshop article, for a few days, until some more page numbers have been found for the first task (to provide page numbers and proper attribution).

In the meantime, the discussion can be as open and free as before (though with certain restrictions on damning each other to hell). We can discuss the nature of NLP, and its representation in the article. We can also discuss the nature of NLP advocates, and the researchers of the subject of NLP. Good questions and good answers are fully encouraged. HeadleyDown 16:08, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Personally I don't see any reason to protect the page. Ideally, this will end up being more discussion than anything else. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 16:09, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Fine by me Katefan0. HeadleyDown 16:50, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
We can also discuss the nature of NLP advocates, and the researchers of the subject of NLP. No, we can't. We will be discussing the NLP article. Period. If, by this, you meant continuing to delve into personal motivations of editors of the article, that will stop. Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 16:10, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Is there any way we can help to concentrate our discussion on the article and not get sidetracked into endless futile debate on general subject around NLP based on differences in personal opinions? --Dejakitty 17:08, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

KatefanO, procedural question: when you say "move it to the talk page so we can discuss and reach consensus", do you mean copy and paste, or cut and paste? --c 23:56, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Cut and paste. But try to take it a piece at a time. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 00:06, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
Thanks Kate, I just want to remind everyone that we need to use "cut and paste (NOT copy and paste) with any text to be challenged or removed. --c 00:53, 5 March 2006 (UTC)


[edit] My attempt at refocusing

Okay, folks, let me try something.

We're here to edit the article, not talk about anyone's motivations or credentials, or to determine truth based on research.

So, I'd like to invite someone to participate in a little article editing exercise with me. I'll take on one of these at first, and if it goes well, maybe I can handle more than one at a time. This will be first-come, first-served. I'm going to ask one person to identify a problem with the article and suggest a solution. I'll provide my input as mediator, and then I'll invite outside comments. Then we'll see if we can't build toward consensus and NPOV.

So, here's the ground rules: identify one small change you want to make to the article. Please stick to changing a passage no longer than two sentences long. We're starting small! Big things can come later. Then, fill out the section below with the change you want to make. Remember, first come, first served. I'll ask everyone else to refrain from commenting until I've had a chance to respond and invite additional comment.

Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 20:51, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed changes section

  • What portion of the article do you take issue with? (Quote the actual text. If what you want is an insertion, indicate the position for the insertion.)
  • On what basis do you object to this portion? Quote and link to the Wikipedia policy or guideline that justifies your objection.
  • What new wording do you suggest? (Indicate if your suggestion is a deletion.)

[edit] Proposed change by Comaze

  • What portion of the article do you take issue with? (Quote the actual text. If what you want is an insertion, indicate the position for the insertion.)
    • It is predicated upon the assumption that all behaviors have a practically determinable structure [91] [92].
  • On what basis do you object to this portion? Quote and link to the Wikipedia policy or guideline that justifies your objection.
    • In structure of magic vol.1 B&G say that , "It is useful to for an adequate understanding of this book that you distinguish between rule-governed behavior and determined behavior."(p.1) So the current statement about determined behavior is confusing. Rule-governed governed behaviour is based on the models created by Transformation Grammarians and their intuitions about well-formed sentences. The replacement sentence is a direct quote from the most highly cited book on NLP (according to google scholar, 170 citations). Also the word predicate is not used correctly in this case. WP policies... Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Verifiability.
  • What new wording do you suggest? (Indicate if your suggestion is a deletion.)
    • Bandler & Grinder (1975a) extend Chomsky's notion that human language is rule-governed (Syntactic Structures, Chomsky 1957) "to find that human behavior is rule-governed"(1975a p.1) -- "[a]lthough we have little or no consciousness of the way in which we form our communication, our activity -- the process of using language is highly structured" p.22.

c 22:51, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Comments
  1. Note: I've used direct quotes to avoid any question over paraphrasing the original source. I'm open to a rephrase if the original meaning is kept intact. --c 23:22, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Observations by jdavidb

  1. Okay, here are some observations:
    1. We really don't want the lead section to be so bogged down with footnotes and references. "The lead should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it could stand on its own as a concise version of the article." (WP:LEAD) The article itself should be documented and sources cited, but the lead section shouldn't be saying anything that's not expressed in more detail (and documented) later in the article. Is this expressed later in the article and documented? How would you say this without the requirement of the double-footnotes of the original or the references you provided?
      I recognize this may run counter to what you're hearing about citations. We do need everything backed up. We don't need footnotes for every sentence, nor multiple footnotes in the same spot, nor references at all in the lead section since it should be summarizing the article. Mentors, let me know if you disagree.
    2. Unless I'm misunderstanding, this is a valid use of the word "predicated." In fact, the word "predicated" is used this way in one other place in the article, and that usage is still present in the workshop version. It's saying that this is an axiom or else a fundamental principle in NLP. Is this not something universally agreed on by NLP practitioners?
    3. Again according to WP:LEAD, the lead section "is made as absolutely clear to the nonspecialist as the subject matter itself will allow." At this point in the lead section, neither the simple sentence that is there nor your complex replacement seem clear to me. Is it possible we could leave that point out of the lead section entirely? The previous sentence has already talked about "the study of the structure of subjective experience."
    4. Also from WP:LEAD, we want to be brief and concise, and I'm concerned about making an already long lead section even longer. Chopping out the citations will help. Is there a way you can propose wording this that is not much longer than the previous version?
    5. Here is my proposal: "It is predicated upon the assumption that all behaviors have a rule-governed structure." Is this adequate?
An alterative: "It is predicated upon the assumption that the way humans formulate language and behavior is rule-governed and highly structured." --c 04:42, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Okay, Comaze, the next step is yours. Please read through each of my points, take some time, and respond to them. If I've misunderstood something (which is very possible), do your best to explain what I'm missing. Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 16:23, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, based on LEAD we could probably leave this out or move it to the body of the document, see my alterative sentence. I intentionally started with a sentence that should be simple to come to consensus on. Do you think we should work on the body of the document first and then on the LEAD? --c 04:42, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Note: If you are not Comaze, please wait for jdavidb to invite participation from others before posting comments. Thanks.

[edit] Keep going, folks

Didn't intend to stop all other work on the article ... y'all can keep working on other spots while Comaze and I slow down and look at this one sentence. There are other mentors, and a long article to work on. The requests for people to wait just meant don't jump into that discussion until I announce Comaze and I are ready.

If this works well, we'll expand it, and I'm sure the other mentors will try it as well. Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 21:33, 15 February 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Proposed change by DaveRight

  • What portion of the article do you take issue with? (Quote the actual text. If what you want is an insertion, indicate the position for the insertion.)


NLP participants are taught that the human mind can be programmed, and that mis-programming by negative input is the norm. Like Scientology, rebirthing and other alternative therapies (Raso 1994)(Lilienfeld 2003) NLP embraces this Null Hypothesis and the classic New Age concept of "clearing" these blocks (Singer 1996). While the more traditional therapies concentrate on solving problems by focusing on the reasons 'why' (Singer 1996), Neurolinguistic programming looks at the 'hows' to provide a quick fix to a solution [29][30][31][32].

  • On what basis do you object to this portion? Quote and link to the Wikipedia policy or guideline that justifies your objection.

It needs to be clearer as an in-context overview. From a scientific, psychological, and sociological perspective, it is correct, yet the information needs to be richer yet with a few merges in lines. For example, the fact that NLP's contribution to more traditional rituals is mainly in the imagery/sensation aspect. The line should also represent the views of the authors more accurately. I do have some other suggestions though, for example, I could use the word "blocks" as that is easier to read than impediments. I will add page numbers soon.

  • What new wording do you suggest? (Indicate if your suggestion is a deletion.)

As with the alternative self development therapies of Dianetics and EST (Raso 1994)(Lilienfeld 2003)(Hunt 2002) NLP participants are taught that the we have extraordinary potential and that mis-programming by past life experiences creates impediments to this potential. NLP uses the classic New Age concept of "clearing" these blocks using imagery/sensation based rituals (Singer 1996). While the more clinical therapies concentrate on solving problems by focusing on the reasons 'why' the root cause of a problem exists, NLP looks at the 'hows' to provide a quick fix to a solution (Singer 1996), [29][30][31][32].

DaveRight 01:54, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Dave,
1. The mainstream of NLP does not express any opinion -- not a single word, on "past life", let alone "past life experiences."
2. NLP does not "contribute" to "traditional rituals." It is, in fact, the OPPOSITE of that -- it is an INVESTIGATION of a variety of techniques to find out "how do they work." ... stripping off all of the occult or other religious language and looking at the linguistic and symbolic STRUCTURE. Now, once that is understood in a generic sense, it is no more a 'contribution to traditional rituals' than is chemistry "contributing to traditional rituals" when a bunch of wacky wiccans use matches to light candles.
As someone supposedly who claims to be in a medical field, surely you can distinguish between study of X to discover Y, and application of Y in context Z.
68.248.73.177 03:37, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


Hello again 68.248.73.177. Richard Bandler, the originator of NLP himself has stated in audiorecordings that he has visited over 35 of his previous lives. Tad James uses the NLP ritual of timeline "therapy" which includes the exploration of past lives. Its all there in the literature. ATB Camridge 06:12, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

68.248.73.177. Richard Bandler and Tad James are mainstream NLP. Bandler would probably claim that he is NLP. There are audio and video recording of Bandler referring to New Age/occult concepts such as the "Akashic Record", "past lives", "magick" etc. NLP is a contribution to Western magick and ritual in that it is not concerned with the testing of the efficacy of the rituals it's concerned only with their formalisation and systematisation. During the 1970s and 1980s when Structuralism was in vogue many anthropologists produced stucturalist analyses of rituals. The early works of Bandler and Grinder are unlike any of these. They instead advocate the use of the rituals as means of treating mental illness and mending relationships. B&G unambiguously advocate the use of these rituals in place of traditional psychotherapy. Hence Magic I&II and Patterns I&II are not merely reports of an inquiry into ritual, as you are suggesting. Also, any non-anthropological investigation into claimed therapeutic ritual would not procced on the basis of finding out "how do they work" since this presumes that they do in fact work. Assuming that Western magickal rituals work as methods of psychotherapy and merely presenting them using formalisms drawn from logic, abstract algebra and set theory is neither anti-New Age, anti-occult nor anti-mysticism -- it is adding to the body of material drawn from Western magick (Golden Dawn, Thelema etc.). flavius 02:49, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Bandler advocates learning the structures of these various psychological techniques. Maybe I've missed something, but I haven't seen anything that indicates that Bandler actually believes that these rituals work for the reasons that the pagans and new-agers say they do ... it's quite clear that he's saying that these rituals work because of the way they are structured, INDEPENDANT OF THE RELIGIOUS BELIEFS of the people who do them, and that if you substituted a new set of mumbo-jumbo it would still work. As someone else noted, the car's don't go because of a belief in some "Mechanicism" or "Automobilism" but instead, because the DESIGN of the car makes it so that if you do A, B, C, and D, it's going to work -- regardless of your belief. Akulkis 05:38, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Hello Akulkis. So on what Wikipedia basis do you object to the views of sociologists, scientists, and other such independent researchers? ATB Camridge 05:49, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Personally (if science were that clean-cut), I would describe NLP as NLP books describe it - focussing on their commonalities where there are differences. I would then have a section on their differences, and a section on how science views NLP. (In the opening, I would summarise those 3 viewpoints).
Unfortunately different scientists say different things - for instance there is much research on NLP effectiveness that do not class NLP as anything other than a testable scientific theory. Wikipedia does say how to deal with things that have varying viewpoints. It includes representing them all. GregA 09:18, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
It does seem that people have a problem classifying NLP - perhaps we should have a section on that. GregA 09:18, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Hello GregA. I have noticed that many writers classify NLP differently, as a new age therapy, a pseudoscience, quackery, an alternative religion, a self-development healing movement, the difference that makes the difference, the art and science of excellence, and so on. Could end up being a large section though, and I think it would end up redundantly repeating a lot of what is in the article already. Worth thinking about long term tho! Camridge 09:26, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
NLP is just a description of how the mind works. Nothing more, and nothing less. APPLICATIONS of that knowledge vary. It can be used for good (therapy, education, training) or bad (cult-building, enslavement, etc.). I find it hilarious that the detractors say that it doesn't work AND that it's used BY cults to control people. How can it be dangerously successful at controlling cult members if it doesn't work??? That's like saying that rifles don't work, and rifles are bad, because snipers use them, and since snipers are bad, then rifles are ineffective tools. Akulkis 22:28, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Hello Akulkis. The research into NLP has demonstrated its ineffectiveness according to the researchers such as Sharpley, Eisner and many others. They also state its pseudoscientific nature and Singer 1999, states how it is used in cults. It doesn't have any particular power beyond the usual "flim flam" (Carroll 2003). Indeed some cults prescribe the drinking of urine in order to obtain compliance amongst its devotees. The same thing applies. NLP is equally daft and dangerous according to many psychologists. Therefore Camridge's argument is not idiotic at all. Waving your arms around and standing in magic circles is potentially dangerous when the poor devotee is already scared to death of inner "demons". Regards HeadleyDown 12:30, 23 March 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Observations by Woohookitty

  1. Okay, here are some observations:
    1. First of all, I do agree that blocks is a better word than impediments. One problem I have with alot of the text in this article is that it is not "plain" enough for our purposes. Wikipedia needs to be written for the general public, not for experts. Use of plain language is a good idea in articles such as this that are attempting to tackle difficult to understand (for some) concepts. So yes, I agree. Block is a good substitute for "impediments" here as they have the same general meaning and block is much more understandable to the general reader.
    2. Second (and this is a problem with this article as well), we need to find a way to lessen the amount of citations. I'll take your new wording as an example. One of the links at the end of the paragraph says "Singer 1996". In fact that shows up a few times in the text. I see in the notes that there is indeed a note for a book written by Singer in 1996. I also see "Raso" in the paragraph and again there is note for it in the note section. Same with Llienfeld and Hunt. On Wikipedia, it is considered desirable to put all of the sources at the end of the paragraph. Why? Because it makes the article much more readable. So I would suggest figuring out exactly what comes from what and then citing them all at the end of the paragraph and removing the "(Singer 1999)" type references. The whole point of footnotes is to *avoid* things like "(Singer 1999)". There is just no need for it when we can link to the bottom of the article with a footnote.
    3. Thirdly, where you mention the word "we", "we" must have "" around it. Why? Because otherwise it can be confusing for people who are not used to abstract concepts. Again, we are doing this for John Q. Public, not experts in the field.
    4. Minor point, but I don't believe that Null Hypothesis needs to be capitalized. You are not talking about the name of a book or a program. It is simply a concept and those do not need to be capitalized.
    5. Also, just a general editing tip. You do not need to use the exact language that the source did. Again, we are trying to make this readable and sources do not always follow this convention. Example? "NLP uses the classic New Age concept of "clearing" these blocks using imagery/sensation based rituals". Those last few words are confusing. Now you and I know that it means imagery or sensation based rituals, but I bet that the general reader will look at that and not know what it's saying. We need to make it more explicit. The plainer and more understandable we make the language, the more readers we'll have that will learn something and that's the most important thing. Keep that in mind.

Now DaveRight, the next step is yours. Give what I said some thought and respond. I would like to see you rewrite the new wording with my suggestions and I'll let you know what I think. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 07:19, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Btw, I did have more suggestions but I did not want to overload you. Eventually, the mentors want to pare down the number of citations in this article as 250+ is excessive. But that's for another time. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 07:25, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Response by DaveRight

Thanks Woohookitty. Its nice to be able to get simpler at last. We've had so many demands for fussy attribution over the past few months, its a job to know exactly how it should be presented. Clarity is so important here also.

[edit] Adjusted opening
As with the "achievement technology" therapies of Dianetics and EST, NLP participants are taught that the we have extraordinary potential and that mis-programming by past life experiences creates blocks to this potential. NLP uses the classic New Age concept of "clearing" these blocks by primarily using the imagination in the form of rituals. While the more clinical therapies concentrate on solving problems by focusing on the reasons 'why' the root cause of a problem exists, NLP looks at the 'hows' to provide a quick fix to a solution (Raso 1994)(Lilienfeld 2003)(Hunt 2002)(Singer 1996), [29][30][31][32].


I noticed wikipedia has a good article on rituals. It makes it clearer to link them up. There are only a couple of other actual classic "technologies of achievement" in the new age movement, so it clarifies things well to mention them. CHeers DaveRight 02:01, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Response by woohookitty

OK. Getting better. But more to do. :)

"NLP participants are taught that the we have extraordinary potential and that mis-programming by past life experiences creates blocks to this potential."

There has to be a simpler way of stating that. I read that and the first part makes sense but the "misprogramming" part loses me. In plain English, what does that mean? Otherwise, it's looking better. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 10:45, 22 February 2006 (UTC)


Thanks Woohookitty. Thats very clear. Here are some changes:

As with the "achievement technology" therapies of Dianetics and EST, NLP participants are taught that the we have extraordinary potential, that the mind can be programmed through experience, and that bad programming by past life experiences creates blocks to this potential. NLP uses the classic New Age concept of "clearing" these blocks by primarily using the imagination in the form of rituals. While the more clinical therapies concentrate on solving problems by focusing on the reasons 'why' the root cause of a problem exists, NLP looks at the 'hows' to provide a quick fix to a solution (Raso 1994)(Lilienfeld 2003)(Hunt 2002)(Singer 1996), [29][30][31][32].

I have added the line "that the mind can be programmed through experience", and changed mis to bad programing, without the hypen. Cheers DaveRight 07:00, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


========== Question & Comment by a newbie ==========

Note 1: I have posted once before (a long time ago), but the system either purged the account as inactive or I just lost the login info.

Note 2: I have no idea if these questions & comments belong here or not - if not could somone point me in the right direction? I'd appreciate it.

Note 3: I am a certfied trainer of NLP and of Time Line Therapy.

Note 4: As long as NLP "doesn't work" we remain completely ignored and unregulated by government and the psychology profession. So put me in the "NLP doesn't work" camp <evil grin>. Because all of this is pure placebo, which after all is purely in the mind...Oh my...all of psychology is "in the mind", isn't it. Except for when it's a medical condition. <bigger evil grin>

Question: Having made the comparison to dianetics, est, and other lga "movements", isn't it redundant to keep talking about them? You made your point. Next.

Comment 1: Tad James teaches NLP. His company was named "Advanced Neurodynamics". I've seen this in several places, where people have confused a confused a company name with what they do.

Comment 2: Past Lives - Time Line Therapy (TLT) is *NOT* NLP. It is a specific set of techniques (based upon NLP to be sure). If you wish to use the term "ritual" fine, just define "ritual" somewhere. To me, ritual implies religious, though I know there are other definitions. It does use a phrase that could *assume* past lives, specifically "If you were to know, before, during or after your birth." Assuming you are willing to accept the premise that there is something we call an "unconscious mind", it is then plausible to assume that the unconscious mind might organize things differently than the conscious mind currently understands. What this phrase does is allow a person to actually use their own "filing system." Some people will divide their lives into multiples - before marriage/after marriage, before kids/after kids for example. Have you ever heard the phrase "that was a different life" or "that was a lifetime ago"? In NLP we assume (rightly or wrongly) that a person's words are providing an accurate map of how that person organizes things within their mind. Whether I believe in past lives or not is completly irrelevant. If my client does, that is what's important. As an example, I had a client who was a Southern Baptist - and every answer to the question was...a past life. I had another client who was a hindu and nothing "was from a past life." In both cases the filing cabinet index, card catalog metaphor allowed them to run the process and get their results.

Comment 3: NLP & Magic - To say that some of the NLP techniques have their ultimate origin in the various magical systems around the world is the same as saying that chemistry and modern pharmacology have their roots in alchemy and magic. So what? Half of the modern medicine cabinet is based upon drugs that where once upon a time used by shamans and witch doctors because the plant used had yellow flowers (which means it was associated with the sun - and the patient needed "fire" energy). They didn't know that it had a specific protien or amino acid that was required. The *entire* field of guided imagery is based upon the same thing. When the research figures out *why* imagery works, it will be even more effective. Until then we'll just keep using it as best we know how. And for those of you that want to discredit guided imagery, be prepared to take on the entire field of sports psychology where it is used extensively. For those who are wondering, the entire NLP field of "submodalities" - of which the circle of excellence is one technique - is based upon using guided imagery.

I hope these comments help. --Jstrasser 17:54, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Hello Jstrasser. We've seen your arguments before, and I welcome them back. Last time they were presented, they motivated a lot of good research and that appears in the article and some has yet to be added. The research shows that James' timeline therapy is a version of NLP. It appears in NLP books and I can present at least 7 books that teaches James' TLT as NLP. Your alchemy argument has also been presented before. We're already working on giving alchemy more of a mention in the development of NLP and show NLP's contribution to contemporary alchemy. I applaud your non-judgmentalism of Dianetics. NLPers have applied well their non-judgmentalism ethic to training "NLP, The Unfair Advantage" to Dianetics auditors, white supremacist groups, and domesday cults alike. If they could apply that ethic more to this article, things would move along very smoothly. If you have any research to offer, please do. Cheers DaveRight 03:06, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Hi Jstrasser. Sure, if I find some references to the empirically measured chemical effects of NLP, I will present them. Guided imagery within Dianetics was also derived from occult techniques. I think its fair to state that in the article. ATB. Camridge 04:15, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
It's nice to get such a warm welcome back...but I guess I'm just confused. Guided Imagery (in any field by any other name) came from "the occult". And this fact is important why? Why does this ancient history discredit the entire field? Are you willing to state that any medical or psychological professional that uses guided imagery should lose their license? What about spiritual counselors? Last I looked, the modern science of genetics got its real start because of a monk named Mendel. Does that mean genetic engineering is *gasp* based upon Roman Catholicism?
As for the non-judgmentalism ethic we NLPers have, you left off the fact that we taught the FBI and the CIA too. We teach everybody - because we're such good little new-agers that we just know that this knowledge will show them the light and cause them to change their evil ways... Please. Anyone can read a book on a set of techniques, and learn them well enough to use them.
If the fact that Dianetics (et al) and NLP use similar techniques is that important, mention it and then move on to something else. Because to keep mentioning it a) wastes bandwidth; b) increases the search engine ranking for this page when someone is looking for dianetics; and c) gets boring after a while. You made your point. Unless you're so unsure of your position that you have to keep repeating it.
I also think you *should* include more alchemy. After all, the purpose of alchemy was to find a way to turn base metal (the alchemist) into gold (a perfected human being). And so Alchemy may actually be the original "self help" discipline. You may want to learn more about it yourself (it'd be good for you). That's it! Instead of writing 10,000 words about dianetics (when about 50 would do the job you're going for) you could have an entire section about the history of "self-help"...going back to those ancient alchemists. The Wikipedia article on Alchemy is pretty well written. so you may want to start your research there.
As for James' TLT, if you have a list of 7 books that teaches those techniques could you list them (or email them to me privately john@lifetranscendent.com). Given the fact that TLT is a trademarked set of techniques I'd be very interested in seeing who is about to be sued by the Time Line Therapy Association.
Once again, thanks for the warm welcome back. Now I'll go figure out how this whole wikipedia thing works before I come back to help Greg and Comaze put some more N back into the NPOV for this article. I apologize to the mentors/moderators if my comments don't belong in this spot. I'll do better in the future. Jstrasser 07:18, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Hi Jstrasser. One good one (for the newbie readers here) is changing personal history (similar to TLT) in NLP for success and personal excellence by Gonzalez. Also Hall and Bodenhammer, vol 1 (user manual for the brain) talks of time line therapy in NLP as per Tad James Kahuna. That'll do for starters. I see you have seperated TLT out within your transcendent NLP collection there. Well, there are lots of books that place time line therapy as a form of NLP or an integral part of NLP. Why would they claim otherwise? Are they scared that Tad James will sue them? I'm glad we agree on including the occult within NLP as that is very much an issue that is mentioned by independent researchers in regard to NLP. Hopefully we can increase the non-judgmental attitudes here and transcend the previous editing problems. ATB. Camridge 09:29, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request for clarification on the rules of "Proposed changes"

Hi all. Perhaps I could clear something up first. Are we waiting for a mentor's comment before we comment on Dave's suggestion? Camridge 02:55, 16 February 2006 (UTC). I guess not. Camridge 06:25, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Now now. We do have lives. :-D We can't always comment so fast. I might be misreading jdavidb but it sounds as if he wants one of the mentors to take a look at the proposed change and then make comments about it and then have the user who made the proposal comment back. I believe I am reading that right. So yes, you need to wait. But if you have parts you want to change, feel free to use the same format and propose the changes. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 07:30, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Sure, Woohookitty, that sounds like the right form. Camridge 07:44, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Woohookitty, I see you've commented on DaveRight's suggestions for the Overview. I see some of those are stylistic changes and better wording - not so much the content itself, which is where our disputes lie. On this very paragraph there are now 3 suggested replacements (Dave's, Camridge's, and mine)... have you (or anyone) got a suggestion for how we resolve this? I was thinking of presenting all suggestions together in order to find any common ground and can do that if you like. GregA 11:14, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
We'll try this for now and see how it goes. The fact that this is article is completely unreadable is something we are going to tackle whether it's part of the dispute or not. We're here to make a good Wikipedia article and making the language plain and using non-intrusive footnote formatting is part of that. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 12:58, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Woohookitty - I totally agree that we need to make this thing readable, as well as accurate. I'm worried that once you've worked with Camridge till it's worded well, Katefan does the same with me (on the same paragraph - she just posted that she's started), and someone works with Dave - that then when we start to amalgamate all 3 to get some consensus we'll be repeating the same work (hopefully more quickly of course). Just not sure of the plan. GregA 13:28, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
I understand. The idea, though, is to teach people how to write good Wikipedia articles first and then we can get the disputes worked out. We're teachers first, mediators second. I think that's our intended role. Even if people still disagree, at least (hopefully) the people involved will have a better idea of what Wikipedia is about and how things work around here, which I think has been the main problem in the past. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 06:36, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed change to "Overview" by GregA

All right, I'll take this one. But I'm a bit under the weather, so give me the weekend to chew it over. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 12:10, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Now that I've actually had a chance to look at what you're proposing changes to, this is more properly a response to the above work. I will not be performing the same mentoring on this sentence, therefore. You need to wait until Woohookitty is done working with DaveRight and solicits others to talk about the proposed changes. Then would be the appropriate time for others to chime in. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 20:21, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Hi Kate, I know you're a little sick, so just poking my head in to say hello. I'm a bit worried that the work Woohookitty is doing with DaveRight may be perceived as acceptance of the paragraph rather than a lesson in how to write paragraphs (but as long as nothing gets posted before discussion it's all fine). I'm looking forwad to any suggestions you have - including (if you want) how to bring mine and Dave's and Camridge's versions in line GregA 12:50, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Dave, since I opened this topic initially on this page (the paragraph you've re-raised), naturally I'd re-written my objection to it (I'd waited as jDavidB only wanted 1. As you've posted I'll post mine now. It appears we have no common ground on this - for example you claim NLP says we have past-life experiences :) Plus my other objections below. I hope I'm wrong and we can find a consensus GregA 02:53, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

  • NLP participants are taught that the human mind can be programmed, and that mis-programming by negative input is the norm. Like Scientology, rebirthing and other alternative therapies (Raso 1994)(Lilienfeld 2003) NLP embraces this Null Hypothesis and the classic New Age concept of "clearing" these blocks (Singer 1996).

Objection:

  1. Mis-programming is not claimed to be the norm - it can be interpreted that way but it misses the point. Bad input will usually result in bad learning (the standard garbage-in garbage-out) - but NLP teaches that we learn from our experiences (this is "the norm"), of which there are both good and bad experiences. There's nothing really new about this concept it's really pretty standard. Oh, as camridge said, NLP doe not normally talk about norms either.
  2. Comparisons to other fields should be done as an aside or not at all.
  3. The meaning of "Null hypothesis" is unclear and NLP doesn't use the term Null hypothesis. This refers directly to the preceding sentence so it'll be clarified in combination.
  4. NLP doesn't generally refer to blocks, it's approach is quite different.

Wiki relevance: NPOV Tutorial (Information Suppression, Bias): "Not allowing one view to "speak for itself", or refactoring its "world-view" into the words of its detractors."


Previous objection to my objection:

Null hypothesis is a scientific term. This can be further clarified within the article. NLP writers make many hypotheses. NLP writers deny this fact. This assertion is misleading, and science can clarify it. User:HeadleyDown 01:57, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
The NLP literature often talks of blockages User:Camridge 07:09, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
(Edwards) is describing, in terms of his own understanding, the strong relationship between Scientology and NLP, and that it mostly refers to the clearing of blocks and engrams within the usual New Age theme.HeadleyDown 12:55, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

New Wording:

  • NLP teaches that the human mind is programmed through life experiences, and that 'bad' input can result in mis-programming. A key goal in NLP is to help a person develop new programs. NLP claims that people do the best they can given the choices they believe they have - and that if someone learns a new more effective way of doing something they will use it in preference to the old.
  • (it may be necessary to add the following for consensus) Singer (1996) compares this to the classic New Age concept of "clearing" blocks, like Scientology, rebirthing, and other alternative therapies (Raso, 1994; Lilienfeld, 2003).

GregA 02:53, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
References Bandler & Grinder, 1979. Updated GregA 13:46, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I'd like another mentor to look at this, but the first thing I see is the use of "we". "We" should never be used. Ral315 (talk) 21:53, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I see what you mean. I read something which said "Humans" so often that it sounded very artificial and I've skipped to the opposite extreme. How about "people do the best they can given the choice they believe they have" etc.
On another note - it's probably obvious but this paragraph is now discussed in 4 separate places. GregA 22:41, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
I've amended my text above to remove "we" and some other changes. GregA 13:46, 18 February 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Proposed change on context/overview by Camridge 08:04, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

  • What portion of the article do you take issue with? (Quote the actual text. If what you want is an insertion, indicate the position for the insertion.)

As with the alternative self development therapies of Dianetics and EST (Raso 1994)(Lilienfeld 2003)(Hunt 2002) NLP participants are taught that the we have extraordinary potential and that mis-programming by past life experiences creates impediments to this potential. NLP uses the classic New Age concept of "clearing" these blocks using imagery/sensation based rituals (Singer 1996). While the more clinical therapies concentrate on solving problems by focusing on the reasons 'why' the root cause of a problem exists, NLP looks at the 'hows' to provide a quick fix to a solution (Singer 1996), [29][30][31][32].


  • On what basis do you object to this portion? Quote and link to the Wikipedia policy or guideline that justifies your objection.

The norms information has been removed from Dave's lines, and that’s fine. The clarifying associations made with other subjects are useful from a context point of view and it is what all the researchers of NLP do. They state NLP as new age, and then clarify how it is new age with reference to similar developments, or those developments it evolved from. I also considered the removal of the scientology/dianetics/est association, but then re-considered in light of the censorship issue. The null hypothesis seems also to have been well adjusted by Dave. And the removal of blocks is a common approach in new age methods, and can be seen in abundance with even a cursory search [93] - The past life concept of NLP is commonly used by the original developers such as Bandler [94]. - -Also, Dianetics has been quoted as the closest member of the new age development family according to Hunt and other researchers. So that’s all fine.


But, I do believe some adjustment could be made to attribution, but Singer and co actually categorize NLP with Scientology, rather than just compare. The important thing is to give the independent scientific/sociological view a good prime hearing, and then the claims of NLP be heard.

  • What new wording do you suggest? (Indicate if your suggestion is a deletion.)

Sociological and scientific reviews categorize NLP as an alternative New Age human potential/healing development similar to other "achievment technologies" such as Dianetics (Scientology), and EST (Raso 1994; Lilienfeld 2003; Hunt 2002; Singer 1996). NLP participants are taught that we have extraordinary potential and that bad programming by past life experiences and toxic thoughts create blocks to this potential. NLP uses the classic New Age concept of "clearing" these blocks using imagery/sensation based rituals (Singer 1996; Eisner 2002; Grinder 2001). While the more clinical therapies concentrate on solving problems by focusing on the reasons 'why' the root cause of a problem exists, NLP looks at the 'hows' to provide a quick fix to a problem (Singer 1996), [29][30][31][32].

Camridge 08:04, 16 February 2006 (UTC)


Camridge, why is it that you and HeadleyDown continually use Scientology terminology, such as "clearing" when NLP doesn't use the term anywhere? I find it very strange that in several months of discussion, the ONLY people using the the Scientology terminology in this discussion, and inserting it into the article, are you and HeadleyDown. Are you a Scientologist?
It's beginning to look like you and HeadleyDown, despite your message that NLP is discredited for being "like scientology" that, in fact, those protestations are actually a distraction technique, so as to actually lend validity to Scientology by subtly promoting the idead that if someone believes in NLP, they have essentially adopted Scientology. Akulkis 05:46, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Hello Akulkis. NLP uses the term clear and clearing in many places, including the User Manual for the Mind (Bodenhammer) vols one and two, and in NLP the technology of achievement, and many other NLP books. For example, there is a description of the "movie rewind technique" in vol one of Bodenhammer and Hall, where client is to rewind a movie in their head, whilst the practitioner says the word "Wwwwwiiiissssssshhhhhhh!" in order to clear the negative issue. They also regularly use the terms, rapport, dissociation, traumas, unconscious, engram, potential, and so on just as Dianetics. These terms are also in psychology, which can be linkable on wikipedia. I believe it would be unreasonable to edit those terms just because sociologists, scientists and consumer protection bodies view NLP principles with Scientology. I understand that NLP advocates prefer to use persuasively promotional wording and obscurantism, but Wikipedia readers benefit from plain language. ATB Camridge 06:15, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
REALLY now...who are all of these people in the MAINSTREAM of NLP who use the term "clearing" in the way that the Dianetics people do. This is just like the previous campaign to use "engram" as a guilt-by-association term. STOP WITH THE CONTINOUS PROPAGAND AND DISHONESTY. It only costs you more and more credibility until you have...surprise...NONE LEFT. Akulkis 22:31, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Hello again Akulkis. This is not propaganda and editors here are being very honest in supplying evidence to show the broad views concerning NLP. Drenth and Levelt, two extremely renowned scientists experts, have already stated that engrams are central to NLP. If you look at the core books of NLP that show VKA, VAK etc circuits, they are clearly referring to engrams in the unconscious just as dianetics does. Not only do NLPers use the term clearing, but they also supply a set of rituals (and they do call them rituals in the literature), that they have adapted from the occult. Perls researched and promoted dianetics, and NLP was developed on the enactments of dianetics from him. Submodality work, and the metamodel are fundamentally the same as dianetics auditing. NLP sell courses showing how to enhance occult rituals using those rituals also. Would you like us to supply more evidence of this in the article? Its very easy to do so. Regards HeadleyDown 12:37, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Hi Headley. The 9 month history of arguing on this probably indicates we're not going to have consensus. Lets discuss this with the mentors involvement. When we do, lets back up accusations with actual evidence rather than saying we have it. Greg 12:57, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Sorry GregA. What accusations have I made? I welcome mentor's input, and I appreciate what they are doing now. I am sure they will support the use of independent research (Drenth and Levelt and so on). Of course we probably can't supply all of the evidence, and the article doesn't require all of it to fairly present those views. Do you have any solid research that negates the views of these sociologists, organizational psychologists, and psycholinguists? Regards HeadleyDown 13:30, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Change to opening by JPLogan 06:46, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

After dropping Camridge and GregA's proposed changes because they conflict with the work Woohookitty is doing with DaveRight, I am instead picking up this one, cut down to just the first sentence. Remember, baby steps. We can deal with the rest of it once we're past this sentence. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 20:29, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
  • What portion of the article do you take issue with? (Quote the actual text. If what you want is an insertion, indicate the position for the insertion.)

Neuro-Linguistic Programming (NLP) is a collection of pseudoscientific self-help rituals proposed for programming the mind (Lilienfeld et al 2003;Raso 1994).

  • On what basis do you object to this portion? Quote and link to the Wikipedia policy or guideline that justifies your objection.

Clearly a better framing of NLP needs to be given in order to move forward. Again, taking the sociological perspective with science to support it, NLP can be considered a pseudoscientific psycho cult. However, I don't really see that as being widely accepted for the opening line.

So I suggest a much softer approach based on the sociological view of NLP being an alternative religious movement, or part of a quasi-spiritual movement. There is a good deal of agreement on NLP's position as part of the new age, and its relation with similar self-development movements of scientology and EST. This may well be far more appealing to the NLP proponents than the image of NLP as a cult. Certainly, NLP has earned its follower's devotion, and this should be a factual way to reduce conflict in future. I understand that may not be 100percent favorable to the management-training company NLPers, but there's nothing we can do about that. So, instead of opening the article with the fact that it is a pseudoscientific cult, I believe in a much softer approach. This at least will indicate that NLP has some popularity, albeit of a new age nature. The existence of such movements really is a subject for sociology.

Notice also that I have altered the new age principles part. This is because changing or transforming limiting beliefs in a self development/healing way is a core aspect of the new age thinking.


  • What new wording do you suggest? (Indicate if your suggestion is a deletion.)


Neuro-Linguistic Programming (NLP) is a quasi-religious/quasi-spiritual self development movement in the same mold as Scientology and EST (Hunt 2002p195) (Partridge 2000p45) (wuthnow 1999 p75) (Heelas 2000 p94).

JPLogan 06:46, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Response by Katefan0

Well, my initial impressions on changing this first sentence is that attempting to use the word "pseudoscience" is inevitably loaded. Just as our article (rightly) doesn't describe Adolf Hitler as a "dictator," it nevertheless provides enough supporting documentation that readers are able to come to that conclusion on their own. I suggest the same approach with this article. We may say that its critics describe it as pseudoscientific, but it is not within WP:NPOV for us as an encyclopedia to take that definitive position. So I agree with your premise, at least, that pseudoscience needs to be removed as such a definitive descriptor.
However, I think that something is lost in your new description, because it still fails to say what NLP is (i.e. rituals for programming the mind). I also dislike the word "development," what you're getting at here is "self-help," and I don't think there's anything derogatory in using plainer language. Also, we don't need references in the introduction. Everything that is said in the introduction should be a thumbnail of what readers should expect to read in more elaboration going forward -- references can be provided as supporting documentation when those points are made and concepts are expounded on later in the article. I'm on the fence as to whether it's appropriate to throw Scientology and EST in there without any context.
Given those two thoughts, how would you propose to modify your language in response? · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 20:29, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] (Short) Response by Ral315

Just a note; I think the use of "quasi-" tends to make the sentence sound awkward. Can you modify this to sound slightly better? Ral315 (talk) 07:32, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed Opening by flavius 06:47, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Neuro-Linguistic Programming (NLP) is a collection of quasi-religious/quasi-spiritual rituals and beliefs promoted as a means of accelerated learning, psychotherapy, persuasion and self-improvement. The techniques, objectives and principles of NLP are similar to those of Dianetics and EST.

flavius 06:47, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

You may propose changes to the sentence currently being worked on between JPLogan and myself soon, but not now. (We're on the right track, though, I think.) · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 00:09, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Katefan0 and all. I also believe the term pseudoscience will be too large to explain in the opening line, which is why I left it out. It is fine in the scientific portion of the opening though. The term "self help movement" could be better and more clearly described as "a New Age self help therapy". The terms "quasi-spiritual, and quasi-religious are correct technically according to the literature. A simple link to an appropriate page about quasi-spirituality will be easy to provide. ATB JPLogan 10:24, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

There have been no recent objections to this line. Is it possible to reinstate it into the article? Camridge 05:30, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
I think it's fair to say that focus has been elsewhere. I think you know there are serious objections to this.
I object to any statement that says NLP is spiritual (in contrast to it can be applied to spiritual, or that some people combine it with spiritual). I object to rituals (which you should be aware of Camridge from the Swish discussion!!). I object to the relationship drawn to Dianetics and EST. The word "belief" is out of context since any therapy could be described as "beliefs" about what helps someone. Greg 05:56, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
OK, do you object to the view of Raso, the alternative health expert that NLP is quasi-spiritual? And would you like to reject the corroborating views of sociologists that NLP has a strong spiritual element? NLP is categorized under scientology in the sociologist Hunt's 2002 book (page 195). So he believes NLP is a kind of scientology in the healing/new religious movements of the new age. I suppose we could state his view instead, that "NLP is an alternative version of scientology". NLP focuses on belief change, and includes new age presuppositional beliefs according to NLP literature and according to literature on cults, sects and new religions (Partridge 2000). Both Dilts and Grinder say that all NLP patterns are rituals, and Bandler states that anchoring (amongst other NLP rituals) is a ritual (Frog's into Princes page 132) and as below, he states that he uses spirituality within his five minute homosexuality cure (page 152). Would you like to exclude all of these views? And if so, on what basis would you like to remove them? Regards Camridge 07:20, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh, for the sake of progress, I personally have no objection to Katefan0's reasonable suggestion to use the combined term: "NLP ritual/process". Camridge 07:42, 24 March 2006 (UTC)


Sure Camridge, it looks like a reasonable and well adjusted line based on overwhelming research views.
  • Quasi-spiritual/quasi-religious will be understandable to all. It says that its spiritual, but its more of a “strong element of spirituality”. Its nice and brief. We can state that NLP is considered a new alternative religion more clearly later on (quote refs).
  • The Hunt ref checks out, and he does categorize NLP as a sort of scientology. And of course many other researchers have spoken about NLP and scientology in the same breath. Mainly due to them being so intrinsic to new age human potential thinking of the 20th century.
  • I believe the “healing” is fine and can have a brief explanation later.
  • Well the ritual thing is also a scientific view. And in this case it is also the pseudoscientific view (that of key NLPers). So certainly ritual/process is reasonable as you and Kate have mentioned.
  • NLP is absolutely new age, as it is the view of many scientists and other such experts, and NLP is widely promoted as a new age therapy/subject. Its undeniable. So its another option. HeadleyDown 11:08, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] References

Before going any further, I'd like to open up a discussion on acceptable references. I'd like to discuss and find consensus on acceptable references for different aspects of the article. For example, is Paul Tosey and Jane Mathison's Neuro-linguistic programming: its potential for learning and teaching in formal education acceptable for use in this article? Mathison (2003) also reviewed the research on NLP to date. --c 05:45, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Sure Comaze! If we could include the references to minor and inconclusive speculative research subsuming the 200plus references of other more definite or conclusive research, that may be an option. Of course, that would also involve putting it in context. Tosey and Mathison are within the group of people who "like" NLP regardless of its proven ineffectiveness and pseudoscientific nature. Thus, they could be mentioned within the small "cult following" of NLP, as described by Eisner, Heap, Sharpley amongst others. Camridge 04:19, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, please check it again, here is a quote from the 'Criticism of NLP' section; this is a good example of how the criticism could be written, "NLP has received little attention in academic research or publishing to date. There is a sporadic literature in several fields. These include education (Craft 2001), training and development (e.g. Lee 1993; Thompson et al 2002; Trickey 1997), and management (e.g. Ashok and Santhakumar 2002; Georges 1996). Much of this literature explores applications of NLP to the field of practice in question. Research interest, from experimental psychology, consisted mainly of studies in the 1980's that examined NLP's `eye movement' model. These studies, many of which are summarised by Bolstad (1997), found no basis for acceptance of the model."[95] The rest of the paper gives a well-research and well-cited, accurate accounts of the history, theory, and criticism of NLP. --c 05:45, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Hello Comaze. The paper they present is promotional (in terms of seeking research funding). It is clear to see in comparison with the NLP Wikipedia article that draws from a comprehensive pool of sources. The section you present is lacking severely in the broader selection of empirical (scientific) literature that has repeatedly been quoted in many papers that NLP is ineffective, pseudoscientific in theory, in practice, and in excuse. Management and key papers on management resources have already stated in the article that NLP is full of theories/hypotheses that were derived from new age simplicities that should not be considered viable for research. It is fine to present the paper, but only in relation to the vast majority of scientific/sociological views that conclusively state NLP is dubious, ineffective, new age pseudoscience and promoted in the same mold as dianetics. If I removed those views on the grounds of "association fallacy" I would be guilty of blatant censorship. Camridge 07:13, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
The comparison between the Mathison and Tosey's paper and the current Wikipedia article is exactly the point - it exposes some bias. At this point it would be useful to get the mentors opinion on how we can determine what constitutes majority and minority view. Can it based on the number of citations? Should we be able to break it down into into different area of application as defined by Tosey & Mathison, eg. eduction, management, marketing, training and development, and management (Tosey & Mathison 2003), or areas of research (eg. experimental psychology, etc.). I think we can probably remove Vexen Crabtree as previously agreed upon in mediation because this is a minority view from an unreputable source. Lilienfeld et al is currently given undue weight. Can we agree to remove Vexen Crabtree (and similar sources) from the sources as per previous mediation? Relevant policy: "NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints, in proportion to the prominence of each." WP:NPOVUW--c 08:14, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
The clearest way to represent all views fairly is to continue sticking to NPOV policy. NLP is a confusing subject, however, we have the most independent view in the majority (that of objectivist scientists who have empirically measured NLP foundations). From that majority (objective world view) the other views can also be considered (cult followings, pseudoscientists, etc). Mathison and Tosey closely follow the views in promotional management manuals for NLP (eg those of Grinder, Andreas, Dilts etc). Within the academic management training/human resource researchers, Mathison and Tosey represent a tiny view, and contradict the views of many management/HRM researchers who have conclusively stated that NLP is ineffective pseudoscience. Actually, in light of the above, I doubt if Mathison and Tosey represent any significant view at all. Presently they have only suggested their liking of NLP and their wish to do some research on it. They have nothing new or conclusive to add. Camridge 08:42, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Comaze, Excellent question to the Mentors
There are a wide variety of articles from multiple sources, with a wide range of findings. Mathison and Tosey is a great article in the way it summarises the field from a perspective indicating both a thorough knowledge of NLP, and the peer-reviewed scientific research. They also make clear the difference between NLP and the application of NLP - without which NLP can seem at times contradictory and difficult to define. Is it this research that also talks about the distinct lack of research into many facets of NLP (which brings it in line with the negative-reviews too)? GregA 09:16, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Camridge, I think you misunderstand "association fallacy". They give the example of "Adolf Hitler was a vegetarian. Thus vegetarians are evil". Though even writing "Adolf Hitler was a vegetarian" in an article on vegetarians would be misleading as it's irrelevant. You say you are concerned that removing views labelled as association fallacy would make you guilty of censorship - luckily this is impossible. The challenge is to present any association in a way that makes clear the connection between the 2 things. Either spell it out, or leave it out - just don't use the fallacy. GregA 09:16, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Yes Greg, spelling it out is the objective here. And that is something Mathison and Tosey have not done. If their perspective was presented as a template, then it would lead to wholesale censorship. As was explained above, removing new age, occult, magic circles, Carlos Castaneda, pseudoscience and so on would be censorship because those views are the views of the most independent and science oriented researchers. The effort here and now is towards explaining those associations clearly in the article. M and T's view is indeed a very very small minority, and it was previously removed due to its complete lack of objective conclusion. They state "NLP's potential for learning and teaching", yet they don't say what kind of teaching or learning. They also present some research, yet they fail to mention the conclusion of the research, or the fact that the very foundation (sensual theory, metamodel) are in fact fundamentally flawed and pseudoscientific. Their assertion was that NLP had to overcome these problems. Scientists have already inferred that it would be impossible to overcome them due to the inherently pseudoscientific nature of NLP, and the intensely commercial promotion of NLP. M and T have a massive weight of opposing view from management researchers and from scientists. Their view is both inconclusive and insignificant. Regards HeadleyDown 10:09, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
  • How do we determine the relative weight given to the Jane Mathison & Paul Tosey viewpoint[96] (and the sources they cite)? HeadleyDown/Camridge seem to agree that Jane Mathison and Paul Tosey's view point is "very very small minority"? WP:NPOV/WP:OR Mathison and Tosey's paper is sufficiently credible, third party, immediately verifiable (online), well-cited, published in peer-reviewed journal (Mathison 2003) and actually represents one of the majority (not minority) views on this subject.
  • "The inclusion of a view that is held only by a tiny minority may constitute original research because there may be a lack of sufficiently credible, third-party, published sources to back it up."WP:OR
  • Additionally, can we agree that any self-published books eg. Harry Edwards "Skeptics Guide to the New Age", Sinclair/Bray's "ABC of NLP" or personal websites (Vexen Crabtree, etc.) can all be removed under verifiability, credbility policy, "Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, and then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources." Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published_sources, WP:credbility. --c 11:28, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
It is the representation of views that matters. There must be a fair representation according to the policy. This means that we need to consider the management view. Overall, the management studies view is that NLP is highly dubious. Tosey and M are a very small minority who seem to perhaps (not sure yet) disagree with this. There are so many references supporting the majority view in the article already, and that is the majority (mostly due to it being the scientific view). Crabtree, Sinclair and so on are coming from a different sphere. Their view can be heard also. They are all highly accessible (even on the web). And they all have valid views that correspond to and corroborate views of scientists and sociologists. Considering the above I still see no reason to dismiss them. Perhaps you could explain in more detail a motivation for deleting them, Comaze. HeadleyDown 11:53, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
HeadleyDown states (above), "Tosey and M are a very small minority" -- I disagree here and think we need to get a third opinion on this issue of weight. As explained above sources Crabtree (personal websites) and Sinclair/Bray (self-published books) can be removed under wikipedia policy, Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published_sources. This is a really simple issue and will help us improve the quality of all references on the site. Supporting the inclusion of Crabtree/Sinclair&Bray whilst arguing against the inclusion of Mathison&Tosey is out of line with, "NPOV (Neutral Point Of View) is a fundamental Wikipedia principle which states that all articles must be written from a neutral point of view, representing views fairly and without bias. " Who will agree to a third opinion on this matter of weight and verifiability? --c 23:18, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Hello Comaze. Technically the sources you state do not fall within self published. Firstly the books are from reputable experts in the field, they are published with publishing companies, they were published well before Wikipedia was originated, and they are corroborated by multiple other sources. They come from a different set of sources from Mathison and Tosey. M and T are management writers (amongst a large collection of others). Whereas Sinclair and represent NLP writers and so on. HeadleyDown 04:11, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
I've addressed the Sinclair/Bray & Crabtree sources below. HeadleyDown says, "Mathison & Tosey are management writers" - what is your source for this information? --c 08:12, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Of course, the occult website may not be of the highest standard, although it does agree with the Professor Singer's and other researcher's description of NLP seminars.
Also, Bray and Sinclairs book is well published and highly available through both WHSmith, and Amazon, amongst other vendors. Its of the highest standard and written by a renowned NLP expert in "nurturing potential". I would like to know the reasons for such a strong desire to remove the said sources? They represent a clear view toward a specific aspect of NLP (Engrams, in the case of Sinclair and Bray, and LGAT seminar chanting etc in the case of Crabtree and Prof Singer).
The Tosey and Mathison literature, on the other hand, doesn't say anything new at all. Its completely redundant (NLP literature promotes NLP that way already) and inconclusive (no conclusive statements about the research). Camridge 06:58, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
My personal motivation does not come into it, what is important is wikipedia policy. Sinclair/Bray (ABC of NLP) is self-published (ASPEN) and can be removed under Verifiability (see my previous post). Here is a direct quote from Sinclair's home page: "ASPEN was established by Joe Sinclair in 1990 as the publishing arm of his company, "[97]. Additionally, the authors fail the authority test, and reputability tests, see Wikipedia:Verifiabilty. "Information on Wikipedia must be reliable. Facts, viewpoints, theories, and arguments may only be included in articles if they have already been published by reliable and reputable sources. Articles should cite these sources whenever possible. Any unsourced material may be challenged and removed." Crabtree and Sinclair/Bray are neither reliable or reputable sources, so I put that both these authors and attributed statements removed. --c 08:12, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Hello Comaze. The Crabtree ref is neither here nor there. It is simply a corroboration of Singer's and scientific view. However, the Sinclair and Bray view is from a good and authoritative source. The reason I never removed them from the article was because they are entirely representitive of the non-angloamerican view, and they actually completely fulfill the actual requirements for good sources. The managerial view of NLP in the article was far too narrow towards the anglo american views. According to Wikipedia policy, the European and Asian perspective should be included. To remove scientific and world view facts about NLP's engrams is simply not acceptable and I would not want to restrict the multiple view, or to censor such facts. There are good reasons for the verifiability guidelines of Wikipedia, but those reasons are not for the restriction to angloamerican viewpoints. Sinclair and Bray are extremely authoritative sources within European NLP, as can be seen in their trainings and teachings on the "Nurturing Potential" website. Their view is entirely authoritative, representitive, and consistent within NLP as a whole. Camridge 09:44, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
If I understand Camridge correctly, "the Crabtree ref is neither here nor there" we have reached agreement to remove Crabtree. I will go ahead and delete this now. I urge you to review your position on Sinclair/Bray -- as I stated above, this is a self-published title and is also subject to removal under wikipedia verifiability (see quote in my previous post). --c 17:22, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Comaze, as you have advocated its removal, I suggest that someone else be the judge of agreement to remove, or agreement to expand. I would also like to point out arbitration has ruled that obsessive editing is a reason to impose a ban. HeadleyDown 21:22, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes this is an outrageous thing. Only one person removing references from article is Comaze. He just deleted Crabtree. Crabtree is a UK company selling occult symbols, and showing expertise in occult. It is not a personal website. I urge it should be taken back and go back into discussion immediately. I am sick of the last 6 months censoring fact 5 days in a week for every week. Why is it happening even now? HansAntel 04:13, 11 March 2006 (UTC)


Hello Hans, you are correct, its a UK company. I wouldn't worry about it though, clearly Comaze is not going to get a block for uncooperatively deleting information either now or in future. The best long term solution is simply to take it back and deal with the problem as constructively as possible. I'm sure its fine to re-introduce it. ATB. Camridge 08:16, 14 March 2006 (UTC)


Well, the issue here is the Tosey and Mathison view. The fact is, they don't have one. They ask the question and explore potential, but are inconclusive. The Crabtree, Singer and Bray issues are both seperate from each other, and seperate from the T and M issue. Conclusion: T and M are irrelevant to the article, as they have no conclusion, and their presentation of the facts is biased and limited, and therefore, is a very poor template for wikipedia. HeadleyDown 11:58, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Rather than get into the engram argument again, which unfortunately was not ever agreed on during mediation, can we stick to Comaze's question.... [98]. GregA 12:03, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
The question was whether we could come to consensus, or have the mentors comment on, what defines an "acceptable" article. I guess this would also include, when does an editor decide a scientific review is biased and limited? GregA 12:07, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Sure, Greg. After well over ten references to engrams in NLP were supplied (and are increasing), plus deep explanations of the difference between NLP/dianetics engrams and neuroscience engrams, there remained a a strong and obsessive pressure to censor those facts. But thankfully the facts remained in the article. I believe co-operation is key here. NLP is a pseudoscience and makes liberal use of obscurantisms and evasion of testing. Therefore, the NLP literature is intrinsically a obscuring/confusing source. The research on NLP is the opposite. It is a clarifying source. If the fact-hiding sources can be presented and clarified co-operatively using fact-revealing sources, then things will move along very well. Regards HeadleyDown 12:21, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
unfortunately your answer begs the question - which are fact hiding, and fact revealing sources. Which goes straight to Comaze's question. GregA 12:54, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Oh I can satisfy that question very easily. Tosey and Mathison, and the majority of NLP promotional literature hide/ommit facts, and the uncovered facts can be seen in the present Wikipedia article, and the future Wikipedia article when it is further clarified using further sociological and other research that states NLP is considered a new alternative religion, derived from pseudoscientific magical thinking and occult principles, and in the same category as Scientology. HeadleyDown 16:54, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Well, at least you're talking more civilly, which is good (passive aggressive asides, well, aside). I fear you are devolving once again into some kind of inappropriate academic discussion, however. A source, generally, is acceptable, to put it bluntly, unless it's self-published (the exception being if this self-published work is used to cite its author's own personal views). There's no need to debate whether one source is more right, or better, than another source. Where two sources disagree, the disagreement should be made part of the article. Remember that we aren't here to Expose The Truth, whatever that might be. We're here to produce an article that incorporates numerous sides of a debate, and the threshold for inclusion therefore is verifiability, not truth. What information inside the article (or proposed to be inserted into/removed from the article) exactly is under question with this line of discussion? · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 17:41, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Comaze has some specific lines in question so I'll let him answer that. My interest was comaze's simple question on majority vs minority views. My understanding from the NPOV page is that verifiability, not truth, is ONE threshold for inclusion - but that we also have to represent majority views and minority views as such (and tiny minority views may not be represented at all, even if they're verifiable - search for "tiny minority" on the NPOV page).
Oh, for the record, I'm happy to have any insults I may make (deliberately or accidentally) removed, whether overt or passive agressive, and I'm happy to have the mentors be the judge of that in the interest of better communication. If you cut out something I feel is important in addition to an inappropriate aside comment, I'll endeavour to replace the important bit without the aside. GregA 20:56, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Hello Katefan0. Well, as all regular posters here know, the constant and obsessive pressure to remove the Sinclair/Bray article, is due to it containing the rather Scientological term "Engram". The engram is intrinsic to NLP and the term is used widely in NLP especially in Europe and Asia, and we have many sources supporting it, just as we have many and increasing sources saying that NLP is an offshoot of Scientology and Dianetics. The only effect removing the Sinclair Bray ref will have is to reduce clarity (it means readers have less likelihood of finding out exactly how engram is used in NLP). Its removal from the article would be censorship, as VoiceOfAll has already pointed out! If you like, I could show you how authoritative the authors are within the European NLP community. Regards HeadleyDown 21:14, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
There's nothing wrong with including minority views, as long as they come from a reliable source and are properly described so as not to give undue weight. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 22:36, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Indeed. Reliabilty can be very low with small promotion and/or self puplished websites. There is nothing in policy against minority views, it is just that negligable views by such as small minority always tend to run into credibility and verifiability issues, like "my proffesor thinks...". NLP is somewhat of an obsure topic to get hard research on perhaps, but some of the refernences can probably be dropped.Voice-of-AllT|@|ESP 03:27, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Hello VoiceOfAll. Just a thought. It seems to be extremely unfair and entirely uncooperative (even conflict provoking or trolling) to have so many references provided to satisfy demands on threat of censorship or to satisfy NPOV policy, and THEN have some of those references deleted just so that the would be censors can claim the view is minor. If there is a dispute about a view being minor, then it would seem fairer that all references provided should be allowed to stay and clarify the article, especially if they correspond with the majority (science) view of Professors such as Singer, Levelt, Drenth, Lilienfeld, and so on. Regards HeadleyDown 11:15, 4 March 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Technologies of achievement

Hello all. Concerning New Age (new alternative religions) from the sociological perspective. The strong overlap and connections between Scientology and NLP is in need of further explanation in the article.

Here is just one of Scientology's technologies of excellence: [99]

And one standard example of NLP management [100]

I make no judgment about Scientology or NLP. Freedom to do business etc!

But the sociological view shows the strong connections between both. It has been said that Scientology is actually more honest in claiming spirituality or religiosity, but in essence they are the same (though NLP came afterwards, drawing many applications from Hubbard's work).

They both have strong spiritual elements, they have strong management aspects or promotions. Notice Scientology enterprises has been applied to business efficiency concerns for a longer time than NLP (Thousands of businesses have benefitted according to testimonials). The principles are largely the same. They emphasize communication technologies, the use of positive frames, positive language, and the wholist healing/belief in unlimited potential. Considering the use of Dianetics principles by Fritz Perls, this is not surprising that the connections are so easy to see from a sociological perspective. Anyway, this does need further clarification in the article. Regards HeadleyDown 08:54, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh perhaps I should add, there are differences, such as NLP being more involved in occult practices/and using occult principles within presuppositions, and Scientology tending to use more actual technology (eegs and emeter etc). HeadleyDown 09:08, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Mmm, I had not seen that management side of Scientology before. Dianetics was the original technology of achievement and excellence I guess. Looks to me like NLP is a direct copy. Glad we have found the small differences also. I believe Scientology is a lot more obvious about its spiritality, but if you read into Grinder and Dilt's work, the spiritual aspects are also very apparent, even in the deeper notions of NLP. Of course both are part of the same section of the same new religious movements, and new age ideals of eclecticism and extraordinary potential for the purpose of spiritual development. ATB Camridge 08:52, 6 March 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Text moved by Comaze (Scientology/Dianetics/Landmark/engrams)

This information needs replacing into the article. As we have discovered, its far too big to discuss in one chunk. HeadleyDown 13:01, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Text moved
  1. unlimited potential through access to subconscious engrams[101],
  2. is promoted in the same mold as Dianetics and Scientology[102][103][104]
  3. Dianetics promoted by Perls
  4. [Perls] as the therapist and Dianetics proponent
  5. NLP's New Age background, deriving from such notions as Zen spirituality and Dianetics promoted by Perls [105] and the enneagram promoted by Virginia Satir (REF) and the modeling spiritual concepts, has led to variability in the use of occult notions in NLP.
  6. same mold as EST (Landmark Forum) and Dianetics(Scientology) similar to that of Dianetics (Scientology) and other cults [106].
  7. "With its promotion with Tai Chi, Meditation, and Dianetics (Scientology), ..."
  8. Similar to other pseudoscientific subjects such as Dianetics (Scientology) and EST(Landmark)[107],
  9. Thus, although NLP is ineffective for its stated purposes, it is used as a fake science in a similar way to other pseudoscientific therapies such as primal scream therapy, EST[108] and Dianetics.
  10. "many pseudoscientific associations such as the explicit and implicit erroneous adherence to Dianetic's subconscious engram concept [109],"
  11. The German educational ministry banned the use of NLP in education due to its close similarity to Scientology [110].
  12. Bandler's legal actions have been compared to the vexatious litigation and restriction in freedom of speech of cults such as Scientology [111].
  13. For example, the belief in the ubiquity of bad programming (Dianetic's engram concept[112] is widely disseminated in NLP books and seminars.
  14. such as EST, Dianetics, and Scientology
  15. Critical view of NLP and pseudoscience
    Enlarge
    Critical view of NLP and pseudoscience
  16. NLP is often promoted as large group seminars, similar to or in combination with Landmark Forum seminars [113].
Reason for move (wikipedia policies)
  • Various aspects of this argument violate WP:NOR on 2 counts:
  • "it introduces an argument (without citing a reputable source for that argument) which purports to refute or support another idea, theory, argument, or position".
  • "it introduces a synthesis of established facts in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing the synthesis to a reputable source."
  • The links you draw between NLP and Scientology are unacceptable - tenous at best and overly general (e.g. "they [NLP & Scientology] have strong management aspects").
  • The fallacy of observational selection is apparent in statements such as "in essence they [NLP & Scientology] are the same", emphasising commonalities between the fields and ignoring differences, as well as introducing commonalities which do not actually exist (examples follow)
  • There is still no direct evidence to link Dianetics with Fritz-Perls.
  • There is no evidence of NLP as "drawing many applications from Hubbard's work."
  • There is no evidence that NLP as a movement uses "strong spiritual elements", and you do not mention what specific elements you consider to be "strongly spiritual", thus this is too general to be verifiable.
--c 23:38, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Counter argument
  • "In this book, for example, Neuro-linguistic Programming is included, but not as a religion; it is described as a technique, or a series of techniques, or a process. It is used by some religions, and NLP as a philoshopy does exhibit some characteristics which are sometimes found in some religions, but overall the balance comes down against it being labelled as a religion" (Barrett p.26) --'c' 00:22, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  • "There has been a great deal of controversy, for several decades, over whether or not Scientology is a religion. Leaving to one side the fact that it calls itself a relgion - indeed, it's correction name is Church of Scientology - academic have argued persuasively for and against it being a relgion (see also p.447)" (Barrett p.26) --'c' 00:22, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  • "NLP is an approach rather than an organization; it is used by several different human potential movements."(Barrett p.431) --'c' 00:22, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Ref: New Believers, David V. Barrett
Alternative text

[edit] Merged Texts (on Scientology/Dianetics/Landmark/engrams)

I think it's clear that some NLP similarities to Scientology and the like is a genuine perspective. In the below, I've taken every single comparison to Scientology/Dianetics/Landmark/EST (excluding that already in "cult" sections) and put them in one section (I haven't added other stuff, which clearly would exist). This is not my belief, this is pulling together the stuff that Comaze removed and merging it into a potential "section", so that what he's moved can be seen (all is there, though it includes some obvious restructuring).

Existing merged together: Subheading: Associations with Scientology, EST, and other New Age groups
NLP is largely a New Age development, and is often promoted in combination with other related new age developments. NLP is often criticised as being a dubious new age therapy.
This is partly due to related New Age notions that were common at the time of development - by the late 1960s, self-help organizations such as EST, Dianetics, and Scientology had become financially successful. The Esalen human potential seminars in California began to attract people, such as the therapist and dianetics proponent Fritz Perls [114], as well as Gregory Bateson, Virginia Satir, and Milton H. Erickson.
Scientology, rebirthing and other alternative therapies teach the concept that the human mind can be programmed, and that mis-programming by negative input is the norm. This is compared to NLP's principles (Raso 1994)(Lilienfeld 2003), as is the classic New Age concept of "clearing" these blocks (Singer 1996). Some believe that NLP shares Dianetic's subconscious engram concept [115][116], and promotes popular new age myths such as unlimited potential, past life regression, and the use marketing/recruitment models similar to that of Dianetics (Scientology) and other cults [117].
Some have classed NLP as a pseudoscientific self help development [118] [119][120][121], in the same mold as EST (Landmark Forum) and Dianetics(Scientology). Bandler's legal actions have been compared to the vexatious litigation and restriction in freedom of speech of cults such as Scientology [122]. The German educational ministry banned the use of NLP in education due to its close similarity to Scientology [123]. Some say NLP is often promoted as large group seminars, similar to or in combination with Landmark Forum seminars [124].
(no responses or counter arguments at this time - perhaps for some issues, if the article describes the issue earlier (eg Bandler's legal actions) then no response would be required, the reader could decide for themselves?)

I believe that Comaze's intent was purely to discuss one simple issue - whether it's valid to continually imply association: eg: "As with the alternative self development therapies of Dianetics and EST (Raso 1994)(Lilienfeld 2003)(Hunt 2002) NLP participants are taught that...". (Comaze, tell me if I'm wrong). However, some of the complaints from other editors were that extracting individual phrases made it impossible for them to comment on the changes. I've now joined those phrases with their surrounding information, so we can comment on them in the discussion area.

Personally, I feel that it deserves its own section (ie grouped together as a series of claims, with counter argument where relevant, rather than seeded throughout the article). This will overlap to some degree with the sections already on "Cult Characteristics", the section "New Age", or the section "New Age and Cult Applications". Perhaps some of these should merge. GregA 23:19, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Hello GregA. It would help greatly if you would add the titles of the sections they came from on each part, then we could talk about where each came from, and why they should be in those different sections. As it is, it is very confusing. There were valid reasons for keeping them for adding information to those particlular sections as we did a great deal of work on them under the mediation of VoiceOfAll. Regards HeadleyDown 03:07, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Headley, I've done what I think would help us discuss this. If you have some other ideas to help, is there a reason you can't show this yourself?

(Correction: This does not include

  1. much of the Engram stuff.
  2. Comaze's movement #7 "With its promotion with Tai Chi, Meditation, and Dianetics (Scientology), ..." attributed to Winkin - his PDF only mentions Tai Chi and Meditation. Perhaps we should return that comment without the Dianetics/Scientology reference?) GregA 23:31, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Hello GregA. VoiceOfAll requested for us to brevify the article, and in doing so we merged sentences. The view that NLP is promoted with tai chi Meditation and Dianetics, is a very widely held view. We can replace the extra sources to those views and attribute them properly of course. Regards HeadleyDown 03:07, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Okay, 1 dissenter in restoring the reference without "Dianetics", - so lets ignore the Tai Chi sentence for now and focus on the Scientology objection. GregA 03:34, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion of Text moved by Comaze (Scientology/Dianetics/Landmark/engrams)

Greetings Comaze. NLP is considered by Barret and other experts to have strong spiritual elements. It is considered by Hunt, Heelas, and many others to be a "new alternative religion" rather than a religion. Thus they use terms such as quasi-religious. These views of such experts can be clarified further in all of these many points you have in your large text move. Barret, came down against NLP being labeled as a religion, but Winkin 1991 (and others) that it is a religion. Barret's book 'cults, sects, and religions' is only one source, and as Barret is the only one who states that it is not a religion, we can represent his view on what it is. It is either a cult or a sect according to Barret.

I suppose we could also include your notions of both NLP and Scientology being variously described as a religion also. We also have the view of empirical scientists who state that NLP is a cult. For example, Sharpley 1997, Heap 1991, and others state that NLP is a cult. We can expand upon this in the article. The cult label can be explained better in the light of the "new alternative religion" category, and with reference to pseudosciences being widely adopted within cults.

Concerning cults. Indeed as you infer, NLP is also used in both mild and agressive cults (Singer 1999), such as the destructive cult NLP Rekaunt, which was subject to litigation and imprisonments in Russia. I have more information to add concerning this. For example, there is a large neo-nazi affiliated political group in Austria, who uses NLP patterns liberally within their rallies and documents. It is an ongoing news item in Austria, and gaining the attention of many people in the EU. In fact, in Austria, NLP is often labeled nazi-linguistic programming. Its considered a pathetic, yet typically devious way of attempting to instil notions of the Uberman (unlimited potential) within the population, spread delusion, and to gain votes. I will supply the refs. Good day. JPLogan 03:54, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Hello Comaze. This is actually a very interesting subject to me. Barrett's description of NLP is that of a cult. His description, that it involves pseudopsycological rituals, is similar to the descriptions by other more sociologically oriented authors, who also describe NLP as involved with occult healing, and spiritual development through the self and the development of the self (Hunt 2002;Heelas 1996 etc). This is the distinction between orthodox religions, and new alternative religions. The new age has brought about a "self" perspective, in that the development of the self is key to spiritual development, rather than the development of society.
The religiosity of NLP is apparent in the New Age oriented presuppositions of NLP (you have amazing potential for excellence, the map is not the territory and you can change reality through visualization, we all have a higher or perfect self/intentions are all good at source, and so on).
To enlarge upon this adoption of "delusional assumptions" (Singer 1999), the NLP/Scientology practices of dissociation are known to cause reduced critical faculty and reduced resistance, delusional states, mental instability and so on, especially as practiced in Tony Robbins style LGATS, with the ongoing firewalking, love bombing, chanting, and other such rituals.
The business oriented seminars have also been described as being "transformed at work", where suited businesspeople are urged to adopt these New Age beliefs, draw magical circles on the ground, and perform Grinder's recommended shamanic rituals, when in fact they are unwilling to. These are all documented complaints from research into the coercive and ethically questionable activities of NLP (Singer 1999, Winkin 1991, and more) and some have led to litigation, hospitalization, and even suicide.
To be practical and focused, I can add this information more readably to the parts you have objected to, Comaze,C,SC. I will start to formulate something more concise. ATB Camridge 09:50, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Once again, there is an attempt to weave the spiritual aspect and dubious uses of NLP into an overall vision of NLP. This is why I've requested these issues to be dealt with first
  1. The map is not the territory is commonly accepted psychologically,
  2. you can not change reality through visualisation! (but you can change the map!!... that's the point of the presupposition),
  3. we do not have a perfect self
  4. and intentions are not all good.
Delusional assumptions indeed. Oh, I'm sure that a sociological view could say that NLP is involved with spiritual development through development of self, I'm not so sure about occult healing (what does that mean?) GregA 13:20, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
OK GregA, perhaps I could put it in semi-Wikipedia terms. (ref a body of psychologists and sociologists) state that NLP is a part of the new age or new alternative religious movement. The is movement uses principles that state that perception is not reality, and one can make more of their potential by changing their perception in order to change their reality (eg, the swish seduction example). The NLP version of the perfect self is the recognition that all our actions derive from the best original intention. The spiritual side of this self development is the use of the human potential in order to grow as an individual. This healing can involve channeling, connecting with spirits, conducting shamanic guided imagery exercises, and protecting the spirit using negativity bannishing rituals.
I know its a bit long, but it involves most of the new age/new alternative religion aspects, and shows how they are part of NLP. We can also add info about Dilts logical levels, which places spirituality at the top, and this is part of the hypothesized unified field theory of NLP (an core overview of NLP). NLP was new age religiosity from the beginning with new age book covers and wizards, and titles such as the structure of magic. Now its evolved into a highly spiritual and pseudoscientific reflection of the new age. Regards HeadleyDown 14:12, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
You know...I finally get it. HeadleyDown/Camridge/Flavius is a Scientologist. This is the reason why he keeps expressing everything not in NLP terms, but in Scientology terms -- and what he can't stand is the idea of people basically getting a clue about how the mind works, without buying into all of the Ron Hubbard Dianetics/Scientology mumbo-jumbo, and Xeno or whatever planet they believe in, and, more importantly, without emptying their bank account for the benefit of the Church of Scientology. His goal here is to not really discredit NLP, but, to subtly use NLP to ENDORSE Scientology. This is why, over and over, he inserts "like Scientology" and "like Dianetics" phrases all over the place. And we all know how absolutely FANATICAL the Scientology's "enforcers" are, as well as their long history of engaging in propagand campaigns that would even make some covert Communists blush with the audacity and viciousness used. Akulkis 05:57, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Hello Akulkis. Thats an interesting theory, and it may even apply to the sociologists and scientists that talk of NLP and Scientology in the same breath. Perhaps you would like to take a closer look at the pseudoscience section, and the section on ethical issues. I have added to those myself, and they apply equally to scientology as they do NLP. As a matter of fairness to NLP, it is fine to give the excuse that many other such dubious and psuedoscientific therapies are also promoted as NLP is. Scientology is the closest member of those dubious and pseudoscientific therapies. ATB Camridge 07:07, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Could it be that the sociologists don't like a simple, comprehendable model of the mind, and propaganda, and mass influence to be understood by the public, because, frankly, it would put them out of work? Nahhhhh, there couldn't POSSIBLY be any such motivator among those who continually publish articles which contradicts the observable results when basic NLP techniques are tried out by people who have not even 10% of the psychological education as the typical psychologist or sociologist. These sociologists are doing the equivalent of claiming that cars don't work, because, when THEY try the car, they conveniently forget to turn the ignition key, and, even more conveniently, neglect to state the error of omission in their journal articles. If perpetually geeky engineers can get NLP to significantly improve their influence on people, why can't these hordes of sociologists and psychologists? As the saying goes, "Something's rotten in Denmark". Akulkis 22:39, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
I rarely believe in conspiracy theories myself. I do think that psychologists should have used NLP practitioners when testing an NLP process. And I believe that you need to do a course to learn NLP properly - trying to copy it from a book is too open to errors (how many counselling courses allow you to learn from a book? Most require experiential learning afaik) (in Australia they do).
Camridge's comment is interesting ... ethical considerations apply equally to NLP and Scientology :) Well yes... and to Counselling and every single field I guess :) Greg 03:01, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Hello Comaze, this is a huge and confusing text move. I suggest that it is unreasonable to expect anyone to deal with this considering the mentors have suggested baby steps. I request for you to place it back in the article. Also, you removed a web reference to occult mind control without it being agreed upon. I request for you to place it back in the article. We all need to work more carefuly on this workshop. Cheers DaveRight 01:28, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Dave, I've numbered the text moved to make it easier to comment on. What specific statements or phrases would you like to see in the article? Please provide reputable, reliable references and address wikipedia policy. --c 02:20, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Comaze, this is a big move. And there's more than 1 issue - though 1 does stand out! In the interests of easier debate and working with the mentors, can we focus on 1 principle/issue (which will have many lines alluding to it) perhaps by you picking (or writing) an example sentence that cuts to the core of it?
For instance:
  • "NLP - similar to Dianetics, Scientology, and other cults - promotes a belief in XXXXX"
Then we can focus on that line, for our discussion. Once there's been a decision we can apply to the obvious lines (if necessary), and quickly debate slightly alternative versions based on the precedent. Would this work for you? and others?
If so... write a summarising line to use :) GregA 02:27, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
We may be able to reinsert some of that text if we can established that it is acceptable to wikipedia policy. Currently there is no reliable/reputable evidence to support any of the text that was moved. --c 03:23, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Hi all. I don't mind dealing with this large and confusing text move, as long as Comaze takes the trouble to place it all back when the objections have been answered again. I have had a great deal of practice answering these self same questions, I have all day, and I don't mind doing it again, and yet again in future when it happens again. ATB Camridge 02:40, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Here's a few already
1, is Sinclair's view. NLP uses a new age/magic perspective of unlimited potential. The Sinclaire ref and link both refer to engrams. Many others do also, including Profs Drenth and Levelt. Camridge 02:48, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
We've already established that Sinclair/Bray is self-published and can be excluded. --c 03:23, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Hello Comaze. No, you have claimed that it is established, yet you are not in authority here. The Singer book also corresponds with a weblink, that is not part of a personal page. That weblink is admissable, and so is the authoritative book. If you remove it from the article, just as you did with the in-discussion link you deleted last week, then you would be guilty of behaving uncooperatively. I urge you to reinstate the occult link you deleted last week, and then we can continue our discussion. Camridge 04:05, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
2. Promoted in the same mold as dianetics and scientology is the view of the refs added, plus the view of sociologists (to be added).
3. Perls promoted dianetics, and there is compeling evidence on the web and in the library. Refs were supplied, where did they go, Comaze?
And so on.
There is no argument presented. It is a statement of views that NLP is a cult, and there are following explanations. I believe that is all that is required to answer this large and confusing set of repeat objections. ATB Camridge 02:48, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Of all the statements and phrases that I moved, what is the most accurate/reliable/credible? Please choose something specific that can be verified. Maybe you can start with that and address the relevant wikipedia policy. Who knows we may be able to reach consensus on this. --c 03:23, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Camridge - I have no problem with saying there are some views that NLP is a cult, or that some compare NLP with Dianetics - etc etc. My issue with this is that it is just a perspective, yet this one view is stated without context repeatedly throughout the article. GregA 05:34, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Greg, "self-help" or "personal development system" is less pejorative than "cult" - Wikipedia:Words_to_avoid#Some_terms_are_technically_accurate_but_carry_an_implied_viewpoint. NLP and Dianetics can probably be fit into a category of "personal development system". The term cult is to be avoided, "The word 'cult' itself is very controversial, and has several different meanings, often with very negative connotations. In general it should be avoided--don't say "X is a cult", say "so and so has called X a 'cult' because...". If the author wants to indicate that there is something wrong with a group by applying the cult label then the article in Wikipedia should focus on the question of what is wrong with the group." --'c' 00:22, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Good day GregA. I agree that there is nothing wrong with using the term - cult, or stating the common view that NLP is intrinsically connected by many concepts to Scientology and Dianetics. The term cult is appropriate and is the view of many experts. JPLogan 04:00, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Good day Comaze. Do you wish to remove the views of experts? I count at least 5 scientists, and over 10 other independent researchers who refer to NLP as a cult. Good day. JPLogan 04:00, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Hello JP. Comaze is not allowed to remove facts when they are the stated views of researchers, and certainly cult is a wildly distant concept from self help system. It would be more constructive that the term cult should be more comprehensively clarified in the article. IE, Such and such say it is a cult, with some explanation regarding the New Age and pseudoscience, occult, recent followings, and citations and so on. ATB Camridge 09:59, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
JPLogan, please do not misquote me. There is nothing wrong with saying some people consider NLP a cult - and classifying who says it. Please also do not misquote the people who associate NLP with cults - I believe some of the descriptions you once quoted were "While not technically a cult, NLP has cultish characteristics... such as...". IF this is what someone said we should make clear what characteristics NLP is said to have.
Comaze - yes, personal development system is probably something no-one would contest - that makes it a good general description. However, a few people say cult, and if it is in the article it belongs firmly in a subsection. I believe it a vast minority view, certainly not an NLP or scientific viewpoint GregA 12:37, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Hello GregA. Have a look in the material in the cult section. The views of scientists involve the term cult. Sharpley, Heap, Singer, and more all give their views on the cultlike nature of NLP. They are renowned scientists. There are also European articles written by scientists that state the view that NLP is a cult, and is implicated in forming other cults. These are all scientists and independent researchers.
NLP is a fringe minority alternative religion. NLP proponents don't disagree that NLP is a cult. And some even use their cult to promote other cults, as is the norm in the world of cults. Here is a website that sells NLP and actively encourages people to use NLP in order to form cults. [125] For example they sell NLP in order for people to promote their cults on school, college, and university campuses. Regards HeadleyDown 13:03, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
What a weird link! NLP can influence people in powerful ways, for good or bad. It's rotten that groups grab hold of it and use it badly. And people are afraid of what they don't understand - when I told anyone I was studying Psych they would shy away and make a joke about knowing everything they were thinking. Advertisers abuse psychological knowledge routinely, as do cults. I don't think this should reflect badly on Psychology GregA 13:44, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Hello GregA. Its not that wierd compared to what goes on in seminars. Bandler using fanfairs when he stomps onto the stage, and sits on a throne to give seminars, or Dilts formulating the NLP patterns of Jesus of Nazareth and Sherlock Holmes. But getting back on track: I can add some more about the Perls, Dianetics, NLP connections in a bit. Regards HeadleyDown 14:15, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi again GregA. According to C. Naranjo, MD, Perls was strongly influenced by Hubbards Dianetics. He states that "It is clear that his technique of "returning" is a practice that involces a recourse amounting to a training of the sensory and affective recall in contrast to purely intellectual abstract memory". He continues and talks about to act “as if” you are in a situation in the past and to re-experience a traumatic event or phobia, and go through various imagic rituals in order to deal with it. Gestalt Therapy, the Attitude and Practice of Atheoretical Experimentalism. P 139. Do you notice the many links between this and NLP rituals and principles?

Naranjo repeats this on page p46 Concerning Perls, "From Dianetics he took the reenactment of traumatic episodes.

Here are some links also: Perls, the founder of Gestalt therapy, defended Hubbard's early work [126].

Also from Gnosis No 12. Hubbards Ladder, "Just as Madam Blavatsky's "secret doctrine" engendered numerous progeny, so did Hubbard's methodology provide raw material for Frederick Perls' Gestalt therapy,...etc.

And "Despite the interest of respected professionals like endocrinologist J. A. Winter, psychologist Fritz Perls, and philosopher Aldous Huxley, not to mention the vast public acclaim his published work had engendered, the Dianetic Research Foundation found itself bankrupt by February of 1952."

Perls was a key model for NLP, and, in addition to all the other new age links with Scientology, was a key figure in creating business for other atheoretical fringe therapies. He spent the rest of his time in Esalen institute, the home of pseudoscience in California, according to Richard Fenyman. So we have a great deal of information here that shows NLP sprung from the success of Scientology (after Dianetics) and continues to ignore scientific research on its ineffectiveness, spread mind myths and generally cause the exasperation of clinical psychologists globally. There is a strong movement to have NLP placed on a list of official pseudoscientific dubious therapies. Perhaps all this is not necessary, as we simply have plenty of views of valid and major sources that NLP followed Scientology in its promotion through the recent new alternative religious movement. Regards HeadleyDown 16:45, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

You've spent 4 or 5 paragraphs describing Perls, not describing NLP. If NLP had modeled everything about Perls (not just his therapeutic interactions) then perhaps it would have developed differently. Would you accuse Gestallt Psychology similarly? GregA 21:06, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Hello GregA. Please, I am responding to Comaze's text move. Comaze's objections were to statements that NLP is new age, that NLP was developed from new age thinking, and new age figures such as Fritz Perls, and Dianetics, and that Fritz perls supported, defended, and promoted Dianetics. These are all stated views of experts such as Naranjo and others as can be seen in the literature. Over the months we have had a few editors repeatedly requesting (and physically attempting on an almost daily basis) to permanently remove the views of experts that NLP is new age, that NLP is strongly related to Dianetics and Scientology, and that NLP is pseudoscientific. We have been doing our utmost to answer those questions in detail using the stated views of independent researchers. According to the views of independent researchers, NLP is pseudoscientific, and as such, is designed to be highly confusing and misleading. Therefore, it will help the article greatly if the New Age/quasi-religious background to NLP are appropriately explained. Regards HeadleyDown 03:18, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed change to Scientific Analysis of NLP, by GregA

  • What portion of the article do you take issue with?

The heading - "Scientific Analysis of NLP"
"NLP has been empirically tested over many years and many of its models and methods have been found to be largely ineffective [159]."

Note that this issue has wide implications for the article in multiple locations, not just this sentence. I would say it is one of the fundamental disagreements.

  • On what basis do you object to this portion? Quote and link to the Wikipedia policy or guideline that justifies your objection.

The objection is on NPOV, and using opinions in preference to scientific research (though sometimes it is the opinion of a scientist in a published book). It does not represent the NLP reply fairly, nor both scientific sides.

More info

Some time ago, in an effort to determine the validity of the claim that NLP has no scientific background, Flavius and I went through Medline - indexes multiple respected peer-reviewed journals. This is not an exhaustive search of all peer-reviewed journals, but an effort to determine whether the statement "there is no scientific support" is representative or not.

Flavius found 62 studies - see Talk:Neuro-linguistic_programming/_archive6#Medline_and_NLP_search. Most of these he considered irrelevant (tutorials, book reviews... not research or review anyway) and I tended to agree as to which he found relevant - about 14 articles.

In the interests of not clogging up this page with those article titles and abstracts, I haven't copied the relevant 14 across but they are at that link (if someone thinks it useful I'll copy those 14)

I (GregA) summarised the 14 studies as follows:

1. There are 7 studies not supporting NLP (#14, 53, 54, 55, 56, 61, (&62?)). As with Druckman & Swets (88) and Heap (89) review of NLP, all these studies are rep systems related - 5 eye accessing cues, 1 of verbal predicates. Only one is after 1986 (it's in 2003).
2. There are 7 studies supporting NLP (#31, 36, 37, 39, 43, 49, 51). All are after 1987. They use a variety of NLP techniques (and often don't say specifically). (Only 1 was eye related and it simply found differences in eye movements between Aphasic and control groups)
3. There are > 22 articles recommending or teaching NLP (this does not include straight reviews) GregA 08:47, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Flavius summarised them as:

On the basis of this review alone it would be sufficient to conclude that there is no evidence that NLP works. The few studies that are reported -- that find that NLP is efficacious -- have one or more methodological flaws that either invalidate the conclusions or severely constrain the conclusions that can be drawn. flavius 06:35, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

While I believe Flavius's judgement may be correct, and I have my own judgement about the rep-systems studies, that's personal. There was no "peer-reply" to discredit these indexed by Medline.

  • What new wording do you suggest?

"NLP has been empirically tested over many years - focussing principally on its representation system model, and it's overall therapeutic application. Outcome based research, where a variety of NLP processes have been used on a group of subjects, has found that the subjects do improve. However, extensive and specific research on NLP's representational systems claim has shown little or no support. Though there is criticism of both classes of findings, there is no research to explore these differences, and many individual NLP processes remain untested."

This is the opening paragraph of the science section. Further detail, of course, may be explored in the section. GregA 22:32, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

  • New Wording, #2 (incorporating some but not all feedback. Mentors comments still requested)

"NLP has been empirically tested over many years - focussing principally on its representation system model, and it's overall application to therapy. While tests on specific NLP models and methods have found them to be largely ineffective [159], non-specific (outcome based) studies found NLP treatments in therapy performed as well as (but not substantially better than) existing psychiatric care (Devilly 2005). Research on specific NLP models is criticised for not understanding the models (Einspruch), and not using NLP trained practitioners nor real world situations (Druckman & Swets 88), while NLP is criticised by psychiatrists as "lacking any new scientifically valid theories of action" (Devilly).

(references included just for discussion purposes). Is this presentation of Devilly accurate? I've replaced outcome-based showing support with his 'non specific studies' findings. It also keeps the "largely ineffective" reference. GregA 12:33, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion, for Scientific Analysis change

(to separate out the structured approach with the mentors, from free-form discussion).

Hello GregA. I concur with JP's comment below. The line you have quoted (and censored) was taken directly from Professor Singer of Harvard University fame. Her view (that NLP is ineffective), is shared by many other academics and researchers of NLP such as Lilienfeld, Eisner, Carroll, and more, who quote her directly in their research. These renowned researchers have taken into account all research including the "outcome based" single research study that has been emphasized out of all proportion within your suggested paragraph. They state that the research showing benefits is "fatally flawed", and they refer directly to the research you quote. I would like to direct your attention to the NPOV policy regarding selective editing, and regarding the inadmission of original research. Regards HeadleyDown 11:27, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

That's cool Headley, my only concern is providing both views. Reactions to outcome based studies (like the 6 medline-indexed ones) are entirely appropriate, as is the reaction to the Rep System studies. Remember my intent here is to try in some way to ascertain whether comments like "studies ... have consistently shown that NLP is ineffective" and "there is no.... scientific support for its claimed efficacy" are representative, and if not (as sources seem to show) then to present it fairly.

To the point - can you please supply your reasoning to not represent any supporting research? Or write an alternative opening paragraph that presents both sides without judging either?

ps. Mentors - is it appropriate to blank all or part of a discussion until you have had a look at the proposal? Or can a subheading for "discussion" allow the main area to keep to a structure? GregA

Hello GregA. The "outcome based studies" you refer to have no reaction mentioned in relation to the empirical studies that have conclusively falsified the core BAGEL model of NLP. The reason for not supplying supporting research from minor studies is to reduce redundancy (reviewers have rejected them already on the basis that they are flawed or inconclusive), and on the basis of increasing clarity (only conclusive reviews are presented). The facts remain, NLP promoters claims to magic or excellence have never been satisfied by independent research, and therefore, independent researchers state that NLP has been tested and the independent reviews of research by independent researchers demonstrate that NLP is ineffective, pseudoscientific in theory, and pseudoscientific in excuse. Even though you have requested this information over 20 times before, I will freely supply it over again whenever you repeat your request. Regards HeadleyDown 14:56, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Okay, then just to confirm - you believe that these outcome-based studies which support NLP should be ignored, since you believe they are flawed or inconclusive. And your respected book authors reviewing NLP agree with that. Would you be able to give a quote from them which shows they acknowledge these outcome based studies and how they respond to them? - I'm interested in this. Have you got in mind a good way of presenting both sides?

If 2/3 of outcome based studies found no evidence of NLP efficacy (like Platt's summary of 70ish PRS studies we discussed long ago) it would be difficult to know how to present this. But this is showing EVERY outcome based study supports NLP, in comparison to rep system studies which have far less support (rep systems to be discussed separately) - and as such it would be wrong to ignore these. GregA 00:23, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Hello GregA. Firstly there is no such thing as an outcome based study in contrast with the studies that show NLP to be ineffective. The 2/3 statistic is your opinion, and should not appear in the article. We have been through this many times before and I am happy to explain it when you repeat the question in future. The only views relevant here are the views of those who have reviewed the research on NLP in detail. Singer, Lilienfeld, Eisner, and so on are all qualified to do this. It is their view that NLP is ineffective, banal, psychobabble, pseudsoscience, cultish and so on. The Singer statement that you censored was actually a mild statement of the views of scientists. Regards HeadleyDown 04:07, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Headley, there seems to be a communication breakdown here. I don't think you've understood what an outcome based study is. Outcome based studies were first used when psychotherapists said that empirical research was too constrictive. They allowed the therapist (trained in whatever modality) to work with clients, and the "outcome" after therapy (however many sessions) is measured and analysed using standard psychological/statistical methods. Unfortunately it means that if a therapy involves multiple techniques, you can not identify which techniques had more or less effect. When you look at the 14 or so studies in Medline, all of the outcome based NLP research supports NLP efficacy. And, as Flavius said, they lack the controls etc that the more standard empirical psych research is known for. You also said that your book reviews do have a reaction to the outcome based studies - we should include their reaction/reply to the outcome based stuff in preference to Flavius's or your opinion. Can you quote anything?

ps. You also misread my comment about 2/3 - that was Platt's 'study', you argued extensively about this a few months ago. And it was a junk study, and it has been removed already. I guess this is a good argument for not getting off track, my fault there, let's ignore the PRS/rep systems opinions/research and focus on my actual suggestion here. GregA 05:24, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi GregA. Your suggestion has been presented before. Again, you are presenting your own view in the article. Its not the view of science. And you chopped out the view of scientists (that NLP doesn't work). Cheers DaveRight 01:38, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Hello Greg. Recent (post 2000) research reviews have dismissed the minor research that you present. The post 2000 reviews have been present in the article for months. I also agree with Dave and Headley, that you have removed extremely authoritative views that NLP is ineffective. So I suggest that your edits are entirely incorrect and against NPOV policy. ATB Camridge 02:26, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Hello All. I'm back ;-) GregA, the Medline and PsycInfo searches that we each performed are OR and hence should not be commented upon in the article. All of the NLP research indexed in Medline and PsycInfo was reviewed by Devilly (2005) -- which is a peer-reviewed paper published in an authoritative journal:
It is concluded that these new therapies have offered no new scientifically valid theories of action, show only non-specific efficacy, show no evidence that they offer substantive improvements to extant psychiatric care, yet display many characteristics consistent with pseudoscience.
Devilly GJ. Power Therapies and possible threats to the science of psychology and psychiatry. Aust N Z J Psychiatry. 2005 Jun;39(6):437-45. PMID: 15943644 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
(Abstract available at: [127] and [128])
I have a copy of the paper and am happy to supply quotations from it. Eisner and Lilienfeld make the same conclusions based on their literature reviews which are published by mainstream commercial publishers. 'Outcome based' studies are not up to the standard that is applied to therapeutic substances, techniques and protocols. An 'outcome based' study is like a clinical case report it can't be used as evidence to substantiate any of the claims made for NLP. flavius 04:25, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi Flavius. Thanks for detailing the Devilly source, it's been referred to before without a reference. The first thing I see is it's not a paper on NLP, but "power therapies" - yet you've supplied the generalised conclusion. Could you quote some specific notes on NLP (both for and against). My questions on the general conclusion:

  • It is concluded that these new therapies have offered no new scientifically valid theories of action

Can you explain 'theories of action'? NLP doesn't do theory per se, though several trainers have linked NLP patterns to existing theories (like some European trainers talking about Engrams). But 'theories of action' may mean something else.

  • (power therapies) show only non-specific efficacy,

If this refers to NLP, I assume this is the outcome based studies? They are not specific in what makes them work?... He's saying they simply show that it works?

  • (power therapies) show no evidence that they offer substantive improvements to extant psychiatric care,

I assume that if they didn't work at all, or didn't work as well as psychiatric care, it would say that quite clearly. So - power therapies (nlp????) don't offer substantial improvement over psychiatry.

  • (power therapies) display many characteristics consistent with pseudoscience.

I would have to agree partially with that for NLP, it does have characteristics consistent with pseudoscience (in contrast to BEING a pseudoscience, of course).
(Are these valid framing of Devilly's results?)

I am taking an obviously "pro"NLP stance here. Because I'd like more detail of what's said. It seems to me that he's saying power therapies offer no new theories beyond what they've already got, and don't perform better than existing psychiatry - admittedly I'd like to see them say it does better than psychiatry, but it certainly isn't a negative conclusion. GregA

GregA. It is a negative conclusion and it extends to NLP:
"In 1975 Bandler and Grinder [1] published the first of their two volumes on Neuro Linguistic Programming (NLP). Their book is aptly entitled The Structure of Magic and in it they outlined a revolutionary new method for assessing, communicating with and treating patients...However, by the late 1980s a host of controlled trials had shed such a poor light on the practice,
and those promoting the intervention made such extreme and changeable claims, that researchers began to question the wisdom of researching the area further and even suggested that NLP was an untestable theory [2]. I refer to NLP here not to target the practice for further denigration, but to hold it up asn an early example of what some call an 'Alphabet Therapy' and others refer to as a 'Power Therapy'...

We know the early studies results from Druckman & Swets. This in itself isn't new and it is should be in the article. Now, note the manner in which he classifies NLP as a power therapy - "what some call an Alphabet Therapy". Who calls them that. The summary states that "Therapies were included which self-describe themselves as ‘Power Therapies’". I've not read an NLP book describe themselves that way, and a search on the web finds several places that teach Power Therapies, and NLP, but they are separate [[129]].

Could you please quote Devilly in how he describes/summarises what a "Power Therapy" is?

Before we go on - I have to note that you haven't disagreed with any of my interpretation above of Devilly's conclusion. NLP is non-specifically effective, but not substantially more than psychiatry. Can you elaborate? GregA 22:34, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

"Indeed, one practice within NLP is a technique called 'Visual-Kinaesthetic Dissociation' (VKD) and this has subsequently become one of the 'Power Therapies' in its own right." (p. 437)
Regarding V-K dissociation, Devilly states that "There has never been a published, peer-reviewed, trial into this technique." (p. 439)

There are lots of NLP processes which haven't been tested. No contention. I thought EMDR had heaps of studies though?? (sorry, don't know much about EMDR studies). Which V-K dissociation is he talking about? GregA 22:34, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

"To end where I began -- NLP is no longer as prevalent as it was in the 1970s and 1980s, but is still practised in small pockets of the human resource community today. The science has come and gone yet the belief still remains. In fact, you can enrol in an Australian workshop today for certification as: an NLP Practitioner ($3995); a Master NLP Practitioner
($4395); or an NLP Trainer ($10570). The companies offering the training will even arrange finance. Be quick, places are limited!" (p. 444)
Also, since NLP is a 'Power Therapy' Devilly's commentary and conclusions regarding 'Power Therapies' in general apply to NLP.

I question that for the above given reasons (NLP describes itself as a power therapy?). But lets assume that's fine - then you're placing multiple therapies under one umbrella and commenting on the whole, rather than commenting ONLY on what they share in common. It's a logical error.

For example - pine tree and gum tree are both trees, and anything true of trees must be true of both pine and gum trees. But you can't say "trees have a straight trunk" - that's not a characteristic of trees, it's a characteristic of a subset of trees. You can say "some trees have a straight trunk" - at which point you need to identify which trees for the comment to be useful. If you say ALL trees have some property, that can be applied to any specific trees. GregA 22:34, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

"But how did these interventions obtain such a widespread following of practitioners [given the absence of evidence]? It is my thesis that there are certain other commonalities amongst the Power Therapies that are best examined through a social psychology lens. It is claimed that social influence strategies are commonly used by those peddling pseudoscience...A
more recent tactic has even been the discounting of the entire scientific method. Power Therapists have, in some cases, adopted the (quite illogical) postmodern mantra that science subjugates personal menaing...Another is a direct attack on both the null hypothesis and the application of critical examination/thought." (p. 441-3)

This paragraph makes total sense - but it is now saying "in some cases", and "commonly" and as such it doesn't address all his power-therapies. If he is judging ALL the therapies he researched then I can see NLP falls under that. If he is judging SOME then we need to know which so we can represent his finding.

"The major difference [between science and pseudoscience], however, is that empirically supported practices build upon a scientific theory and state the terms under which this theory could be falsified. I contend that this is the most important condition which delimits a science from a pseudoscience [51]...Another differentiating factor is the declaration of a coherent and consistent theory that underlies the practoce -- one which, besides being testable, does not disagree with currently understoof and accepted experimental data. The therapies outlined above have been derived in isolation of scientific theory and in many cases the theory has been subsequent to the practice (eg. EMDR)." (p. 443)

That last sentence summarises this issue doesn't it? The therapies outline weren't derived from scientific theory, and the theory came later. This is exactly NLP and there is no contention there - NLP got it's therapeutic processes from modelling practitioners. And from that Devilly says this defines NLP as pseudoscience rather than an alternative methodology. I think we can represent that really well and it's an excellent quote.

Also, taking his definition of pseudoscience (that it must build on scientific theory) - this doesn't fit with the Pseudoscience characteristics you've researched and placed on the main page [Neuro-linguistic_programming/Workshop#Pseudoscience] (from Lilienfeld's Science and Pseudoscience in Clinical Psychology)

That is to say, NLP is pseudoscience. Non-specific effects are a super-set that includes the placebo effect, i.e. the placebo effect is merely one type of non-specific effect others include regression to the mean, spontaneous remission, demand characteristics, patient/therapist rapport and maturation. Devilly is saying that the Power Therapies -- including NLP -- don't work and that the efficacy is merely apparent i.e. it is a consequence of nonspecific factors. Devilly had this and previous papers vetted by defamation lawyers because the Power Therapists are litigious. Devilly's concern with preventing vexatious litigation against him has hampered his ability to present his expert opinion in plainer terms. flavius 14:01, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I think it is worth noting that your explanations of why NLP does and doesn't work (ie non-NLP effects) - and why other therapies do and don't work - has quite a bit of similar attention on it from the psychotherapeutic community. This link is a good description [[130]]. (Note that therapy is simply one application of NLP - but I agree entirely valid for discussion). The research found that in therapy, extratherapeutic factors account for 40% of a client's change. Relationship between therapist/client is 30%; placebo, hope, and/or expectancy is 15%; and lastly the structure, model, and/or technique is 15%. We're not here to discuss the issues of general psychotherapies, though this kind of results reflect the same issues you're talking about when you say NLP's efficacy comes from other factors - it's worth looking at the big picture (though it can be complicated).

The criticism of outcome based studies is another issue. You are right that "'Outcome based' studies are not up to the standard that is applied to therapeutic substances,", I'm not so sure on the "techniques and protocols.". Medical research has been far easier to test - especially simple things like "take tablet X" vs "take tablet Y (placebo). Psychotherapies have had many problems in research, partially due to the multitude of variables that can't be controlled in a real-world environment. CBT pushed the use of outcome based studies in an effort to perform some real therapy in a scientifically consistent manner. Outcome-based studies don't show the specific interventions used, it is a flaw, but these aren't NLP specific issues. GregA 05:24, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't want to get into a discussion with you about this because (a) the mentors will frown upon this; (b) it won't help the article; and (c) it's a waste of my time. I will say only that there are many randomised controllled studies that demonstrate the efficacy of CBT beyond non-specific factors. As Devilly points out there are no methodologically sound randomised, controlled studies that demonstrate the efficacy of NLP. None. flavius 14:01, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I'll see what more I can learn of this. A while back I was reading several arguments about whether outcome-based studies were of any use and how they compared to more controlled studies (this was in the CBT context), and I wasn't aware they'd reached any conclusions. Do you have any links to that kind of thing? GregA 22:34, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Flavius/Greg,
  • Any paper indexed in medline will most likely pass wikipedia standards for reputability and reliability, so I support both Greg and Flavius here. I'm not sure how OR applies to synthesising information about the outcome based studies when the synthesis is not attributed to a specific source.
  • Margaret Singer & Janja Lalich are not indexed in Medline, and not really in the same class as Herbert JD, Lilienfeld SO, Devilly, etc.
  • Lilienfeld et al (2003) is not indexed. An earlier related paper by Herbert JD, Lilienfeld SO, et al (2000) is indexed... Science and pseudoscience in the development of eye movement desensitization and reprocessing: implications for clinical psychology.
  • The relevant text from Lilienfeld et al. (2003) is, "Because of the virtually complete absense of research evidence for EFT, TIR and VK/D (Grinder & Bandler 1979) [for the treatment of anxiety and trauma], we focus primarily on EMDR..."(p.248). There are no conclusions made about NLP in that paper.
  • Quotes from Devilly, especially the sections directly relevant to NLP or VK/D would also be useful. Greg/Flavius - Suggest a change, we'll check it for acceptability and then see if we can reach consensus with the others to make the update or addition. If so, we'll submit it to the mentors for checking and insersion
--c 06:10, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Hi all. I have another constructive suggestion. Medline is full of papers and a use of such a giant source will amount to doing your own research and adding your own opinion. We already have renowned researchers who corroborate on the facts that the research shows NLP is ineffective, scientifically unsupported, and pseudoscientific. Any pasting of medline's 200plus papers on NLP will involve constant argument over which paper is junk and which is less junk. It is not the place of editors to sift through 200plus papers and decide which are significant and which are flawed. We are not to do our own original research. We rely on the views and reviews of reputable professors such as Singer, Lilienfeld and so on, to make their expert views known. We are editing an article on a fringe therapy, so conclusive statements are essential. ATB Camridge 06:31, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Sure, from a deeper reading, the Devilly paper is also extremely quotable in the article. I believe the statement in the opening could read "Scientific reviews of NLP conclude that NLP is pseudoscientific, a pseudoscience, and consistent with pseudoscience." Then of course, we can go into clearer detail in the pseudoscience section. ATB Camridge 08:10, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I see someone has started another science section. And still there is the accusation that by adding the views of scientists it is removing the view of scientists. This is true in so far as by adding the supporting studies, the universal claim "there is NO support" will be made into a common perspective.

I ask again - can anyone expand on (or change) my suggested paragraph such that the outcome based research and criticisms by NLP are expressed in addition to the view that there is no support. Work with me. GregA 12:13, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Camridge, you said:

  • "We are editing an article on a fringe therapy, so conclusive statements are essential."

What gave you the idea that certain wikipedia articles require conclusive statements, and others require NPOV? GregA 12:15, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Hello GregA. Again, I see no chance of you gaining consensus on this line of argument. This article will not fit the hundreds of minor research studies on NLP. We have to stick to the corroborated/triangulated views of qualified reviewers. Feel free to choose another more consensus building line of argument. Regards HeadleyDown 15:33, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Please address my question (in addition to your new comments). Are you saying that specific types of articles - on subjects which in my opinion have multiple viewpoints - require conclusive statements instead of representation? GregA 22:34, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

No GregA. I am saying if you place minor research articles into the NLP article, then we will have to supersize the article so as to include all the minor articles, we will also have to spend every day bickering over which one is more relevant and which one is less (ie, doing original research). Yet at the end of the 100 mile NLP article, the conclusion will be the same (that scientific experts have reviewed this huge pile of research and concluded that NLP is ineffective, scientifically unsupported, pseudoscientific, banal, cultlike, psychobabble etc). Could you please focus on gaining consensus? We have been round this conflict provoking argument for months without any sign of resolution. Regards HeadleyDown 03:29, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry Headley, I confused you with Camridge in my last reply, my mistake.

I don't need minor articles - Druckman, Einspruch are enough of a basis for a viewpoint, including the fact that others disagree with that. I would like some non psychological replies (NLP) to the research of course, it's not as if NLP doesn't have an opinion (and if they don't, that's worth saying too!). And Devilly is a negative article which has positive findings - when an anti-NLP article supports some (not all) of NLP I find that interesting.

If Einspruch wasn't a valid viewpoint, Sharpley wouldn't have to disagree right? - and neither would have been published. GregA

Hello GregA. Actually I have stated the same kind of thing, so I can see your confusion is understandable. Einspruch has been removed from the article because they failed to answer the more recent body of research (that has conclusively stated NLP is ineffective). Einspruch is insignificant, and is a feeble squeek compared to the stadium of scientists(and science supporters) who strongly state that NLP is ineffective, pseudoscientific, cultish, trite etc. ATB Camridge 06:44, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Text move by Comaze (Meaning of "Neuro" in NLP)

This information needs replacing into the article. As we have discovered, its far too big to discuss in one chunk. HeadleyDown 13:00, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Text moved by Comaze
Explaining the neuro in NLP in relation to V-K modalities(click to enlarge)
Enlarge
Explaining the neuro in NLP in relation to V-K modalities(click to enlarge)

All NLP literature refers to the altering of one's neurology through the neural pathways of the senses and the neural circuits of the brain. Most current NLP literature mentions no more than the reprogramming of mental habits and associations. However, the Engram[131] is used within NLP to explain how NLP works [132][133] [134][135]. Some practitioners theorize that NLP processes can be explained through the neurological concepts of programming and reprogramming engrams [136]Extract. Within NLP, Engrams are proposed to give a patterned response which has been stabilized at the level of unconscious competence [137][138][139].

Reasons for move

This section contains original research (WP:NOR), and most of the sources used fail the test for verifiability; Drenth (Growing anti-intellectualism in Europe; a menance to Science), Levelt (Hoedt u voor Neuro-Linguïstisch Programmeren!) and Derks_1985 all need to be checked -- NOTE:Drenth/Levelt are not published in English so unless there are translations available this also may fail verifiability tests. These can all go (WP:verifiability - self-published sources): Sinclair/Bray[140], [141], [142]. Derks and Hollander was also removed under previous mediation, as failing to meet criteria for reputability/verifiability. --c 00:55, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

Let's hold off on commenting on this until we resolve the other issues. --c 00:55, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I would agree with the above. One of the problems with mediation was congestion of topics.Voice-of-AllT|@|ESP 03:19, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Greetings Comaze. The move requires comment considering its extreme and obsessively anti-NPOV direction. The facts are easy to check and there is no original research whatsoever in the text. If you want to see a good example of original research, refer to GregA's suggestion to remove the majority scientific view that NLP is ineffective (Singer, Lilienfeld, Eisner and many more) and replace it with GregA's own research as an alternative to the said Professor's reviews. Professors Levelt, Drenth and so on are all verifiably valid for the article, and their removal would be censorship. Please refer to the appropriate NPOV policies on censorship and the restriction of views to anti-european (angloamerican ones). I have pointed out the futility of such obsessive promotional censorship many times before, and I will be happy to point it out in future. Good day. JPLogan 10:36, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
I would like to point out Comaze's assertion that "Drenth/Levelt" are not published in English. This is plainly incorrect. Drenth is most definitely published in English, and terms such as ENGRAM can be easily verified within Levelt's untranslated text. Both are available at a click. The most relevant quote from Levelt is also repeated in Drenth's academic paper in English. The research is both eminently quotable, verifiable, and nowhere near original research. They are both eminent professors of organizational psychology and psycholinguistics with many world respected books and publications. This has been explained many many times before, but I am also quite happy to repeat it many times in the future whenever an editor seeks to censor those easily verifiable and scientific facts. Regards HeadleyDown 11:41, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Let me refer you to wikipedia policy on this matter. "An edit counts as original research if it proposes ideas or arguments." ... "it introduces a synthesis of established facts in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing the synthesis to a reputable source." Wikipedia:No_original_research#What_is_excluded.3F. --c 23:43, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Hello Comaze. Let me refer you to the section on Engrams that you seek to censor. There is no synthesis at all there. The views and statements are attibuted to scientists and European NLP writers/trainers. I also refer you again to GregA's censorship of Singer's view (that NLP is ineffective) with a substitution for GregA's opinion (that "outcome based studies" demonstrate NLP is excellent). Regards HeadleyDown 04:25, 5 March 2006 (UTC)


I have done some more extra checking. Comaze's assertion that Derks and Hollander are unverifiable is incorrect also. They are both available online. They both assert that NLP's neuro is explained with reference to engrams. This agrees with Drenth and Levelt's articles. Considering we have a very solid triangulation of fact, between these and the sociological view that NLP is an offshoot of Scientology, there can be no reason to remove this clarifying and substantially scientific view. Regards HeadleyDown 12:23, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
See above, HeadleyDown's opinion that "NLP is an offshoot of Scientology" is also original research, and must be attributed to a source if the opinion can be established as verifiable/reputable fact. --c 23:43, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Indeed, the proof be association claims without sources do seem a little WP:OR.Voice-of-AllT|@|ESP 23:44, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Hello VoiceOfAll. Its a fact. Hunt 2002. The whole Wikipedia article contains abundant evidence to support Hunt's statement. Regards HeadleyDown 04:01, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Rather, it is someone's opinion of what is fact. It can be properly sourced. "Hunt says that NLP is an offshoot of scientology. However, others disagree." This is the essence of NPOV; please strive for it a little harder. Remember to try to write for the enemy as much as you can. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 21:58, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks Katefan0. I don't believe anyone expected that line to go into the article as is. No others disagree. Its the expert view of a set of independent academics. Regards HeadleyDown 03:20, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Responding the way in which you did indicated to me that you believe it should be stated as fact, which is of course not correct. It must be stated as someone's opinion of fact. This is important. You can't state a disputed opinion as a fact and then just provide an inline link to that person's opinion. It MUST be properly attributed as "In BOOK, AUTHOR says... (cite)" This is clearly a disputed item, so I find your statement that "no others disagree" rather misguided. Again, we don't state disputed items as fact. You must understand this if you are to contribute to Wikipedia meaningfully. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 14:07, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Of course Katefan0. The BOOK, AUTHOR citation will be provided. And I will be clearer. There are no authors that I am aware of who disagree with Hunt. It seems to be only disputed by a couple of editors here, even though they don't know where the view comes from. We will have time to go through the article and do exactly as you have stated. We have already made a commitment to do so, and that will be followed up with action. Regards HeadleyDown 14:50, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

There are no authors who disagree that NLP is an offshoot of Scientology? Folks, can you produce an author who would refute this view? · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 15:50, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

suggested change by HeadleyDown 19:31, 7 March 2006 (UTC):

Explaining the neuro in NLP in relation to V-K modalities(click to enlarge)
Enlarge
Explaining the neuro in NLP in relation to V-K modalities(click to enlarge)

NLP literature refers to the altering of one's neurology through the neural pathways of the senses and the neural circuits of the brain (eg, Dilts 1980; Bandler and Grinder 1975). However, the Engram[143] is used within NLP to explain how NLP works [144][145] [146][147]. Some practitioners theorize that NLP processes can be explained through the neurological concepts of programming and reprogramming engrams [148]Extract. Within NLP, Engrams are proposed to give a patterned response which has been stabilized at the level of unconscious competence [149][150][151].


The only piece of original research I can find was this line:

"Most current NLP literature mentions no more than the reprogramming of mental habits and associations." So I removed it!

The image is a facimile of a European NLP trainer's web site. The engram is a common concept in both neuroscience, and new age theories. It is often taught as the basic building block of the brain's potential. As any neuroscientist knows, when all NLPers talk of the patterns and circuits in the brain, they are referring to engrams. The use of the term engram is always used pseudoscientifically in NLP, because it also refers to engrams in the unconscious. This is one of the many reasons why NLP is an offshoot of Scientology, as Hunt 2002 has already stated. Regards HeadleyDown 19:31, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi Katefan, I'd like to answer the question about scientology, it will require some history that I'll try to keep brief.
First, NLP theory. NLP doesn't do theory (though there are other perspectives) - they focus on what works, not why - and they get their processes by modeling what experts (or people they believe are experts) are doing. NLP's stated goal corresponds, I think, with Devilly's criticism that NLP processes are not designed based on a theory, and that any NLP-theory come after the processes not before (Druckman & Swet's huge review (1988) also says NLP doesn't do theory). As I said, there is another perspective - since theories for NLP processes have developed, sometimes even from key NLP people (Dilts is a prime example). Hence the viewpoint is that NLP does do theory. But, these theories are (like Devilly criticises) an effort to explain what NLP practitioners say work. It is debatable whether the theory is part of NLP ("NLP doesn't do theory"-Bandler), or simply an explanation for NLP made outside of the NLP field.
Second, Engrams. The major NLP books don't talk about Engrams at all. We were surprised that Headley kept saying they did, as did some other editors, who claimed there were many supporting books. They gave 2 reasons for using the term Engram - one was that it really helped explain NLP and it was a common and acceptable scientific term (Engram is used both in respected circles, and by Scientology - with different meanings). The other reason given was that NLP authors DO talk about Engrams. They did have several non-NLP sources linking NLP with Engrams. Eventually, websites were found from NLP trainers in Western Europe (mainly Germany/France, Netherlands?) that also use the term - though I have no idea how many European trainers do NOT use the term. The term is still there, without counter-view and under contention, based on the "this is not an American website" principle. In the months after Engrams came into the article, Engrams were then tied to Scientology.
Lastly, Scientology. There aren't many texts saying NLP is not Scientology (I don't know of any off hand) - just as there are not many texts saying that a tree is not a dog (it is VERY difficult to find any document saying a tree is not a dog). There is no NLP author that I know of who makes any Scientology connection. There are definitely a few people outside of NLP who do, and it is easy to find some similarities between NLP and Scientology - just as it is easy to find similarities between NLP and Cognitive Behaviour Therapy, or a multitude of other fields. The thing is that even if they share some commonalities, NLP, CBT, Scientology are all different.
NLP intended to dispell faulty thinking and interpretation of 'inexplicable' (like magic!) skills, by providing a description of how they really worked. Not magic, but a structured process. As we know, many NLP practitioners used the NLP process to find the structure of experiences considered spiritual, others have used the NLP process to find the structure of the performance of golf pros, or the patterns of the original 3 therapists modeled.
I believe part of the difficulty in understanding NLP here is the building of straw men arguments. We fought against them but they are there. That's not to say we don't also describe things badly sometimes (like what I just wrote!) and we don't always speak in layman's terms, but there are a few straw-man issues that are significant.
Thanks for reading this. I don't know how else to say that Scientology simply isn't NLP. I could give a list of every NLP book. I'll think about what else I can do. GregA 22:04, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Hello GregA. Perhaps I could clarify. I don't believe anyone is saying NLP is Scientology or Scientology is NLP. Scientists are not their fathers and their fathers are not them. The fact is, NLP is seen as an offshoot, a cheaper and more occult spiritual alternative, and a healing/self development with Scientology as its closest family member (like a father or big brother). When sociologists and scientists speak of elements in common within psychology or the new alternative religion literature, they focus on comparing Scientology with NLP because they are the most alike. The similarities are very clear. Many readers will know what Scientology is about (because its been around longer) so the sociologists and scientists know that it will really make the picture in the minds of the reader very clear when they place NLP and Scientology together in the text so you can see all the interlocking connections. Its a great way to clarify and explain the background and principles of NLP, and its nature as a pseudoscience/new alternative religion. ATB Camridge 11:24, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Actually, most of the scientific studies (including all the ones you've cited which test for the validity of NLP models etc) don't compare NLP to Scientology at all. Druckman's US government study does not suggest any such connection. NLP doesn't have spiritual content (though it can and does study and model many things, including spiritual stuff) - I think the lack of spiritual connection is the biggest difference between NLP and Scientology. Once again - it should be made clear that some people draw a connection, but it should not be repeatedly mentioned and associated throughout the article. GregA 13:38, 8 March 2006 (UTC)


Citation(s) to refute claim that "NLP is an offshoot of Scientology"

Quote from Katefan0, "There are no authors who disagree that NLP is an offshoot of Scientology? Folks, can you produce an author who would refute this view? · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 15:50, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
  • NLP is not an organisation, rather it is a "series of techniques (a process)" (no centralised control or organisation). "[NLP] is used by some religions, and NLP as a philosophy does exhibit some characteristics which are sometimes found in some religions, but overall the balance comes down against it being labelled a religion."(Barrett p.26) NLP is not an off-shoot of Scientology, however both are considered by David V. Barrett to be self-help or personal development movements (PDM). Self-help or PDM is probably a more neutral description. See pages 26-27, 431, Ref: New Believers, David V. Barrett
Perhaps it would be easier to say something like... "Critics say that NLP is an offshoot of Scientology." Haven't read the citation above but it may be useful also as a rebuttal. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 04:12, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Sure Katefan0. I believe you are correct, and as the new age movement literature says, it could be further explained that the human potential movement has led to a variety of new alternative religions such as EST, Scientology and NLP. Cheers DaveRight 04:59, 8 March 2006 (UTC)


Hi GregA. NLP does not have to be a classic organization in order to be an offshoot of Scientology. All it needs is a set of assumptions(presuppositions), rituals, and methods that follow consistently from Scientology. Fritz Perls was a Dianetics promoter, and NLP was modelled on him and on other New Age occult heros, Satir, and Erickson. The actual rituals involve- dissociation methods (auditing and the NLP 10 Minute Phoba Cure), pseudoscientific use of the engram concept (both implied and explicit), and so on. As we all know, both NLP and Scientology use the human potential and New Age movement use the spirituality through self-development principle, and the unblocking of mental blocks concept in the same way. As NLP's commercial promotion is the same as Scientology, (exagerated claims, with no effort or even censorship towards empirical proof) then the consistency can be clearly seen. That is why people in general, and expert independent researchers hold the view that NLP is an offshoot, or perhaps a cheaper alternative, to Scientology. ATB Camridge 10:21, 8 March 2006 (UTC)


It's interesting that it's not just NLP and Scientology are similar, but now NLP is an offshoot? Wow.
Okay, firstly NLP's presuppositions are not assumptions - hopefully one day we will be able to explain them again as NLP teachings do, though lets not distract things here. NLP does not have rituals either (no religious rituals anyway, they do have processes), though some here are trying to reword NLP's processes as rituals. I must assume your implications from Fritz Perls (founder of Gestallt therapy) also implicate Gestallt Psychology as an offshoot of Scientology? I'm not sure what the implications are for Virginia Satir's family therapy, or Psychiatry in general from Erickson (does that make NLP an offshoot of Psychiatry as well? And Gestallt maybe?). There is no spiritual component to NLP (it is valid subject matter for study though), and NLP books rarely use the concept of "removing blocks" (that's an attempted straw man). There is no censorship of empirical proof - NLP as a 'field' is simply without organisation (no central control) - so some people read it, some don't - NLP holds no opinion on it (empirical research can be applied to NLP processes, but it's not built in as part of NLP).
Some of these have negative implications of course, but they're not scientology which is our focus here.
Additionally, the Scientology website describes itself in certain ways. It says man is an immortal, spiritual being. (NLP does not). They have 8 dynamics (God, Spirit, Lifeforms, etc), They have some "tone scale" for our place in life... okay I've had enough of the introductory spiel. NLP has none of this. There are bound to be things that are similar between NLP and other stuff.
None of this really matters anyway. Some people have said NLP is similar to Scientology, we need to represent that somewhere in the article. I suggest you look VERY CAREFULLY at how they say things are similar, so that the article doesn't generalise their comments. GregA 12:21, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Hello GregA. Scientology and Dianetics are new age concerns, and Druckman talks of the new age and NLP in his research [152]. He did not mention Scientology. Dianetics rituals are used in NLP. The fact remains, there is a common view that NLP is closely related to Scientology, especially from a sociological perspective. We only wish to make sure those views are heard. Regards HeadleyDown 14:28, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
I don't care if Scientology and Dianetics are new age concerns, that's for them. Druckman does talk of New Age and NLP in his research - but the New Age term is very broad and can be misleading - Druckman defines New Age techniques as "developed outside of mainstream research in the behavioral sciences and were accompanied by strong claims for high effectiveness." (check the link you gave). GregA 21:11, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Hello GregA. Clearly we need to refocus our efforts on Comaze's objection. You can believe what you like, but Scientists and sociologists hold the view that NLP is new age/new alternative religion.
Getting back to the solution, I have one more below:
Explaining the neuro in NLP in relation to V-K modalities(click to enlarge)
Enlarge
Explaining the neuro in NLP in relation to V-K modalities(click to enlarge)

All NLP literature refers to the altering of one's behaviour through the neural pathways of the senses and the neural circuits of the brain. The Engram [153] is used within NLP to explain how NLP works [154][155] [156][157]. NLP practitioners explain that NLP processes can be explained through the neurological concepts of programming and reprogramming engrams [158]Extract, and more specifically, engrams are proposed to give a patterned response which has been stabilized at the level of unconscious competence [159][160][161].


  • Drenth 2003 is an excellent source. He is an independent researcher and professor of organizational psychology and his view is that NLP uses the term engram.
  • Levelt 1995 is an eminent psycholinguist and after long research into NLP he has also stated that the engram term is central and important for his critique of NLP.
  • The French dictionary of psychology, Dicopsy, states that NLP uses the concept engram in Neuro, and I am sure, any neuroscientist would agree as engrams are a core concept in neuroscience.
  • The Sinclair ref is valid because it is not from a personal website, and it is verifiable.
  • Derks 1985 also talks of engrams in NLP. There are also many other references to come from the web and further book searches.
  • The image was re-made from [162], and shows exactly how neuro works within NLP.

I have made some more changes also. Regards HeadleyDown 03:48, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Damn, I didn't even realise this scientology question (Subheading: "NLP is an offshoot of Scientology") was under the Engram discussion. So, just a quick check - are your above arguments based on the Neurological concept of Engram, or the Scientology concept of Engram, or a combination (and if so, can you specify which for each?) GregA 03:58, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Hello GregA. From my understanding of the facts here, NLP refers to the scientific notion of engrams, but it talks of engrams the Dianetics way, mentioning engrams within the subconscious processing. In neuroscience, engrams are theoretical nerve pathways and circuits that exist in the brain. They don't exist physically within the abstract conceptual subconscious or unconscious. The NLP literature (Bandler and Grinder for example) speaks of nerves and circuits within the subconscious, and places imagery with those circuits. This is a fundamental flaw in Hubbard's Scientology engrams. He defines them as a circuit and an image or perceptual impression. So really, NLP is very pseudoscientific (Drenth's and other's views) and possibly more so than Scientology (as the books were written after dianetics was found ineffective and theoretically un or anti-scientific). Those internal perceptions that NLP talks about are just the same as the remembered pictures in the unconscious of Dianetics. The VAK, KAV, KVA, changes are the perceptual processes of the engrams that Hubbard describes. The only real difference is that the engrams in scientology are more negatively described, and in NLP they are both positive and negative, but there is no stated view for that position. ATB Camridge 10:08, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Suggested change HeadleyDown 12:41, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NLP and Theory

Many NLP proponents state that NLP is not theory-oriented, and Bandler states that he does not "do theory" [163]. Instead, the stated goals of NLP are to model effective patterns "in the field", to learn what someone is actually doing in practice (internally and externally) that works, and how they do it, rather than deriving behaviors from a theory or obtaining their motivations for doing them. However, NLP proponents do make hypotheses and propose armchair theories [164]. For example, NLP assumes that all human behavior is neurological, and all human behavior is based on the 5 senses, rather than attitudes, reason, emotions, mind, morals or ego [165].

Reason for change--'c' 09
43, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

This is fine, yet could be enhanced with reference to sociological and anthropological studies on shamanism and new age alternative religions. There have also been some NLP efforts towards a unified field theory of NLP.

Proposed change

Similar to many New Age developments, NLP is not theory-oriented, and Bandler states that he does not "do theory" . Instead, the stated goals of NLP are to model effective patterns "in the field", to learn what someone is actually doing in practice (internally and externally) that works, and how they do it, rather than deriving behaviors from a theory or obtaining their motivations for doing them. It takes a shamanic "do what works, and don't ask why" perspective. However, NLP proponents do make hypotheses and propose armchair theories [166]. For example, NLP assumes that all human behavior is neurological, and all human behavior is based on the 5 senses, rather than attitudes, reason, emotions, mind, morals or ego. There have also been attempts at a "unified theory" of NLP, which place the largely discredited model of eye accessing at its core [167](Hunt 2003)(Dilts et al 2002).

Regards HeadleyDown 12:41, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion of change to "NLP and Theory"

  • Please provide citation details for Hunt 2003 so this can be checked. --'c' 09:43, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Text move (URL references)

This information needs replacing into the article. As we have discovered, its far too big to discuss in one chunk. HeadleyDown 13:04, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

URLs moved by Comaze
Reasons for move

As part of my clean-up and merging to "cite web" format to bring the citations in line with the rest of the document I've moved the above URLs. The other URLs need to be checked as some of other external links also failed the tests for verifiability. The URLs (above) were the most obvious. If you find any others that do not meet wikipedia criteria for sources or external links, please move them here. Any URLs that do not meet wikipedia standards for external links can be challenged or removed under wikipedia policy. --c 03:34, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion of URLs moved

Hello Comaze. The Anthony Robbins link shows that even in 2006 he is still conducting NLP occult rituals (firewalking).
Are you able to justify the inclusion of the Robbins link under wikipedia standards for sources? --c 05:11, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
The "full page of advertisements" are actually an explanation of how the cults NLP and the Landmark Forum are sold together within the domain of LGATS.
They were both provided at your insistence. Removing them would be censorship. Regards HeadleyDown 04:15, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
The NLP-Landmark article [169] has no author information on it but was probably written by Jan Heering, who is not reputable, and given that there is no references or bibliography - the information is also unreliable and not acceptable to wikipedia. The link may have been spam (3 links to the same article Wikipedia:External_links#Links_to_normally_avoid and "It is an obligation of Wikipedia to its readers that the information they read here be reliable and reputable, and so we rely only on credible or reputable published sources. See "What counts as a reputable publication?" and "Reliable sources" for discussions on how to judge whether a source is reliable."WP:NOR#Why_do_we_exclude_original_research.3F. --c 05:11, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Hello Comaze. Concerning your objection to the inclusion of an association between NLP and Landmark Forum: The association has already been made by many reputable authors in relation to dubious therapies, LGATs, cults and pseudoscience. The association also relates to cultlike censorship. Proponents of pseudoscience are prone to liberal use of obscurantism and pretense at science, while whitewashing or censoring any factual information about cult association, magical thinking, and pseudoscience (the promotion of popular and misleading mind myths). Encyclopedic and independent research on NLP should include the views of scientists and independent researchers that NLP is associated and promoted in combination with LGATs, cults, and other such pseudoscientific associations. Obsessively chipping away at the evidence of those associations is censorship and is the common practice of promoters of pseudoscience. The information that shows NLP is promoted in combination with Landmark Forum is factual, and supported by sociological and scientific research on NLP. The information is extremely reliable, as is the evidence that Anthony Robbins continues to use the farcical firewalking ritual as a claim to NLP's use in magical and performance of miraculous acts. Good Day JPLogan 06:15, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
JPLogan, I did not make an objection to the association fallacy (firewalking, landmark, etc.) -- there are more important issues to address - like reputability and reliability of sources. I have no problem with criticism as long as it is attributed to a source and accurately represented. If you want to include those two references (see above) or similar web site URLs; we need to keep in line with wikipedia policy for reliability and reputability of the sources. Don't worry I'm will be writing for the enemy (writing for all side of the argument fairly) - we can apply the reputability and verifiability tests to any source regardless of the viewpoint. "A good way to help building a neutral point of view is to find a reputable source for the piece of information you want to add to wikipedia, and then cite that source. This is an easy way to characterize a side of a debate without excluding that the debate has other sides. The trick is to find the best and most reputable sources you can..." Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#A_vital_component:_good_research --c 07:23, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Hello Comaze. Concerning your suggestion for JP to go to a library (I believe he actually stated that he has no home computer, and only ever edits from a library computer). I seem to recall other editors being blocked/reprimanded by arbitrators/mediators for suggesting that other editors should go to a library. Just a pointer! HeadleyDown 07:49, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the head up, it was in fact a direct quote from WP:NPOV which is encourage by our mentors to keep us on track, Jdavidb said (9th Feb) "Lots of people appeal to their own personal beliefs as to what the standard for the article should be. Very few people are appealing to Wikipedia policies. The previous point is one example of this. Some folks (on the 'pedia in general, not specifically this article) have the idea that Wikipedia is in fact here to determine truth. Citing actual passages from actual Wikipedia policies helps eliminate this, and helps keep us focused on the task of writing an encyclopedia." diffs --c 08:00, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Hello Comaze. The NLP Rekaunt information is widely available on the web. It is also mentioned in cult recovery manuals. It is classed as a destructive cult due to collective suicides, and the unstabilizing belief in the "the map is not the territory/reality is not what it seems" view widely espoused by every group in NLP. It is an example of how some NLP groups can end up damaging members of the public by making wild claims, inducing reduced resistance, increased dependence, general mental instability, and other matters that have been brought to the attention of governments. I will provide the links and refs in good time. Regards HeadleyDown 07:58, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Headley, The map/territory distinction is certainly espoused by every group in NLP. The distinction between reality and what we perceive as reality is taught in most therapies actually (though at least one group believes our own beliefs don't affect our perception of reality). I'm reading a CBT book at the moment and it's there on every single page of cognitive therapy - a real situation is altered/filtered through our beliefs, and it's the altered reality that we respond to (see CBT's "ABC" model). How you associate this with cults and mental instability I don't know. GregA 09:23, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Hello GregA. You are referring to an obscurantic/sanitised version. Also, my opinion was not presented. I am clarifying the view of qualified researchers, that NLP adopts magical thinking in order to cause confirmation bias/reduced resistance/dependence on the cult. The core assumptions of CBT are extremely different from NLP. CBT is scientific and its promoters are actively engaged in scientific research. NLP is fundamentally pseudoscientific (according to scientists), and NLP promoters are averse to research. From a sociological perspective, NLP fights hard against verification by science, presents excuses and wholism as a cop out of testing, and takes a core pseudoscientific stance that dismisses science from the very beginning (stating behavioural science avoids theory, and stating models do not need testing).
NLP promoters trainers and therapists, follow the pseudoscientific line of not accepting the research that clearly demonstrates NLP's ineffectiveness and NLP's erroneous core tennets. NLP promoters clearly demonstrate their pseudoscientific character by claiming wholism (partially supported by minor/disposable "outcome based research") to dismiss or censor empirical objective research that concludes NLP is ineffective. Regards HeadleyDown 10:01, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Comaze, I'd like to second JPLogan's comment that it can be difficult to see sometimes what's quoted and what's your own words... I can see how easy it is to confuse it. Would you mind, where possible, putting a quote in a bullet point, or in italics? (I've just done that with your quote, to see if it works) GregA 08:04, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks guys. I'll marked it in italics. --c 08:23, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Cool Comaze.GregA 09:23, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Close and Archive

If there are no objections, let's close and archive "12.1 Discussion of URLs moved". ---=-C-=- 05:06, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Hello Comaze. What are your reasons for wanting to archive the sociological view? HeadleyDown 05:29, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, he's looking to close the URL section, not the Sociological view section. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 05:34, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
Tech mistake! The highlighting comes up green on the following section when comparing edits. HeadleyDown 07:30, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
Ah ok. I'll see if anyone else has any objections to archiving this section. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 12:10, 26 March 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Reference check - Hunt (2002,2003)

Various editors in this discussion have been referencing Hunt (2003,2003) - can we get a citation so we can do a fact and ref check? 06:46, 6 March 2006 (UTC)





[edit] Text move by Comaze (Beyerstein)

This information needs replacing into the article. As we have discovered, its far too big to discuss in one chunk. HeadleyDown 13:03, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Text to be removed
  • "The fact that some people perceive NLP to work sometimes can be explained by the placebo effect, social pressure, superficial symptomatic rather than core treatment, and overestimating some apparent successes while ignoring, downplaying, or explaining away failures [170]."
  • In addition, "Ethical standards bodies and other professional associations state that unless a technique, process, drug, or surgical procedure can meet requirements of clinical tests, it is ethically questionable to offer it to the public, especially if money is to change hands"[171].
  • ↑ Beyerstein. B.L. (1997) Why Bogus Therapies Seem to Work. Skeptical Inquirer magazine. September/October 1997
--c 07:01, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Reason for removal (wikipedia policies)
  • Various aspects of this argument violate WP:NOR on 2 counts:
  • "it introduces an argument (without citing a reputable source for that argument) which purports to refute or support another idea, theory, argument, or position".
  • "it introduces a synthesis of established facts in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing the synthesis to a reputable source."
  • It also violates WP:Accuracy:
  • "Articles should contain only material that has been published by reliable sources, regardless of whether individual editors view that material as true or false. As counter-intuitive as it may seem, the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth."
--c 07:03, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
The bias of the author should also be indentified, that is skeptic of complimentary therapy ---=-C-=- 12:07, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion of (Beyerstein)

Comaze, your text move is too large again in my opinion. Remember the mentors said baby steps! You have three seperate issues here to deal with. I suggest that you reinstate all the major and extensive cuttings you have made over the last week, and we focus on the first para (the fact that some people perceive NLP to....). Considering pseudosciences require a lot of explanation, I believe it extremely unlikely that you will obtain any kind of consensus on your objections. Already I can think of several other sources that support all statements made. But I am only willing to move towards consensus if we take small steps as suggested by Katefan0 and other mentors. ATB Camridge 07:37, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Oh Comaze, it would also help if you actually had a suggestion as per the template provided for us. It is extremely unhelpful to be presented with a set of objections, and no suggested remedy. Camridge 07:41, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
My appologies. This is a proposed deletion. --c 08:28, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Hello again Comaze. Having had a good look through the discussion again, I notice you have made 4 very large and confusing text moves, with little or no chance of any consensus in my opinion. Your stated suggestions to remedy so far include largely the simple cutting of those pieces of text presented. According to NPOV directions, alteration may be a slow process, but it is usually preferable to wholesale dumping of large tracts of text. In any case, although your overwhelming action to cut large amounts of certain types of fact is consistent with your prior actions, it seems to me to be inappropriate considering the pace set by mediators in the workshop and inappropriate considering the nature of the recent arbitration rulings. ATB Camridge 07:55, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
I think we can probably cut the references in half, and only rely primarily on reputable, reliable sources. Can you agree with this in principle? --c 08:08, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Right now I don't believe anyone should be attempting to cleave anything in twain. Which is why I have repeated the baby steps metaphor of the mediators. Camridge 08:13, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Comaze, please assign your name to your comments. I am sure the mediators will not look favorably upon lack of clarity. Camridge 08:16, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
I find this language problematic and a little too much like guilt by association. "The fact that some people perceive NLP to work sometimes can be explained by the placebo effect, social pressure, superficial symptomatic rather than core treatment, and overestimating some apparent successes while ignoring, downplaying, or explaining away failures [94]." .... says who? This should say "In BOOK, AUTHOR says some people may attribute the success of NLP to the placebo effect, etc. etc." Also, "Ethical standards bodies and other professional associations state that unless a technique, process, drug, or surgical procedure can meet requirements of clinical tests, it is ethically questionable to offer it to the public, especially if money is to change hands"[95]. also needs a source. Has an ethical standards body or professional association suggested that it's ethically questionable to offer NLP to the public in exchange for money? If so, cite it. If not, this has no place in the article. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 22:22, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Hello Katefan0. I'm sorry about the state of the article, but we have had editor/s persistently removing citations and rehashing the reference section in order to delete references, or to erroneously label them. The statements in the article have consistently been assigned to authors names (albeit without page numbers all over the article). Your suggestion is of course correct, and we have been wrestling hard for months against editors who are determined to remove facts, or misattribute statements. This will be dealt with in good time. ATB Camridge 06:33, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

The time to deal with this discrete language is now -- that's what text moves are for. Disputed text is moved into the talk page to discuss how best to compromise on that language. How should this specific language be improved? · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 14:12, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Hello Katefan0. Each specific bulletpoint of text is different. I suggest Comaze take each bullet point, make a specific objection to it, and make a specific remedy. Then each point can be cooperatively discussed towards consensus. Regards HeadleyDown 14:55, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
No need for all that. There are two paragraphs in question in this section. I've said how they're both problematic. How would you fix it to deal with my concerns? · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 15:52, 7 March 2006 (UTC)


Hello again. Here is a remedy.
According to Beyerstein, Lilienfeld, and Devilly the fact that some people perceive NLP (and other pseudosciences) to work sometimes can be explained by the placebo effect, social pressure, superficial symptomatic rather than core treatment, and overestimating some apparent successes while ignoring, downplaying, or explaining away failures [94]
Citations at the end of para. Actually, there are more experts with this view, and they can be added. I could also add the term "confirmation bias" and link it to that article (if it exists, it should). HeadleyDown 19:18, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Writing "NLP (and other pseudosciences)" is implying a link between these fields. That implication should be discussed separately. GregA 22:01, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Can you briefly quote what each of these sources say specifically? The language may need to be adjusted here, since it was taken from the Skeptical Inquirer article in the first place, not from these three sources. I'm assuming the second paragraph can be stricken as unsupportable as it specifically regards NLP. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 14:28, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Hello Katefan0. The explanation by Beyerstein is a more in detail view of Sharpley 1987 and others, who state that the effects of NLP can be explained by other things (placebo, confirmation bias and so on). It is a common view in science that pseudosciences such as NLP (Beyerstein's view also) all can be explained by this set of concepts and more. The reason (and other pseudosciences) was written was to be fair to NLP. Because its not just NLP thats fooling people according to the scientists. I believe an article such as this will require such an explanation, especially as so many explanations have been requested.
Again, it is a common view that disclosure is an ethical issue in psychotherapy, and NLPers have been in trouble for this reason (eg for constantly stating, or implying that NLP is a science when advertizing standard bodies told them not to). This has also been mentioned in human resource management texts (Hardiman). So, both are common and authoritative enough views, they just need to go back to their fully cited states.
Also, Beyerstein writes a lot in other journals than the skeptics journal, as he is a associate prof at Simon Frazer Uni [172]. But would you say the skeptics journal is acceptable as a scientific skepticism source? Regards. HeadleyDown 16:50, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Okay, well, if you want this information included, I'd like to see it supported by text, please. I don't have these references, and while I know that creates more work for those who do, this swapping of sources with a vague wave of the hands has me concerned enough about the supporting text to ask to see it. So, please -- briefly -- place here quotes of some supporting documentation for the language above that specifically relates to NLP. Not to "pseudoscience in general." · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 21:49, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Headley, I'm interested in knowing (briefly) what the 3 sources actually said too. For instance, did Beyerstein say that the reason pseudosciences seem to work is the placebo effect (etc) - or that the reason NLP seems to work is the placebo effect. Same for the other 2. GregA 21:10, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
GregA/Katefan0. Tye is also relevant on this matter. I have quoted Tye elsewhere on this page. flavius 02:24, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Is it this? One must reconcile the null results reported by Sharpley and the NRC (National Research Council) with the remarkable successes reported in the case study literature. An alternative explanation is suggested here to explain the discrepancy between the positive case study outcomes achieved by NLP paractitioners and the frequently lackluster results of experimental researchers. The alternative will be termed the "psycho shaman effect." Like NLP techniques, the psycho shaman effect is a collection of already existing, well understood and accepted ideas. Specifically it has three components: cognitive dissonance, placebo effect and therapist charisma. (from Tye, M.J.C (1994). Neurolinguistic programming: Magic or myth? Journal of Accelerative Learning and Teaching, 19, 309-342.) · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 02:41, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Yes, that's the one. flavius 11:43, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Oh yes, I overlooked Tye. Sure, Katafan0, its a common enough view, and useful for explaining matters to the reader. I'll have a search for any others that hold that view. As you suggested, I will also take some time to supply the previously removed ref that shows Beyerstein considers NLP pseudoscience, and so you can see his quotes in full. Regards HeadleyDown 03:11, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Katefan, what Tye calls the psychoshaman effect seems to be supported by other studies (though they don't single out NLP). Research has found that all therapies work roughly equally because of 3 factors - client-therapist relationship & placebo are 2 (same as Tye, accounting for 45% of change), extratherapeutic is another (just stepping in the door accounts for another 40% of change!). It's a bit disheartening for therapies in some ways I think, but also quite thought provoking. [173]
Headley, just so we're not distracted by Tye - I repeated Katefan's request that you quote something from each of the 3 sources (Beyerstein, Lilienfeld, and Devilly) directly stating NLP has certain characteristics, rather than that Pseudosciences have certain characteristics. The second time she asked, Katefan said this swapping of sources with a vague wave of the hands has me concerned enough about the supporting text to ask to see it. (katefan0 21:49, 9 March 2006 (UTC)) - I am also concerned at that. Mainly, my concern is writing what NLP is described as, and separately describing the pseudoscience viewpoints. GregA 13:51, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Oh... Tye's words One must reconcile the null results reported by Sharpley and the NRC (National Research Council) with the remarkable successes reported in the case study literature. - The NRC results (Druckman & Swets) actually offer their own explanation - that the great majority of tests are all on only one aspect of NLP, the PRS, and that other specific processes still require testing. GregA 13:58, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Hello GregA. Beyerstein's piece there is on dubious therapies. However, it is also his view that pseudosciences are dubious therapies, and I believe the quote is verbatim, but I will check. Beyerstein's view is that NLP is a questionable therapy, a dubious therapy and a pseudoscientific therapy. He states that “NLP is a pseudoscientific fringe therapy based upon saleable but groundless notions” In Neurolinguistic Programing and psychological quakery. San Francisco Examiner. Sept 7 2000 Rosenfelt, page 8.HeadleyDown 17:32, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Headley, I'm not sure I understand - are you saying "Rosenfelt in the San Francisco Examiner" was quoting "Beyerstein in the Skeptical Enquirer magazine"?. Also what happened to the other 2 references we asked about or are you withdrawing those? GregA 21:43, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Hi GregA. No, I believe we should work hard upon explaining why some people keep on using NLP rituals even though they are ineffective. It will help clarify the article. Devilly, Sharpley and others may be useful here. Most psychology educated people know the drill but we should explain more clearly to readers unfamiliar with psychology, confirmation bias, and such. Actually, it may help also if we frame the explanation within the new alternative religion concept. If you want us to place NLP with specifically there with the quotes, I’m sure we can. And, yes, Rosenfelt was the journalist in this case, who was interviewing Beyerstein. I wasn't particularly interested in placing the quote in the passage, its just you sounded like you needed some assurance that Beyerstein's view is that NLP is pseudoscientific. Regards HeadleyDown 02:22, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Headley, you are not answering questions, you are simply repeating stuff you've said elsewhere and distracting the issue. Like Katefan, I'm just worried about you swapping your sources when one is questioned (see 21:49, 9 March - I've added a space near her words above, so you can find them in the diff), and your avoidance of her question concerns me. BTW, this doesn't mean we can't word what's said by the sources in a readable way, it just means I doubt that you are actually representing what they say clearly, so I'd like more specific info (quotes). Anyway, I've asked a few times, you obviously don't want to or can't provide those. I'll leave this in Katefan's hands. GregA 03:13, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Hello GregA. I don't agree with your line of objection. You have the link to Beyerstein, and you know that he believes NLP to be pseudosientific. All that needs to be done here is to state what Beyerstein thinks of NLP, and to say NLP (and other bogus therapies to be fair) sometimes seem to work because of blah blah blah! We can add Devilly also. If it can be kept brief, then great, but judging by the level of understanding of even experts here, I reckon it should be expanded and bulletpointed. Cheers DaveRight 02:28, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Suggested change to Beyerstein/Tye etc

Tye states that NLP can be explained with reference to the "psycho shaman effect.": a combination of cognitive dissonance, placebo effect and therapist charisma. Beyerstein states that NLP is a pseudoscientific fringe therapy, and explains that bogus therapies can be explained by the placebo effect, social pressure, superficial symptomatic rather than core treatment, and overestimating some apparent successes while ignoring, downplaying, or explaining away failures [130]." In addition, Beyerstein states that " Unless a ritual, technique, drug, or surgical procedure can be shown to have met logical and evidential requirements of safety and effectiveness, it is ethically questionable to offer it to the public, except on an admittedly experimental basis -- especially if money is to change hands.


(from Tye, M.J.C (1994). Neurolinguistic programming: Magic or myth? Journal of Accelerative Learning and Teaching, 19, 309-342.) (Neurolinguistic Programing and psychological quakery. San Francisco Examiner. Sept 7 2000 Rosenfelt, page 8) Beyerstein. B.L. (1997) Why Bogus Therapies Seem to Work. Skeptical Inquirer magazine. September/October 1997 Beyerstein, Barry M.D.; Beyerstein B (1999). Social and Judgemental Biases that Make Inert Treatments Seem to Work. Scientific Review of Alternative Medicine 3(2), 17-35. http://hcrc.org/contrib/beyerst/inert.html

ATB. Camridge 04:37, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Hello Camridge. We may also be able to add this information from Drenth:

"Pseudo-scientific movements often make use of social psychological mechanisms, such as the need for belonging, groupthink, ingroup – outgroup controversy. Critics are silenced with the retort that one must be part of the movement to make a sound judgment. Lack of criticism is further enhanced by features reminiscent of new religions: gurus, rituals, incantations, and inaccessibility"

This explains why pseudosciences such as NLP make fake use of psychology to market its product. It also relates to cults. Regards HeadleyDown 03:00, 25 March 2006 (UTC)


Yes, this looks fine also. Pretty much exactly as it is in the literature. I suggest it be reinstated as is, to avoid any quibbling over wording. It can be made briefer when the discussion process has improved. HeadleyDown 02:34, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Beyerstein and Tye Headley Version

Hi all. To further explain the efficacy problem, and to prompt things forward, I have added more clarity from Beyerstein. If you like, I can add more.


Tye states that NLP can be explained with reference to the "psycho shaman effect.": a combination of cognitive dissonance, placebo effect and therapist charisma. Beyerstein states that NLP is a pseudoscientific fringe therapy, and explains that bogus therapies can be explained by the placebo effect, social pressure, superficial symptomatic rather than core treatment, and overestimating some apparent successes while ignoring, downplaying, or explaining away failures [130]." In Brianscams, Beyerstein states that when the New Age brain manipulators such as NLP are challenged, critics typically encounter anecdotes and user testimonials where there ought to be rigorous pre-and post treatment comparisons (Beyerstein 1990). In addition, Beyerstein states that "Unless a ritual, technique, drug, or surgical procedure can be shown to have met logical and evidential requirements of safety and effectiveness, it is ethically questionable to offer it to the public, except on an admittedly experimental basis -- especially if money is to change hands.

Beyerstein,B. Beyerstein BL. Brainscams: neuromythologies of the new age. Intern J Mental Health. 1990;19:27-36.

Regards HeadleyDown 03:17, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Thankyou Headley. I have that paper also, and you are correct in your quote. The rest of the passage is correct according to my verification. AliceDeGrey 07:17, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestions (Comaze)

Here are some suggestions, can you please fill this out? ---=-C-=- 15:19, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

  • What are the biases of these authors, publication?

"Identify the possible bias of the source (including organizational, financing, and/or personal ties with interested parties). If the status of the source itself is disputed, it is best to avoid such characterizations altogether; instead, a link to an article on the source, where those conflicting viewpoints are discussed, should be used (if possible)." Wikipedia:Guidelines_for_controversial_articles.

  • What are the counter-examples (provide a clear description of any counter-arguments)

"It's worth observing that scholars are trained so that, even when trying to prove a point, counter-arguments are included, so that they can explain why the counter-arguments fail." WP:NPOV

[edit] Discussion

Hello Comaze/C. I have checked the references and they are all correct according to the papers in my Univerisy Library. All of the other evidence I have come across either corroborates Beyerstein's view, or it enlarges upon his view using language such as "trite, psychobabble, and fraudulent" (refs are in the article).

Yes Comaze. Beyerstein is most likely biased towards science, as he is a full time professor of psychology at Simon Fraser University. You can see from the publication that Beyerstein is biased towards peer reviewed studies.
In terms of counter arguments, he states that NLP developers argue that they teach excellence. The counter argument comes from the scientists who conducted empirical studies and found that NLP is far from excellent, and was proven to be ineffective (Beyerstein as above). Regards HeadleyDown 10:36, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
There's a few things that could be done to put this more in context too. As an example:
  • There have been experimental results and personal anecdotes for the effectiveness of NLP in therapy and other contexts. Both Tye and Beyerstein state that these results are due to effects other than NLP's efficacy. For instance, Tye says an NLP session works due to the "psycho shaman effect" - a combination of therapist charisma, placebo effect, and cognitive dissonance. In (the magazine?) Brainscams, Beyerstein states that NLP doesn't actually work but that people just think it works - since it might treat a symptom (instead of the cause). Beyerstein also says that sometimes subjects tell the NLP practitioner it worked because they want them to feel good, and that practitioners sometimes explain away failures while overestimating successes.
Also
  1. Most psychotherapies fall under Beyerstein's ethical criticism.
  2. Is explaining that NLP works due to cognitive dissonance a criticism or compliment? I don't know enough about what was said or cognitive dissonance theory - but most (all?) NLP processes aim to create new ways of thinking (which would cause cognitive dissonance, which leads to change).
  3. Naturally there's a whole extra section required on the evidence that it works (which Tye indirectly refers to) - clinical trials which maybe didn't have enough controls but were considered of high enough quality for publishing in peer-reviewed journals. Adding these can put it all in context.
Greg 04:14, 28 March 2006 (UTC) (why has my "A" fallen off "GregA"?)

Hello GregA. No, only brainscams (paraliminal brain balancing etc) fall within Beyerstein's published papers. Cognitive dissonance is not a criticism per se, but it clarifies the criticisms for readers who have less understanding of the efficacy issues. The simplest and clearest way to solve the Tye issue is to refer to overview reviews. The Tye passage is simply to explain why people sometimes confuse efficacy with the psychoshaman effect. AliceDeGrey 07:17, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes GregA, you are misrepresenting Beyerstein. He is only talking about pseudosciences. He distinguishes between pseudo and real, saying that pseudos do not work towards testing. The section you suggest will be larger than several wikiarticles put together. Instead of wasting time on doing Beyerstein's, Levelt's, Lilienfeld's, Druckman's, research over again, it will be better to simply state what they state in clear terms (that NLP is ineffective etc). Regards HeadleyDown 10:44, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
That's what I'm trying to get at. What exactly is beyerstein saying?, what research did he do to come to his conclusion? Do the same conclusions apply to other therapies? etc. What exactly am I misrepresenting? Greg 12:33, 28 March 2006 (UTC)


Hi GregA. Professor Beyerstein is making statements in the article supported by a great deal of research. The list of references at the back of his article is far too big to list here. He clearly has a very rigorous scientific background.
Similar to what a lot of the new age NLP believers exhibit, NLP’s neurological constructs derive from outmoded views (occult views of the five senses of the pentagram). Beyerstein’s conclusions derive from his review of all of the empirical studies on NLP, including the NRC finding.
To be fair, he does also talk of Sybervision’s neuroscience of achievement, phrenology, and other stated pseudosciences.
Prof Beyerstein was not talking about most psychotherapies being pseudoscience. He focuses on NLP and a few other pseudoscientific developments.
Ok, now that’s Beyerstein et al has been verified. What do you say about reinstating the new version into the article? I don’t mind waiting a day or so for you to have a go. But considering the prompt responses for alteration, it would be nice to move forward pretty soon. Regards HeadleyDown 13:59, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it checks out fine. Without any more ado, I suggest your version be placed into the article. Bookmain 04:55, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I've raised some questions over the bias of the author and publication, and counter-arguments that have not yet been put forward. From his own biography Beyerstein is a skeptic of complimentary therapy and what he calls fringe therapies - and has a personal inteest in experimental methodology "which has led him to look carefully at the evidence put forth by proponents of these practices."[174]. This is the type of bias that would need to be identified if this author's opinion is to be included. ---=-C-=- 15:19, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Hello Comaze. I am sure we will do a great job of characterizing the source correctly. We can start with the bias of the publication (The International Journal of Mental Health). How would you characterize that journal in relation to: NLP, The Science and Techology of Achievement? Regards HeadleyDown 15:48, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Hi Headley. Thats easy. The Int J of Mental Health is a peer reviewed published professional journal (Scholarly source). The NLP book you mention .....isn't! Bookmain 04:55, 29 March 2006 (UTC)


Regarding Prof Beyerstein's credentials. Here is a list I took from his resume:

Professor of Psychology

Member of the Brain Behaviour Laboratory at Simon Fraser University

Ph.D. in Experimental and Biological Psychology from the University of California at Berkeley.

Research areas: brain mechanisms of perception and consciousness and the effects of drugs on the brain and mind.

Interests in: Sense of smell and perception Philosophy and history of science

Dr. Beyerstein serves as chair of the Society of B. C. Skeptics

A Fellow and a member of the Executive Council of the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal

Dr. Beyerstein is on the editorial board of The Skeptical Inquirer


Editor of Council for Scientific Medicine, a US organization that provides critiques of unscientific and fraudulent health products.

Founding member of Canadians for Rational Health policy

Contributing Editor of the journal, The Scientific Review of Alternative Medicine

Dr. Beyerstein is a member of the Advisory Board of the Drug Policy Foundation (Washington, D.C.)

Founding board member of the Canadian Foundation for Drug Policy (Ottawa, Ontario).

Dr. Beyerstein has testified as an expert witness in numerous civil and criminal cases.

Invited to address the House of Commons Standing Committee on Health

Dr. Beyerstein has also become an expert in the psychology of human error. how failures of memory and inference, and psychological processes such as self-deception and wishful thinking, can lead to false but comforting beliefs about the world.

He has also held a visiting professorship at Jilin University in the People’s Republic of China where he observed Traditional Chinese medicine first-hand.

Dr. Beyerstein’s teaching interests include courses on brain research, drugs, sensory psychophysiology, and consciousness, and the history and philosophy of psychological research.


Now there's quite a lot there, so I guess the question is, what is he mostly? I believe it may be best just to add his name and add a few notes downpage somewhere. A link may be useful also [175] Regards HeadleyDown 16:33, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

So...
"In Brianscams (paraliminal brain balancing etc)"
The relevance of saying "in brainscams" is that he has classified NLP as a scam, and then he is talking about why scams work?.
Does he really say that NLP's VAK theories are derived from the 5 senses of the pentagram? I thought it was commonly accepted that we had 5 senses (while psychics say we have a "6th sense") Greg 21:02, 28 March 2006 (UTC)


Hello GregA. No he's talking about why NLP (And other brainscams) spreads confusion and general misinformationt o the public.
“The five senses of the pentagram” is a phrase used to explain the structure of magic in theoretical terms.
Actually the pentacle or pentacle is a symbol or “mnemonic memory aid”, usually surrounded by a circle that is drawn on the floor, either really, or imagined. The occult way to visualize it, is to imagine drawing the circle, and then imagine a bright light shining in the circle in whatever colour is preferred.
Also, other symbols are added according to “taste”. The five pointed star is used to symbolize light, the sun, starlight, and of course the five senses VAK, and O olfactory, and G gustatory (VAKOG).
When occult practitioners step into the circle, they believe it banishes negativity, and they go through a ritual of using each sense to fully associate with various archetypal elements (Air, Fire, Water, and Earth) and other elements of “excellence” and transcendence. They feel air blowing around them, fire burning inside them, water flowing through, and earth soaking the poisons from them and the circle.
Magical equipoise (congruence in NLP terms) is experienced when the occultist asks each of these “parts” to align. Psychic sense is “experienced” through alignment of each sense. The eye movements typically involve looking up and to the right for clairvoyance, and auditory constructed (ac) when engaging in clairaudience.
According to the research I have read, there is no evidence that occult rituals actually work., though there is research that magical thinking is a sign of mental instability, and it is discouraged by clinical psychologists.
I don’t believe the ritual of the pentagram has ever been tested empirically when NLP is applied though. NLP has been tested on its own and been found to be ineffective, which is why Beyerstein sometimes refers to NLP as only a ritual. That is the correct term according to psychology. Regards HeadleyDown 00:32, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Ahh... :) all very nice, but nothing to do with NLP. So back to Beyerstein... rather than essentially saying "Beyerstein classes NLP as a brainscam. Brainscam's work by doing X"... could you reveal something of substance... for example "Beyerstein says NLP does A, B, & C. From this he classes it as a brainscam. Brainscam's work by doing X".... Greg 12:52, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Hello GregA. Your query was perfectly valid. The “sixth sense” in NLP and other occult pseudosciences is explained with reference to the alignment of various elements including the five senses. NLP had been developed from shamanic and other occult rituals. Which is why it is so compatible with so many other New Age subjects. It was already an occult subject. Hence all the talk of magic, sorcerers, incantations, in the first books by Bandler and Grinder. They are 1970s New Age manuals (according to many sources). The word occult is mentioned by Beyerstein, and by other even clearer sources I have on my desk in relation to NLP.

Beyerstein places NLP as a pseudoscience and a brainscam. So the whole paper is about NLP. It examines a set of brainscams, and all of the erroneous notions in each. All erroneous notions throughout the article relate directly to NLP and are also stated clearly in true pseudoscientific fashion within NLP manuals. And in relation to prior studies and reviews, he calls NLP’s key presuppositional belief a New Age slogan. I’m not going to type out everything he says about NLP word for word. Now, the above may seem a little worrying to you, but I assure you we will handle it in the clearest way possible. Lets just stick to what he says in the adjusted paragraph above, accept its verifiability, and move on. Regards HeadleyDown 16:59, 29 March 2006 (UTC)



In this case it is fair to classify Dr. Beyerstein as a Professor of Psychology (UC Berkely) and a skeptic of complimentary therapy. The paper you present is clearly an opinion paper and must be identified as such. It would help to identify the actual experimental research Beyerstein is commenting on - include an actual quote of the relevant text which shows citations to proper scientific evidence. ---=-C-=- 21:16, 28 March 2006 (UTC)


Sounds great to me Comaze. HeadleyDown 00:32, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Hang on lets look at a broader range of alternatives. Here's some opinion I gleaned from some newsgroups: Beyerstein; Skeptic, Toxic Thinker (able to infect with toxic thoughts through writing, talking, and through his energy field), Naysayer, Negative Vibe Merchant, and NLP Jinx (renders clients untreatable, and can "undo" NLP treatments). Probably the most derogatory name from these sources is "Psychology Professor". I request that it not be included in the article. Cheers DaveRight 01:38, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Hi Davey. Actually, objectionable subjects are allowable according to Wikipedia policy. They should not be feared. Psych Professor will do fine. ATB.Camridge 02:02, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi Comaze. Beyerstein is not a skeptic of NLP. He is a critic of NLP. He has seen the results of empirical testing. He calls NLP a pseudoscience. According to the list above, he is also a lot of other things. I suggest his job title (Psychology Professor) and a link to his CV is the easiest solution to this one. ATB. Camridge 02:02, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Also, I would like to reduce the likelihood of unconstructive quibbling over attributions. Its a good idea to keep in mind the verifiable roles of various NLP authors. EG, Kahuna, Shaman, New Age Guru, Faith Healer, 5th Dan Karate Blackbelt, and so on. I would like to discourage the use of such titles (even though they are used for advertising) in order to keep things constructive. ATB. Camridge 02:10, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Hello Comaze. Regarding your terming of "opinion". An opinion is a person's ideas and thoughts towards something. It is an assessment, judgement or evaluation of something. An opinion is not a fact, because opinions are not falsifiable [176]. Beyerstein's views are all falsifiable. They are based on what has been tested. The results are that he is correct according to research. When NLP authors should provide empirical evidence of efficacy, they provide only testimonials. One solution here, would be to use your special definition of "opinion" literature, and go through the whole article, labeling the literature, Opinion! Opinion! Opinion, and so on. And each empirical review can be termed "Fact" "Fact" "Fact" etc. Or we could just write a clear article using more conventional terms. I'm open to suggestion. ATB. Camridge 03:00, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Come on chaps, I'm not saying you're being silly, but at least one of us is, and its not me. Lets dispense with the messing about, verify the source, get it into the article, and move on. Bookmain 04:59, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

What are the biases of these authors, publication?

The subsection from which you are quoting (Attribute assertions) is irrelevant and your recourse is arbitrary and inconsistent. Tye and Beyerstein are both published in peer-reviewed scientific journals. Neither contain assertions. This provision of NPOV policy is relevant only to journalistic and polemic writing where the objective of the piece is to move public opinion in a particular direction (i.e. propaganda). Furthermore, it is not within our remit to "peer-review" Tye an Beyerstein. We are neither their peers and even if we were that would constitute OR. Peer-reviewed journal articles enjoy a special status generally and specifically within Wikipedia. Any biases on that part of Tye and Beyerstein would have been reported in subsequent issues of each journal. That is the purpose of peer-review. The article that is published in a reputable, peer-reviewed journal is the "gold standard" of Wikipedia sources. Your sources on the other hand (eg. Whispering in the Wind the book, Whispering in the Wind the forum) are without any form of review else they are published in obscure journals with small readerships. Your's and Greg's sources are people with products and services to sell. If we applied the stricture that you are (illegitimately) appealing to applied consistently we'd have to throw out all of your sources or qualify them to death. Grinder isn't an academic and he doesn't work for a not-for-profit organisation he's an entrepreneur, well he's not even an entrepreneur because he doesn't assume much risk it's his publishers and seminar organisers that assume the risk, he's a merchant and nothing more than a merchant. Are his biases not of interest to you or the readers?

The idea that everyone that publishes a paper that doesn't conclude in favour of NLP is biased is entirely baseless. The purpose of peer-review is to prevent this very thing. It is not your job to characcterise Beyerstein or Tye as sceptics nor mine to characterise Bandler, Grinder and the Collingwoods as charalatans. If you can source a reputable response to Tye or Beyerstein's papers that describes them as biased then we can include it. I can find no such responses to either paper. Hence, you should bite your tongue.

A malignant tendency of you and Greg in regards to the editing of the article is to fall back on vague allusions to grand epistemic (pseudo-)theory. Miring the dicussion in highfaluting nonsense about "epistemologies" and "intact units of behaviour" and "emergent phenomena" is not relevant to the discussion. If you are Greg genuinely believe that Grinder and Bostic-St Clair have conceived some whiz-bang method of inquiry that renders scientific method and the usual standard of evidence applied to claims about the universe and its inhabitants obsolete, then go and edit the epistemology, science and philosophy of science articles. I'm sure that the custodians of those articles would be interested to know that everything they wrote is crap. The NLP article is not the place to present counter-cultural/post-modern/Dadaist critiques of modernity and science. The scientific method is the best method we have for learning things about the universe (humans included) -- that is not my "opinion", it is a fact. There is no cogent extant critique that suggests otherwise. There have been many attempts at unseating science and the scientific mthod but none have succeeded. You can't (legitimately) merely assume that the scientific method is irrelevant to the testing of the claims made of NLP and fill the article with assertions predicated on that baseless assumption. Unless you have peer-reviewed articles published in reputable journals that demonstrate the irrelevance of scientific method to the testing of NLP then again you and Greg should bite your tongues. Grinder's two-page critique of the scientific method vis-a-vis NLP that he presents in Whispering in the Wind is not peer-reviewed. If Grinder has in fact discovered another (besides religion) domain of human experience and discourse that is beyond the scope of scientific method then why hasn't he submitted a paper to any of the many journals of philosophy for publication and review? Until he does so you and Greg shouldn't even allude to Grinder's "critique". It is a double-standard to complain about the inclusion of books written by reputable psychologists and philosophers (that in most cases have presented the very same ideas in briefer form in peer-reviewed journals (eg. Singer) that are consistent with the conclusions preseneted in many peer-reviewed papers) and then "slingshot" assertions that if true would have huge implications that haven't been subjectected to peer-review. Grinder and his friends haven't demonstrated that the scientific method is unsuited to the testing of NLP nor have they demonstrated some major defect in scientific method -- three pages in a small circulation book and some pompous posts to a moderated NLP forum aren't sufficient to establish such a far-reaching hypothesis. It is not your or Greg's place to attempt a critique of science or scientists as means of promoting NLP. Unless you can cite peer-reviewed literature that establishes the alleged deficiency of science that you are relying on to rescue NLP then please drop the topic.

An article published in a peer-reviewed journal that has not received savage criticism must be more than an opinion piece. Describing Beyerstein's "Brainscams" article as an opinion piece is again an illegitimate attempt on your part to "peer-review" Beyerstein's paper. You don't have that option and neither do I. If Beyerstein published mere opinion in the International Journal of Mental Health -- which is unlikely to have happened anyway because of the editorial standarads of the journal -- Beyerstein would have been pilloried without mercy in subsequent issues of the journal. Beyerstein published 16 years ago and no such response is to be found. Also your conception of an opinion is fatally flawed. The subject of opinion is subjective preference, aesthetics and faith i.e. unfalsifiable matters, matters which neither evidence or genuine argument adduced one way or the other. In everyday usage the word "opinion" is ambiguous (it doesn't mean anything most of the time it is used). However, in a formal epistemological sense it does have a precise meaning and it behoves anyone that seeks to educate others -- by editing a Wikipedia article -- to understand and employ this more precise usage. If Beyerstein were writing about the greatest song in the world, the best dog breed, the coolest car, the prettiest colour, the One True Faith, the best novel, the best beer the you could fairly characterise the article as an opinion piece. A scientific review of a topic is not an opinion piece. Beyerstein is bringing to bear what we know about neurology and psychology on the claims of various snake oil merchants. Beyerstein doesn't have to perform his own research nor does he have to prove the negative -- the onus of proof is on the claimants -- that would not be consistent with his puropose or responsibility. The burden of proof cannot be shifted from the shoulders of Messrs Bandler, Grinder, Hall, Dilts, Sikes, James, Cleveland, Robie, Gilligan, Dilts, La Valle, Breen, McKenna etc. It is not Beyerstein responsibility to test every questionable hypothesis generated by people in the process of selling goods and services. That is the responsibility of the merchant.

What are the counter-examples (provide a clear description of any counter-arguments)[?]

There are none. You are preteneding that there's evidence that vindicates your devotion that we are hiding from the world. There's none. I've searched high and low. If you reckon there are counter-arguments and counter-examples in reputable, peer-reviewed journals (that have not been demonstrated flawed eg. Einspruch and Forman's response to Sharpley can't be cited as evidence in favour of the efficacy of NLP because it was largely a critique of the papers reviewed by Shparpley and Sharpley responded to that critique. There was no follow-up from Einspruch and Forman hence the matter ends with Sharpley.) Don't try and besmirch the contributions of editors with innuendo. There are no randomised, controlled studies that demonstrate the efficacy of any NLP intervention. I found that out personally but my OR is irrelevant. I proclaim this only because Devilly (2005) does so. I repeat: after 30 years there is still not one solitary randomised and controlled study that demonstrates the efficacy of any NLP intervention. You shouldn't be raising this question -- it's scurrilous -- instead go find this NLP unicorn and present it to the us.

You are zealously expurgating anything you deem "blasphemous" and insisting on the highest level of adherence to Wikipedia policy and rigour from the critical camp and you expect license to include material that doesn't even meet you own criteria. The cases of the alleged vagueness of the phrase "New Age" is an exemplary case of this. If vagueness were reason to cull somthing from the article then we'd have to lose most of the descriptive portions of the article. NLP is itself vague, it's own terms are poorly defined. flavius 10:15, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Flavius. I was just about to say that! Regards HeadleyDown 10:55, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Sorry Flavius I don't have time to read that at the moment. Greg 12:52, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Hi GregA. No problem. Editors are developing quite a lot of patience here. And we seem to have discovered quite a lot of good research in the meantime. Also after having reviewed the verifiability policy here, I had a good look at some of the references that have already been presented in the article again. It does seem we have been quite remis in certain areas. It appears there are many more includable views from the likes of Singer and many others, especially concerning the occult/mystical/New Age origins of NLP. Those can be placed in the article for clarification - when the present objections have been satisfied and the passages correctly reinstated. I don't mind you taking your time. We have a lot of interesting research to do. Cheers DaveRight 00:40, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
Yes Dave. I never understood why people weren't including views on NLP's occult background. Its almost as if we couldn't handle it's "objectionability". Wikipedia caters for the inclusion of such things. Beyerstein's writing is part of that. Though we should remain civil to the NLP "faithful", its no good sweeping stuff under the carpet. I believe if we previously reacted less to the NLP-flock's cries, and focused more objectively on the article, then it would have turned out much clearer. Still, we are in the process of repair, and it looks like we have some progress already. Bookmain 01:46, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
Hi all. Sure, but it really would have led to too much strife. It was bad enough that scientific views on ineffectiveness were being deleted on a daily basis. The more "esoteric" side would have made any progress impossible. Should be fine now we have mentors though. ATB. Camridge 03:24, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
It's nowhere near fine. The wikipedia policies issues have not been properly addressed. ---=-C-=- 12:07, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
Hello Comaze. You will need to be more specific. Please explain your objections in detail and in length. Most editors here are satisfied that the issues have been properly addressed. More detail from you is required. HeadleyDown 12:21, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Moved reference (Dryden)

[edit] Discussion of reference: Dryden (2001)

As part of a fact and reference check I've removed the above reference (Dryden) does not mention NLP at all.--'c' 10:35, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Reinstate the reference, Comaze. You will do a better job when we have added the page numbers to the said references. All in good time. HeadleyDown 11:34, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Now that it has been moved, we need to check it for wikipedia standards, then if we reach consensus we can submit it to the mentors for approval, then they can reinsert it. I appologies for the large text moves - I have a limited amount time available. Let's see if we can speed up this entire process. --'c' 12:28, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Hello all. Further to Dave's helpful suggestion, I encourage others to focus on this nice simple piece of progress. If anyone wants to deny the existence of this view, (that NLP is dubious or doubtful) then please present some evidence.

At present, I have found the line within the book: Handbook of Cognitive-Behavioral Therapies, Second Edition by Keith S. Dobson (2001)

And it states neurolinguistic programming has dubious validity.

It is echoed exactly in Dryden's book, Reason and therapeutic change / Windy Dryden. Publisher London : Whurr Pub., 1991. Page 42

Looks like the attribution got obscured during the protracted editwars of the past. ATB. Camridge 04:07, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh thanks for that Camridge. I hadn't seen that other source. Lets see if the others think its clear enough to reinstate it. Regards HeadleyDown 11:32, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Well this all checks out according to my research. Perhaps someone else could verify this one. HeadleyDown 02:29, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
If nobody has found this article incorrect, then I suggest we move forward to reinstating it into the article, with the additional Dobson reference to back it up. HeadleyDown 12:36, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, this does not meet wikipedia standards for verifiability. Quoting an opinion stated in a book does not meet the minimum requirements for a logical, evidence-based argument. On what grounds (i.e. evidence) are these statements made? ---=-C-=- 13:41, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Hello Comaze. Its a finding based upon empirical research. Both references (Dobson and Dryden) show liberal supporting evidence in reference form. There are too many references within both books to post here, and they include many references that are in the article already. Both sources are verifiable. They agree with many other authors that are present in the article. It is an existing view based upon the results of empirical testing. Would anyone else like to check that my statements are correct? HeadleyDown 13:57, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Hi Comaze. I'm really glad you asked. Dobson and Dryden are both quoting from reviews of empirical researchers such as Ellis and Yager and many more researchers I have never heard of before who have written many books and papers on ineffective therapies. So your enquiry has led to another rich source of research on NLP that I had not ever encountered before. Thats really going to make things a lot clearer. Thanks much. Bookmain 04:50, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RfC (foreign language references)

This information needs replacing into the article. As we have discovered, its far too big to discuss in one chunk. HeadleyDown 13:03, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

My challenge is that these reference are unverifiable. Based on you suggestion I'lll move it into two chunks. --'c' 22:57, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

There are a number of references that are in foreign languages that I cannot verify. Can someone provide an english translation of the relevant portion, or find an english alternative for it. I like to get a comment if these reference pass wikipedia standards for verifiability. I found a thread on this topic but it really does not answer the question Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability#.22Local_interest.22_articles. My impression is we as wikipedians are not in the position to verify foreign language sources so English sources should be used whenever possible. --'c' 11:11, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi Comaze. The verifiability article on Wikipedia policy only states that English language sources are preferable. With Babelfish, most European texts can be easily translated. In addition to this, most of the foreign language sources are verifiable though the cross-referencing with other English texts. The present article was actually made brief from a very large version, and the views presented are the often views of many more experts than are cited. Regards HeadleyDown 18:53, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Text moved by Comaze (Bordlein/Winkin/Helisch/Sommers)

Text moved (Winkin)
  • "experts such as Winkin[177]"
  • "and anthropologists such as Winkin consider such promotion to be intellectually fraudulent [178]. Furthermore, some critics assert that NLP's association with science is as distant as astrology's association to astronomy[179]"
  • "NLP is in the margins of contemporary obscurantism [180]."
  • and a destructive or amoral pseudoscientific psychocult [181]([182]
References
  • ↑ Bördlein, Christoph (2001). Das "Neurolinguistische Programmieren" (NLP) - Hochwirksame Techniken oder haltlose Behauptungen? Schulheft, 103 , 117-129.
  • ↑ Helisch. M (2004) Veranstaltung:- Gesellschaftliche Funktion, Entwicklung und Sozialisation von Emotionen Seitenzahl: 39 Issue: 1
  • ↑ Winkin Y 1990 Eléments pour un procès de la P.N.L. , MédiAnalyses, no. 7, septembre, 1990, pp. 43-50.
  • Sommers [183]
Reason for move
  • Verifiability: there are plenty of journal articles and books on NLP written in English so there is no real need to rely on foreign language references. --'c' 22:42, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Words to avoid: "experts such as", "anthropologists such as ", "some critics" --'c' 22:42, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Words to avoid: "destructive", "amoral", "pseudoscientific", "psychocult" - These words are probably to be avoid unless they are clearly attributed to a specific author's viewpoint --'c' 22:42, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion of (Bordlein/Winkin/Helisch/Sommers)

The view that NLP is intellectually fraudulent, is also that of Heap 1991. The view that NLP is a kind of pseudoscience, that uses occult and astrology are also that of sociologists who study new religions (Hunt 2002, Heelas 1996, amongst others. Regards HeadleyDown 19:05, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Heap is already cited in the article - let's discuss it in a different thread. Same with Hunt and Heelas. Do you have some specific objections to these references being deleted? --'c' 22:42, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


My objection to you deleting these references are that they represent a non-angloamerican view. According to NPOV policy, the non-angloamerican view is not to be deleted. As far as foreign language is concerned, well, its not exactly Chinese is it! Simple translation sites are available for free on the web. And editors here have a good grasp of foreign languages already. I would like to hear the mentors/mediator's view on this. ATB. Camridge 04:20, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Text moved by Comaze (Levelt 1995)

  1. are applied directly from untested theory to empirically untested application Levelt (1995).
  2. The absence of connectivity [184]
  3. These are distortions, generalizations, and deletions. However, in contrast with Chomsky's abandoned theory and with linguistics theory, distortions, generalizations and deletions are universals according to NLP, and are applied directly from untested theory to empirically untested application (Levelt 1995).
Objections (specific wikipedia polcies)
  • Verifiability: This ref is in a foreign language
  • Readability: The current text is not easily deciphered from a reader's point of view, especially the third statement.
  • The source is a "skeptics magazine" and it should meet Katefan's test "its biases are clearly identified in the material.Katefan0(scribble)/poll 21:21, 8 March 2006 (UTC)" --'c' 22:59, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion of proposed change (Levelt 1995

Yes, there are some problems here. The views exist, but they are the stated views of hypnotists and others (I can dig out the refs). Of course, though, judging by Levelts' paper, I am sure he will also hold these views. HeadleyDown 19:03, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I think the view that NLP goes straight from modeling to its own testing to application (without empirical research) is quite fair as it's the basis of NLP. And the fact that some people criticise that is fair too (Levelt is writing in Skeptics magazine though - there are some really good scientists who mention this who would be better references). The majority of psychotherapies are untested (didn't Lilienfeld make that clear?... I might be forced to buy the book) but many are slowly getting some research done. Most therapies though are usually based (if loosely) on some existing theory. GregA 22:18, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
I would just point out to Comaze that references don't have to adhere to NPOV. Articles do, but references don't. Otherwise any published reference that espoused a strong opinion would never be included, and that's not what NPOV contemplates. There may be other reasons to question this source, but that it "violates NPOV" is not one. Additionally, that it's from a biased source doesn't automatically exclude it from use here -- else we'd not be able to use quotes from the National Review, The Nation, etc. where there may be a bias it's appropriate to note it (i.e.: An article in the Skeptical Inquirer said....), though. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 04:28, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Hello Katefan0. Thanks I believe that is an important point to clarify. It has been a mistake of editors here for some time. Further to this, there has often been an objection to the use of references from sites and literature that has a scientific skepticism view (eg, skeptics websites). So are you agreeing that the skeptics websites are valid and not against NPOV? Cheers DaveRight 05:05, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Katefan, although this is true, the repute of the reference is important right? I'm basically working with Wikipedia:No_original_research#What_counts_as_a_reputable_publication.3F GregA 13:28, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Yes, certainly. I would definitely not make a blanket statement like "skeptics websites are valid." Skeptical publications are probably okay, though I'd want to evaluate them case by case, just as we do any other reference. "Skeptical websites" may not be -- "websites" is a pretty blanket term that could include things like blogs, which generally are not considered a reliable source. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 13:44, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks Katefan0. The skeptics sites we have are never newsgroups or blogs. They always use a scientific skepticism perspective and use highly qualified writers such as university professors. I'll see if we can't manage to salvage the said sites and present them for appraisal sometime. Perhaps a few days after Comaze discontinues his text moves. Regards HeadleyDown 14:33, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
I know the link talks about questioning whether a source is partisan - I guess in this case it allows us to more clearly identify what class of people think something? (I take it is more useful to identify what specific groups say or believe something?) GregA 21:14, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
There's nothing necessarily wrong with using a partisan source, as long as it can be considered reliable and its biases are clearly identified in the material. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 21:21, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks Katefan0. Does that mean the views of prof Levelt can be reinstated into the article? Camridge 05:28, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Take a look at the first line:
  1. are applied directly from untested theory to empirically untested application Levelt (1995).
(note that the following is not intended to be neutral yet. I mean it as a basis for discussion). There are 2 points Levelt makes. An overly wordy rewrite which respects the NLP POV might say:
  • NLP claims that the metamodel was created by studying the interactions of therapists Perls and Satir - though a Dutch skeptic's journal claims the metamodel was developed from Chomsky's untested theory (Levelt 1995).
  • NLP claims that testing a model can only be done subjectively, and the scientific method is not applicable (since there is only one person being modeled, and the variables can not be controlled or measured sufficiently) - a Dutch journal criticises this, saying that NLP goes straight "to empirically untested application". This same criticism is brough on many psychotherapies today.
These both belong in different sections if anywhere (where we talk about how NLP began, and the modeling section). Greg 06:18, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Hello GregA. This has been explained to you before more than once. I will persist. Levelt was published in Intermediair 17 november 1995. That is not a skeptic's magazine. Its an intellectual journal. So it will be more accurate to say "Levelt, a world renowned psycholinguist states that ......etc." The objections that Comaze made to prof Levelt's view are all unfounded. All that it requires is proper and clear attribution, and that is what I have done. I believe it can easily be reinstated to the article without any unnecessary fuss. Your statement about other psychotherapies is both vague and inaccurate. It is not the view of any author, and it does nothing to clarify the article. We could on the other hand give the reasonable excuse that is present in the critiques of NLP; Other pseudosciences such as dianetics and primal scream therapy are promoted thus also. Regs Camridge 07:32, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Text moved by Comaze (Drenth 2003)

  • Psycholinguist Willem Levelt states that (translated into English) "NLP is not informed about linguistics literature, it is based on vague insights that were out of date long ago, their linguistics concepts are not properly construed or are mere fabrications, and conclusions are based upon the wrong premises. NLP theory and practice has nothing to do with neuroscientific insights or linguistics, nor with informatics or theories of programming" [185][186].
  • NLP has been classed as a pseudoscientific self help development[187]
refs
  • objection:

[edit] Discussion of proposed change (Drenth)

Drenth (2003) is in English and is available in full at [188]. flavius 04:43, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
AFAIK Levelt (1995) is not available in English. However, I'm not sure that is sufficient cause to excise any reference to it in the article. flavius 04:43, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
I believe this reference is incorrect. The above is not a quote from Level (1995) but a quote from Drenth (2003). Drenth is paraphrasing Levelt. flavius 04:43, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm considering paying to have Levelt (1995) translated (from Dutch-to-English) so that we need not rely on Drenth's paraphrasing. Are there any Dutch-fluent Wikipedians that can translate [189]? Mentors ca you help here? flavius 11:13, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Flavius, I've corrected the reference for Drenth. Can you suggest a more appropriate rephrase of Drenth's viewpoint? --'c' 05:28, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Comaze/SC/c. Drenth's view regarding NLP can be summarised as follows:

Drenth (2003) categorises NLP as pseudoscience because its proponents "claim that their presumptions are predicated on scientific understanding and scientific evidence". According to Drenth, NLP is based on "a few truisms" which are elaborated upon with "rich phantasy concepts and relationships". Further, NLPs conclusions lack "theoretical or experimental basis". Drenth adds that when NLP proponents are met with serious scientific challenge of their claims they resort to "sham manoeuvres" such as "we are interested in another kind of truth", "something can be true even without scientific proof", "it is self evident" and "clients are happy and satisfied".

Also, Drenth is eminently quotable. I'd like Drenth (2003) reinstated and represented as per my block quote. HeadleyDown, Camridge, JPLogan, HansAtel et al do you have anything to add to this digest of Drenth (2003) re NLP? flavius 11:10, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
That looks fine to me, Flavius. But we did get a reaction from an NLP author on the discussion list. The author who named himself as Andy Bradbury, author of "improve your NLP skills" urged for deletion on many occasions, and removed the Drenth ref himself. In the course of doing so, he even took time to vandalize my article [190].ABradbury stated that engrams do not exist in NLP literature. He also posted an anti-Drenth article by another NLP author Jaap Hollander. However, Hollander turned out to be another NLP author who writes extensively about engrams in NLP. Its amazing how persistent such facts can be. When someone tries to take such facts away, they just come back multiplied (its almost like the new age notions of abundance and karma) Regards HeadleyDown 11:22, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Hi Headley. To keep this on topic - besides saying Hollander uses the term Engrams, I assume you're acknowledging his response as valid? Drenth appears to be a valid paper and he is an expert in his field, though it's unclear whether his knowledge of NLP stretches far (look at his definition of NLP!). He does list NLP under "pseudoscience", and he lists hypnosis under "unscientific and sometimes occult". My main concern is Levelt, as he's a major source of Drenth and his paper is published in the skeptics guide of netherlands, which isn't a neutral source (see Wikipedia:No_original_research#What_counts_as_a_reputable_publication.3FGregA 13:05, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
GregA. Please look at the reference again. The original source is the journal; Intermediair, 17 november 1995. You are assuming wrong also. I do not think Hollander has a valid response. But I believe it is a good example of the kind of pseudoscientific thinking prevelant in NLP and other such new age/new alternative religions. Hollander will most likely appear as a link in the pseudoscience section with a clarifying sentence or two. Concerning the article by levelt, you should read it. Its utterly blistering in its criticism of NLP. My Dutch is passable, but I will leave it up to others to translate and make clear for Wikipedia. Regards HeadleyDown 13:44, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Dr. Jaap Hollander's reply to Drenth's criticism... [[191] - this is a copy of an article published in NLP World. --'c' 11:56, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Strictyly speaking Hollander's article is not a reputable source in that it is published in a special interest group periodical and online i.e. not in a peer-reviewed journal. Furthermore, Hollander is not a recognised authority on matters of psychology, psychiatry, linguistics, philosophy, statistics or neurology. However, it is an interesting article in that it is almost a catalogue of the "sham manoeuvres" that Drenth (2003) outlines (ironically in an essay written partially in response to Drenth (2003)). Hollander's article would be useful as a an adjunct to Drenth (2003), it provides concrete examples of the "sham manoeuvres", it demonstrates the anti-science and obscurantist character of NLP and it also betrays an ignorance of scientific method, hypothesis testing and inferential statistics. flavius 23:20, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
OH thanks for retrieving that Comaze,c,sc. I'd lost it and had been looking for it for some time. It is perfect as an example of anti-scientific thinking in NLP. In fact, its just the kind of example that we can use in the pseudoscience section of the article. Wonderful. HeadleyDown 12:50, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
This comment belongs in the science discussion. GregA 13:05, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Verifiability only states that English language sources are preferable. With Babelfish, most European texts can be easily translated though. In addition to this, most of the foreign language sources are verifiable though the cross-referencing with other English texts. The present article was actually made brief from a very large version, and the views presented are the often views of many more experts than are cited. Regards HeadleyDown 18:53, 7 March 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Proposed change - Comaze (Sanghera 2005)

Text moved
  • Critics say NLP is simply a half-baked conflation of pop psychology and pseudoscience that uses jargon to disguise the fact that it is based on a set of banal, if not incorrect, presuppositions (Sanghera 2005).
    • ↑ Look into my eyes and tell me I'm learning not to be a loser, Financial Times, London (UK), Sanghera. [192] --'c' 06:54, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Reason for move
  1. A quote from Katefan0 on a similar text move... "This should say "In BOOK, AUTHOR .... " see also WP:NPOV
  2. "Make only careful use of generic attributions ("Critics say ..."). These are called weasel words, because they can make claims look less obscure or less controversial than they are. In general, when something needs attributing, be specific."[Wikipedia:NPOV_tutorial#Attribution_and_citation]
  3. This source is not a verifiable/reputable/reliable source for this subject.
Alterative
  1. This is a proposed deletion

[edit] Discussion for change (Sanghera)

Hello Comaze. This has been explained to you before over 5 times, but I will repeat again. According to the Arbcom ruling, the line should read;

[edit] Sanghera alternative (HeadleyDown)

Sanghera of the Financial Times, London states; "critics say NLP is simply a half-baked conflation of pop psychology and pseudoscience that uses jargon to disguise the fact that it is based on a set of banal, if not incorrect, presuppositions"

The line is exactly as is quoted by Sanghera. Looks ready to be reinstated. HeadleyDown 02:37, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Then at the end of the para, we can have the citation. The term "critics" is a quote from Sanghera. The section introduces criticism, so it would be inappropriate to delete the term "critics". Having clearly done his homework, Sanghera knows a lot about what the critics say. All of the terms he uses are also in the scientific and other independent research papers and books on NLP. They summarize the views of critics. Regards HeadleyDown 18:44, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Check out my second alternative... Can I move your alternative to the list? --'c' 04:43, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi Comaze. You seem to be suggesting that all Sanghera (of the financial times) did was attend a half day seminar and then write an article. Is this what you mean? Because I suggest that your statement is misleading. Sanghera is an FT journalist, and is clearly aware of the need to do some deeper research on NLP. His statement is indicative of quite a deep research into NLP as he uses exactly the same language as empirical scientists when describing what critics say. Cheers DaveRight 05:10, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  • According to the FT web site, Sanghera is a weekly Inside Business columnist[193] (not a journalist) so this should be stated
  • The article is written in a sarcastic tone and is the opinion of the author after attended a short "NLP" training
  • If this statement is to be paraphrase it should be done in a way that removes any sarcasm
  • The article can only checked upon purchase of a subscription when many other articles in publications with similar or better reputable/reliability, and more easily verifiable
--'c' 08:03, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Hello Comaze,C,SC.

  • Many references here, especially the empirical research, are only available on subscription. Objecting to a reference on the grounds that you have to pay a subscription, is not within the scope of verifiability. Thus, the Sanghera FT ref is perfectly verifiable.
  • The tone of Sanghera is mild compared to a lot of the empirical researchers who virtually laugh their heads off in the text of their conclusions about NLP, using terms such as drivel, dross, psychobabble, psychopablum, and so on.
  • Sanghera represents the views of critics quite reasonably and introduces the section in easy to understand language

ATB Camridge 10:30, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I've withdrawn the alternative text. It is really not appropriate for the article and does not pass the standards for wikipedia sources. Let's just remove this source and attributed text completely. It really does not add anything to the article and there are far more appropriate sources for this viewpoint. ---=-C-=- 12:16, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Hello Comaze. Your alternative version incorrectly implied that it was Sanghera's view. He was reporting what his research had uncovered about critics of NLP. Of course his research is corroborated by the research presented in the criticism section. Its an almost perfect summary of criticism of NLP. All that needs to be done now is to verify whether Sanghera actually stated that in that rather respectable publication (Financial Times). Once it is verified, it can be reinstated. Regards HeadleyDown 12:26, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Yes, Sanghera's research satisfies Wikipedia verifiability policy. He is a well known journalist for a reputable paper (Financial Times London). His statements are supported by reputable third party peer reviewed papers and reputable clinical psychology books. Headley's adjusted version is correct. Any response from the mentors? ATB. Camridge 05:50, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Enough

Our instructions included text moves. Text moves are perfectly all right; none will be reinserted until a consensus is reached, so please use your energy to discuss these items and come to a consensus instead of arguing over inserting the information again. That won't happen until a consensus is reached.

It would have been better if Comaze had taken his text moves a little more slowly, yes, especially since one of the problems with this article before the arbcom case was a congestion of topics, leaving people unable to focus. But he is following our instructions. If you find it difficult to focus on all the topics he's moved, then pick one and work on it. The others will still be there when you're done. I would suggest that we have enough text to work on at this point, and that further text moves should probably be suspended temporarily, while we attempt to get consensus on what we have on our plate at the moment.

The idea of text moves is that, eventually, all the disputed portions of the article are moved into the talk page to discuss them. This focuses discussion on discrete items, and prevents edit warring on the live article. What we're left with in the article itself is a collection of information people can agree on. That forms the base of a foundation upon which to build.

Civility on this page has vastly improved, and I thank all of you for that. But instead of focusing on working together, people have begun to turn to passive-aggressive posturing and thinly veiled sarcasm. Please find a way to work together -- that's the only way forward. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 14:22, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Katefan0. Its great to get a prompt response to these problems. I believe Comaze has filled his quota of moves for the next few months. Many of them have taken small lines from various places on the article. I would like to object to some of those sections ot text, but I cannot because he has snipped bits out. That will cause problems when we are allowed to take more sections out.
I am happy to respond to Comaze's requests to delete all these parts, but I suggest that a lot of those text moves be broken down and treated as seperate sections, ie - Object, reasons to object, and suggested remedy. That would give us a more focused discussion on each part. Then we can all go through each one together, one at a time and come to consensus. Again, it means that Comaze has more text moves than everyone else put together, but we will just have to put up with it I suppose. Regards HeadleyDown 14:42, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I'm sorry about our response time. Jdavidb and Ral315 haven't been very active lately, and Woohookitty and I haven't been able to keep up with the volume of discussion on this page lately as well as we would like. Hopefully that'll change soon. If you want to break out the text, that's fine. How you handle discussing the text move is all right, as long as folks are discussing it in a fruitful way. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 15:56, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
I echo katefan's comments. I will reiterate that the sarcasm has to stop, as does what amounts to picking on comaze when he hasn't done anything wrong. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 16:02, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Hello Katefan0. Actually, really I found your response quite quick. By breaking out the text, do you mean cutting oversized and unmanageable text into sections, then systematically labeling them as before (Bit to object to, objection, and suggested change)? RegardsHeadleyDown 16:47, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

That'd be all right, but I'd prefer we deal with the smaller sections already placed here first. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 18:55, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi Woohookitty. I must say that I find it extremely important to point out and attempt to stop activities that provoke conflict. Regards HeadleyDown 16:49, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
That's not your job. That's ours. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 23:48, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Yes Woohookitty, thats what I meant. Regards HeadleyDown 02:58, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Katefate and all, Sorry about my most recent text move - I thought it was minor. --'c' 02:09, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Be that as it may, text moves should be suspended for the time being, minor or not. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 03:50, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Thank you Katefan0. I appreciate your clarification to prevent undue overload. I would like to reiterate my (and your) enthusiasm for civility, and I am recently committed to providing ways of making sure that this is not just the flavour of the month. I am sure I will be editing here in years to come, and though irregular visitors may foul sometimes, regular editors will do well to be civil at all times. I am certain consistent civility will help the article long term, and will add to enjoyment as it already has. ATB Camridge 05:18, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
That's great. Your next challenge, I suppose, will be avoiding sarcasm. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 14:08, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Actually, Katefan0. I've personally found avoiding sarcasm a big challenge, and even had to re-phrase sentences after posting. Sentences that give others the benefit of the doubt, but end up sounding sarcastic. Double checking one's comments is recommended! Regards HeadleyDown 14:27, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
My comment could apply to you as well. Anyway, enough about this. Just discuss the article, please. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 14:34, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Dear Mentors, People are much more civil now. But I am having problems following the huge volume of chat. I wonder whether in the future temporarily closing the talk page to give you mentors some time to catch up would help, particularly when some of you are on leave. This is just a suggestion for the mentors. Please do not comment if you are not a mentor. --Dejakitty 14:49, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi Dejakitty, I understand your concern. But, I'm reluctant to try to bottleneck discussion in some way, because the real point of having mentors is not to mediate the article (although some of that is naturally necessary), but to teach the editors involved in this article how to work within Wikipedia's policies and, just as importantly, how to work together. The idea is that eventually there won't need to be mentors associated with this article. Disputes will naturally arise, but that's okay -- idea being that those involved should be able to sort those disputes out themselves, as with any other article here. Still, there should probably be a better way to focus discussions. I am inclined to take one of the portions of disputed text from above, re-copy it down below, and ask everybody to work on it together. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 15:38, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
I'd like to agree with Dejakitty's concerns about the volume here, but moreso the lack of focus (from myself and others). I would happily have a more strictly moderated talk page temporarily, so long as their was a separate general discussion area we could move to. This may mean deleting anything not directly related to what we're working on in that section (with editor option to resubmit while clearly showing relevance). I don't know.
As I wrote earlier some distractions appear deliberate and designed to avoid article development (this seems to be an identical accusation to the original arbitration request). It's too easy to distract an article, much harder to write something worthwhile. Greg 01:52, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Hello Katefan. We have been asked not to reply to this section, and GregA is not assuming good faith. I request he be blocked. Bookmain 08:30, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Actually, we never said "Don't respond in this section" and Greg is just trying to come up with solutions to help things along. Absolutely nothing wrong with that. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 10:49, 23 March 2006 (UTC)


Sure, actually Dejakitty actually stated "This is just a suggestion for the mentors. Please do not comment if you are not a mentor. --Dejakitty 14:49, 9 March 2006 (UTC)" Regards HeadleyDown 11:27, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
We decide those things, not dejakitty. He/ she can always email us privately if they want to if they want something that others can't comment on. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 11:30, 23 March 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Basic NLP factuality is still poorly explained

Full Disclosure: I have no training in psychology or pyschiatry. I have spent only a few hours reading up on NLP, both pro and con. However, from the POV of a layperson, this article does a poor job of explaining NLP as originally conceived.

From reading the discussion archives, I know that Bandler and Grinder et al. have claimed NLP is a science after publishing Frogs into Princes. This is demonstrably false. However, I would like to discuss the modeling concept in the way it was originally framed before NLP became commercial. To quote the Frogs into Princes (p. 7)

"What we essentially do is pay very little attention to what people say they do and a great deal of attention to what they do. And then we build ourselves a model of what they do. We are not scientists, and we're also not theologians or theoreticians. We have no idea about the "real" nature of things, and we're not particularly interested in what's "true." The function of modeling is to arrive at descriptions which are useful. So, if we happen to mention something that you know from a scientific study, or from statistics, is inaccurate, realize that a different level of experience is being offered here. We're not offering you something that's true, just things that are useful.

We know that our modeling has been successful when we can systematically get the same behavioral outcome as the person we have modeled. And when we can teach someone else to be able to get the same outcomes in a systematic way, that's an even stronger test."

At least for the sake of discussion let's not talk about whether the concept of modeling is true or false, but rather whether it is useful. For example, it might not be able to prove scientifically that the brain works this way internally. However, it might be possible to prove scientifically that if you act as if the brain works this way then you get positive results. At least the way I read it, the argument is similar to saying that you might be better off acting as if there is a God even though you don't literally believe it. While the question of God's existance is not testible, the latter claims are.

Bandler and Grinder explain modeling in depth in Chapter one of The Structure of Magic I. I will paste some of my notes on specific claims below:

  • We as human beings do not operate directly on the world. Each of us creates a representation of the world in which we live -- that is, we create a map or model which we use to generate our behavior. Our representation of the world determines to a large degree what our experience of the world will be, how we will perceive the world, what choices we will see available to us as we live in the world.
  • Neurological, individual, and social constraints prove the existance of models. Neurological constraints are the limitations of our senses, e.g. we can't see UV light even though we know it exists. Social has to do with language, e.g. it is possible to think different thoughts in different languages. Individual constraints are our personal models based on our personal history.
  • People complain that they have pain, feel paralyzed, and have no freedom or choices. They actually do have choices, they just block themselves from seeing them. People who cause themselves pain and anguish are making the best choices they have available to them in their particular model, and just need to be able to see their full range of options.
  • Errors in modeling: generalization, deletion, and distortion.
  • Generalization: Pieces of a person's model become detached and come to represent an entire category, of which the pieces are examples.
  • Example: If you get burned by a hot stove, avoiding kitchens because they contain stoves instead of not touching the hot stoves. Both behaviors work, but one is overly broad and the same result (not getting burned) can be acheived by a model that gives more flexibility.
  • Deletion: Selectively paying attention to some parts of our experience and excluding others.
  • Example: A man who was convinced he wasn't worth caring about wasn't able to hear his wife's messages of caring.
  • Distortion: When we shift the meaning of our sensory data to match our worldview.
  • Example: Man who thought he wasn't worth caring for interpreted his wife's messages of caring as her wanting something.
  • Bizarre behavior can often be explained by looking at the context in which it was created

So I know the brain doesn't actually work this way, but have these specific points been scientifically tested to determine whether it is useful to act is if the brain does work this way? I don't know a lot about NLP, both pro or con, but from the little I have read these seem to have been the original foundational beliefs. These also seem to be the main claims that excite and attract people to NLP, and unfortunately the article currently does little to support or debunk them.

Almost all of the discussion in the archives seems to revolve around the psychological applications on NLP and not the foundational belief of modeling other people. I did find some stuff saying that B&G literally believe that anyone can do anything that anyone else can do, which is clearly false. However, if you hold this belief, within reason, then are you better off for it most of the time? Alex Krupp 03:10, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Alex. I'm glad someone has been reading around. The belief aspect of NLP is crucial. If you take a truly "meta" approach and look at it sociologically, the belief aspect demonstrates that NLP is fundamentally new age and pseudoscientific. According to psycholotherapy, nobody should have to believe in the kind of beliefs NLP espouses for a treatment to work. The beliefs you have mentioned are also fundamentally new age and largely promotional in the commercial sense. The belief that you can do anything is quite widely held already in pop psychology. And to some it may be encouraging (for some purpose). But the methods that are being used in order to sell that higher potential, are only rituals. None have been found to work according to scientific research. In fact, all of the rituals used in NLP have been developed from occult rituals of both eastern and western magic/k systems. They have been sanitised and made more saleable. But the belief aspect is important for dissemination and sales purposes. For example, NLP promoters actually get stadiums full of managers to do the "circle of excellence" pattern. Little do they know that it is actually just a sanitised version of the lesser banishing ritual of the pentagram! So the seminar and social pressure they apply to change people's beliefs is rather disturbing to many people, and the literature shows that people have even complained about being subjected to such new age conversions/transformations. So belief change is something that psychology handles in general, but to promote NLP presuppositional beliefs the way they do is only really new age salespitch for the promotion of tapes, books, and other dubious therapies. NLP has been classified sociologically as a new alternative religion. ATB. Camridge 07:57, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your informative reply Camridge. From your post I gather that the presuppositional beliefs are A) largely borrowed from pop psychology and B) promoted mostly as a salespitch. That still doesn't address the question of whether they are useful though. This is something that is falsifiable through science. I think this is an important question; even if it shows only the placebo effect or the pygmalion effect the implications are still huge. Also, for the curious I wrote an article comparing Wikipedia to NLP in 2004: The Little Website that Couldn't. This was after it was established that Wikipedia produced good articles but before it was understood why...WP was being compared to bumble bees (which can't fly according to physics) and sausage (which tastes good but you don't want to know where it comes from) at the time. Alex Krupp 15:08, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Sure Alex. More accurately, the presupositional beliefs are borrowed from postmodernist new age/occult background. The sensual theory (VAKOG) is taken straight from the occult theories magick (Aleister Crowley and others). Sure science recognizes the senses, but neuroscience does not say subjective thought and behaviour result exclusively from the internal and external senses. Magick and NLP do. The usefulness question can be answered several ways outside of wikipedia. NLP has been found to be ineffective by indepth reviews of the empirical research into its methods. It has been found useful for obtaining compliance within cults, but that is not due to any particular power inherent within NLP. Its a result of the pseudoscientific and "comforting" but wrong (and oftentimes hazardous) assumptions within its obscurantisms. It is also clearly useful for selling books and seminars on NLP. There is a simple way around the bumblebee problem. Count how many of them can fly within empirical tests! Their method is effective. Compare that to NLP. Empirical research shows that NLP is mostly negative, and in some cases only neutral. Reviews state that NLP is ineffective for doing what is claimed. It is certainly ineffective in comparison with traditional methods of therapy and communication/influence. But thats quite a lot to state. For Wikipedia purposes, its enough to say that scientific reviews have found that NLP is ineffective, unsupported, pseudoscientific, (quote refs) and so on. ATB.Camridge 04:40, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
I don't believe in NLP, but I also don't think you are giving it a fair shake. According to the primary text, NLP was designed to capture the methodology of experts in any field and teach them to others. The test is whether others can acheive the same results. What you are saying is that the models NLP offers are false. Of course they're false! It says they're false right in the book! So we should list studies that show NLP models don't work. However, saying NLP models have no basis in neuroscience or linguistics is disingenuous. Alex Krupp 22:25, 22 March 2006 (UTC)


Hello Alex3917. If you have expert views that state the present expert views are disengenuous, then please present them. Regards HeadleyDown 02:42, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

HeadleyDown, if you look at the primary text it says that the NLP models being offered may be false. This article then criticizes the NLP models for being false. That is disingenuous, no expert opinion needed. At the very least the article should say that Frogs states flat out that the models may be false, and then confirm they are indeed false. Alex Krupp 14:26, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Hello Alex. Well thats splendid! We can have both scientists and NLPers saying that NLP's models are/may be false. Regards HeadleyDown 14:31, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
HeadleyDown, that's fine with me. As long as the article doesn't implicitly claim that NLPers claim their models are scientifically valid, as is the case now. Alex Krupp 14:40, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Hello again. Sure, I hope you don't think that anyone here wants to keep the article as it is. There are plenty of changes to make, especially as the last discussion on the swish has led to a great deal more evidence being found concerning rituals, new religious movements, and so on. The article definitely needs balancing, and there were plenty of misattributions due to previous over-edits and confusing attribution formats. That'll all need fixing up. Regards HeadleyDown 15:06, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Hi Alex, you make some really good points. The most interesting thing is that many of these actually fit precisely into a NPOV (neutral point of view) by providing a counter (NLP) perspective on some of the criticisms. Greg 02:46, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
For instance, we have
  1. the NLP books saying NLP was developed from modeling, and
  2. some psychologists saying it wasn't developed from established theory,
  3. others saying any theories were developed AFTER the processes and this is wrong
- these perspectives dovetail nicely (though one is a definition of what NLP is or does, the others are a criticism). As a contrast, we have
  1. Levelt (1995) criticising the meta-model for being based on untested theory, which
  2. conflicts with what NLP says (that it was based on "what worked" for Perls and Satir).
We should present Levelt's criticism, but also include that he does not believe it was based on modeling. Greg 02:46, 23 March 2006 (UTC)


Camridge, I think we should include exactly what you just said in this article. Currently the article reads, "NLP is based on New Age principles [7] such as the belief in unlimited potential through access to subconscious engrams [8], and body language cues derived from the observation of “therapeutic wizards” [9]." I think we should say how NLP proponents claim NLP was developed, and then list the other expert opinions, and then list the convergence/consensus. Alex Krupp 14:26, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Hi GregA. NLP books say all kinds of things, and they also NLP is based on psychology, neuroscience, and other sciences. They also say it is based on neurolinguistics. They have been criticised for this within the article.Camridge 06:10, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
A lot of theories of NLP have been developed after the process eg, the unified field theories of NLP (that place spirituality and PRS at the core).Camridge 06:10, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
I have no problem with presenting Levelt's view on what NLP is not. He also says it is clearly not neurolinguistics. Camridge 06:10, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Also, NLP is criticised for not being a science - and we don't mention that there is no debate at all that NLP teachings do not teach the scientific method. Again, this links to NLP's basic principles of modeling which are distinctly different to statistical methods of psych research. Some of the criticisms, and the NLP claims, are one and the same - and that is not at all clear currently. When there is a criticism "NLP doesn't do X and this is bad because it means Y", the response can agree with the accusation, but not that it's bad. eg "Yes, NLP doesn't do X, since our focus is on Z" Greg 02:46, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
NLP has been claiming its empiricism since the start, and making claims that it is a science. It has been criticised for saying so and this is presented in the article. Camridge 06:10, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Yes. And you missed the point. NLP never claims "scientific method". Greg 20:58, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Naturally (ignoring that NLP is distinctly different to Psychology) - the question of whether an NLP process works can be tested at least as well as a psychotherapy is tested, using psychological/statistical methods (note: There are lots of problems with testing psychotherapies though!). NLP's Rep Systems were extensively tested and little evidence was found (someone (Platt?) said that 2/3 of the rep-system studies showed no effect, 1/3 found an effect). NLPers have their response of course (if you haven't read it let me know). There have also been studies on the overall effectiveness of NLP-in-therapy which have clearly shown a good effect, but haven't proven specifically what caused the effect and whether it was anything to do with NLP. So there's an argument that if the underlying principle (rep systems) doesn't work at all, but the overall NLP therapy does work - then the NLP-therapy works for something other than it's underlying NLP principles (and hence, why bother with the "NLP" bit). Greg 02:46, 23 March 2006 (UTC)


If a process can't be tested then it is probably pseudoscientific. If it has been tested, found to be false, but continues to be presented, then it is certainly pseudoscientific. PRS and RS are the core of NLP, and they were found to be false. Similar theories of accelertate learning styles (VAK) have been found to be false. SHarpley's review said that NLP "may" be like psychoanalysis (a pseudoscience) in that it is hard to measure. But then he said that if an aspect of it has been found to be false, then it is relegated from that position (relegated from pseudoscience, to a more false version of pseudoscience). Since Sharpley (1987) the reviews have been even harsher and now NLP appears in the Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience in the new age category. Camridge 06:10, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
However, the underlying principles that are unsupported are all Rep-System work (and this is debated). NLP is much more than rep systems. You ask about metamodel research - There are a few papers supporting it, but there is a LOT of research on the meta-model principles within CBT literature supporting the same concepts in CBT. The way of working with the meta-model is really similar to CBT - questioning people's distorted view of the world, overgeneralisations etc. See cognitive distortions for some info on CBT's version of the same meta-model ideas you mention above (you'll probably notice it also includes some other NLP concepts). Meta-model and Cognitive distortions appear to have been developed entirely separately around the same time, I've asked and I don't know who was first with the linguistic challenges - CBT certainly existed before NLP but it was significantly different to what it is today. Greg 02:46, 23 March 2006 (UTC)


CBT is not pseudoscientific, and no CBT book will claim that you have amazing resources, you can use your spirituality to overcome adversity, you can walk over hot coals etc. You are confusing science with pseudoscience. Camridge 06:10, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
I don't know anything about CBT, but Camridge you seem to be making a jab at NLP here. NLP, at least from the modeling perspective, claims that it will be able to help you to do what others can already do. So unless others are able to use their spirituality to overcome adversity, NLP doesn't claim to be able to help you to do this. Alex Krupp 14:46, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Hello Alex3971. Actually Bandler states that he used spirituality to "cure" a homosexual of homosexuality. Page 152 Frogs into Princes. Looks like another good example for the article. ATB. Camridge 02:50, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks Camridge, I must have missed that in my first reading. Alex Krupp 16:39, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Camridge. That's a great example because it is from a seminal NLP text by B&G. It is not stated explicitly whether its Bandler or Grinder talking but is does sound like Bandler. I cringe whenever I read that "case report". It is a gem. The stratagem of NLP proponents to avoid the embarassment and loss of credibility from "case reports" like this is to claim that B&G are just "eliciting state", that the "case reports" aren't supposed to be factual that they're part of B&Gs elaborate and intricate communications with the unconscious mind, that they are meptaphorical or allegorlical. This tactic is resorted to as it suits, with the more banal "case reports" being factual or literal of course. GregA and C, do you have any objectons to the inclusion of the "Fast Homosexuality Cure" (pp. 152-3 of Frogs)in the article? I am tantalised at the prospect of reading some spurious and disingenuous reason for its exclusion. flavius 12:44, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
I don't think it should be included, at least not based on this example, because B&G make no claims here at least that NLP can systematically cure homosexuality. According to the text the man was always a heterosexual who just thought he was gay. (If you don't think this is possible, hang out in #wikipedia sometime:).) If the man was gay but thought he was straight then would we be making a big deal out of NLP being used to cure heterosexuality? Alex Krupp 13:44, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Hi Alex. Thanks. I believe we can reserve the Bandler 10 minute homosexuality cure good example of the early use of spirituality in NLP. Regards HeadleyDown 13:51, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Alex, no there is no "Cure Homosexuality Pattern" but such a "pattern" is consistent with the NLP core belief that all behaviour is learned. There is no allowance in any NLP training that I am aware of -- and that includes Dilts, Bandler, Grinder, Hall and James -- that makes any concession to the biological origins of certain behaviours. The "10 Minute Homosexuality Cure" in Frogs is predicated on this notion. The notion that a man that has lived as a homosexual for 25 years -- whose erotic target has been other men -- can "revert" to heterosexuality as a result of a miraculous single session "treatment" is unadulterated bullshit. The notion that someone's "unconscious mind" can make them homosexual is equally without merit. Smuggled into this (most likely fabricated case history) is the notion that sexual orientation can be a matter of volition and learning. This is one of many cases where B&G do venture into theory and explanation, which they shouldn't if they are genuinely appealing to a fictionalist epistemology. Besides being an example of pseudoscientists propagating a myth that homosexuals can be made (which feeds the myth that homosexuals "recruit" into their ranks) and hence unmade it is an example of the selfish, narcissistic and hateful attitude that fuels many NLPers. Tad James not only claims he can cure cancer and depression he tells us that when he fails to get a cure it is because the patient just doesn't want to get better, that there must be some secondary gain. This is similar to when Bandler asserts that depression, schizophrenia, and even psychosis with catatonic features are "skills" and that people choose to be ill with these illnesses and that they can simply learn a different "skill" if they really want to. This is hateful and anti-human and is no different from when Shirley MacLean at the height of her popularity as a New Age exponent informed us that the people starving to death in the Third World choose this way of life either at the point of conception when they decide which zygote to inhabit or through their thoughts. This is the dirty flipside of the belief in unlimited human potential:if you are suffering it is because you want to or you need to. When Tom Cruise publicly chastised Brooke Shields for resorting to SSRIs to treat her post-partum depression instead of using CoS "Tech" he was expressing this vey attitude which underlies all New Age and Human Potential groups. This too is the problem with the "Instant Intoxication Cure" in Insider's which I have quoted. The idea is that alcohol intoxication too is a "skill" -- you get drunk not because of the effects of alcohol on your brain it is because you aren't using the "right" submodalities. Spin the room the other way tells us Will Macdonald and you'll sober up within 15 minutes and you won't have a hangover the next day. Besides being socially irresponsible -- which is a trait of all of the NLP trainers that I am familiar with -- this is indicative of the imperialism and magickal thinking that underlies NLP. The mind is all powerful, capable of anything and everything, it is unconstrained by the body or by the laws of physics that prevail over the universe. Telling somone that has a mental illness that is known to have biological origins (eg. schizophrenia) that they have "learnt" schizophrenia or that their illness is due to a "double-bind" which their parents inflicted upon them or that they choose to be ill because they are gaining in some way or they have chosen to be homosexual is profoundly anti-human, hateful and devoid of any empathy. The instant homosexuality cure, the instant intoxication cure, James' cancer cure and Bandler's claims to be able to cure any mental illness (which are made in his seminars rather than his books) should be presented in the article. They demonstrate the hatefullness and imperialism which is endemic to NLP. They needn't be embellished in any way. Simply presenting them "as is" is sufficient Res Ipsa Loquitur. There are ample morally obsecene and offensive examples avilable. flavius 06:08, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
Flavius I think you're superimposing your preconceptions on top of the text. The fact that NLP presuppositions have some things in common with the beliefs of bigots in no way makes NLPers bigots. My kindergarten teacher always told me that I could do anything if I put my mind to it, does that make her a bigot? NLPers may be bigots, but the text you quoted in Frogs into Princes simply doesn't support that. Alex Krupp 19:34, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
Alex, I don't think you are reading me correctly. The texts that I referenced aren't supposed to present a definitive case that NLP "therapists" are narcissistic, ugly and hateful. The examples would serve only to demonstrate a mentality that is common to NLPers and well-to-do First World WASPs that are immersed in New Age beliefs that pretend to be empathetic, altruistic and humanistic. I don't think there is a comparison to be drawn between your kindergarten teachers words of encouragement and Rex Sikes telling an adult ADHD sufferer that his condition is a skill or Bandler telling a herd of seminar attendants that schizophrenia is a skill and schizophrenics cause their illness through their thinking or Tad James asserting that a person with depression isn't repsonding to his brilliant technology because they want to hold on to their depression because of some putative benefit. It takes a narcissitic misanthrope to tell a person that is suffering from a disease of biological origin that they are either obtaining secondary gain and hence wilfully ill or have aqcuired a "skill" that they can readily dispense with. This misanthropy -- disguised as empowerment -- is standard practice amongst NLP "therapists". See for example [194]. The inclusion of the homosexuality cure, schizophrenia as skill and other such examples server to illustrate this mentality. I'm not claiming that NLPers are bigots i.e. prejudiced against homosexuals, I did not use the word "bigot" that was your contribution. My point is that this imperialistic claim of unbounded human potential and the pre-eminence of the mind over all matters physical and mental -- which is promoted as good thing, an "empowering" thing -- has an ugly corollary. Anyone that imbibes the foundational beliefs of NLP regarding the unlimited power of the mind, the implicit unbounded free-will and unbounded human potential simulatenously takes on a misanthropic, narcissistic and hateful attitude. The sufferer becomes a selfish manipulator of others (using the illness to obtain some benefit), someone unwilling to rid themselves of their negative programming or non-useful "skills" or a fool that has bought into the pharmaceutical industries propaganda that disease X can be treated with drugs. This misanthropy is given full-expression in Frank Farrelly's so-called Provocative Therapy (which influenced NLP and has been rediscovered by many NLPers) where the patient is systematically ridiculed, humiliated, verbally abused, denigrated and tormented so as to cause the patient to [a]ffirm his self-worth, both verbally and behaviorally...[and a]ssert himself appropriately both in task performances and relationships"[195]. Telling a schizophrenic that their illness is a skill and that if they really want to get better and if they perform their prescribed NLP rituals faithfully they will be cured, is a form of psychological abuse. Taking the money of schizophrenics in exchange for getting them to perform ritual borrowed from Golden Dawn, Thelema, wicca and shamanism is economic exploitation. Telling schizophrenics that they are not getting better because they don't really want to adds guilt and shame to their mix of disturbing affects and is especially cruel and misanthropic. The NLP approach to mental illness is comparable to medieval notions of demonic possession as the cause of mental illness. NLP is a backward and primitive approach to mental health and the article should communicate this. This would be adequately communicated by the inclusion of some of the many lurid examples drawn from NLP texts and seminars. No commentary is needed. They speak for themselves. flavius 01:23, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


Flavius Wrote: It takes a narcissitic misanthrope to tell a person that is suffering from a disease of biological origin that they are either obtaining secondary gain and hence wilfully ill or have aqcuired a "skill" that they can readily dispense with. This misanthropy -- disguised as empowerment -- is standard practice amongst NLP "therapists". See for example [196].
Flavius I think it is time for you to take a wiki break. I gave the article you link to a careful reading. What the article says is that 1) people who are sick and believe they will get better are more likely to get better, and 2) people who are sick but believe they will get worse are more likely to get worse. These claims have been tested hundreds of times and there is no doubt within the mainstream scientific community that they are true. There is a profound relationship between mental and physical health: doctors won't do operations on people who are nervous because they bleed more and heal slower, and stress is worse for your body than smoking a pack a day. All the author is suggesting is that doctors should harness the placebo effect by treating patient's minds along with their bodies IN ADDITION to the standard medical treatment. Your claims that NLP makes suffering worse by blaming the victim for the disease are simply not supported by the article you linked to. By spreading FUD you are wasting the time of those who actually look into your claims and you are making it more difficult to improve the article. Alex Krupp 02:08, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Hello Alex3917. Your's and Flavius' discussion is constructive. We have several sources stating that NLP practitioners are commonly unable to show ethical consideration to treating members of the public. We have also uncovered some areas that are hard to understand are require clarification in the article. For example, the notions surrounding efficacy and placebo are commonly confused. The Beyerstein/Tye section goes some way to clearing this up. When editors have got round to verifying these sources, things will move forward faster. ATB. Camridge 03:43, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Camridge thanks for clarifying efficacy vs placebo effect. With respect to the ethics of NLP practioners, I believe the claims that they are unethical. What bothers me are the claims that the cited references advocate these practices when the texts themselves say otherwise. Alex Krupp 04:35, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Alex, maybe you should re-read the article:"Many years ago, whilst living abroad with an alcoholic partner a dreadful row ensued. I told him that I hoped he would crash the car and die. I also added that I hoped he wouldn’t damage my car. Two days later my partner did crash the car and died. The car was virtually unharmed. My mother had an argument with a builder and hissed at him ‘I hope you die of a heart attack’. One week later he died – of a heart attack. Susan got breast cancer. On the advice of a friend, a kinesiologist, Susan went to the States and worked with an NLP practitioner. Her breast cancer disappeared. When she returned to the UK she became pregnant. Her doctor was horrified. He said “You stupid woman, how can you get pregnant – you have cancer?” Shortly after the child was born, the cancer resurfaced, all over her body. Susan’s friend called me in desperation seeking another NLP therapist for Susan. Two days after seeing the therapist, Susan had a scan. The cancer had shrunk considerably.

Were my mother and I unconsciously using the latent power of hexing? Was the doctor instrumental in the resurgence of Susan’s cancer? Did the work the therapist did with Susan help her to fight the cancer? The average Joe in the street would probably dismiss this all as coincidence. I’m not convinced that coincidence is the only explanation...A couple of years ago, Richard’s wife Paula was stricken by a very rare dis-ease. The doctors told Paula that she may never walk again. When Richard heard this, he immediately removed his wife from the hospital and proceeded to use all his skills to hypnotically re-programme the hexing Paula had received from her doctors. Today Paula is fully recovered and has resumed her active life. Last month she spent an entire day walking round Disneyland. [The article of wasn't to with the facts of Paula Bandler's death.]...You might not even realise it, but people are hexing you all the time."[197] There is no evidence that I know -- and the author doesn't cite any -- that hexing and cursing as described exist. Are you serious? The author suggests that she cursed her partner and because of that he died and true to her curse the car in which he died was "virtually" undamaged. It is beyond my comprehension how you reduced the outlandish and far-fetched claims in the article down to "1) people who are sick and believe they will get better are more likely to get better, and 2) people who are sick but believe they will get worse are more likely to get worse." The article is about hexing and it illustrates my very point. It isn't about stress and surgical haemorrage and post-operative recovery -- where on earth did you get that from? The author explicitly states, "How powerful is thought and the way we transmit it to others? If, as Dossey meticulously documents, we can influence others with our words and prayers, what lesson is here for the healing professions?" She's not talking about peoples' own beliefs she's concerned with what is conventionally described as cursing or hexing and her claims extend beyond the nocebo effect. The nocebo effect won't cause a car to be "virtually unharmed". She says, "I believe every one of us has the potential to be a negative hexer or a positively powerful healer." and clearly she believes that thoughts have supernatural power, "I also added that I hoped he wouldn’t damage my car. Two days later my partner did crash the car and died. The car was virtually unharmed". Peta Heskell is a well-known NLP trainer and her advice is harmful. Looking for the cause -- no not influence but cause "Was the doctor instrumental in the resurgence of Susan’s cancer?" -- of cancer in an utterance and seeking a cure in other utterances ("When Richard heard this, he immediately removed his wife from the hospital and proceeded to use all his skills to hypnotically re-programme the hexing Paula had received from her doctors.") is plainly irresponsible and harmful. A belief that people can utter statements that express a malicious desire is primitive, superstitious and at the least causes fear and anxiety and at the worst a form of delusion and paranoia. How did you read the article and miss this: "What if, when faced with what they consider to be terminal cases, doctors were a) able to talk positively to their clients and give them hope and b) willing to refer them to alternative practitioners? (italics added) How did you manage to reconcile that with your emphasised "IN ADDITION to the standard medical treatment". What Peta Heskell is asking is that doctors palm off their terminal ill patients to quacks so that they can be milked of whatever they have left of their depleted savings -- dead people don't sue. This is the NLPers wet-dream isn't it? If you don't regard charging terminally ill people US$100-$5000 per session to remove the hexes that doctors and other have put upon them (that are causing their illness) then I have no interest in any further discussion with you. Also, your ability to think analogocically is impaired. Your two responses to me each contained a gross disanalogy. There are no comparable qualities (which would produce a fruitful analogy) shared by the case of your kindergarten teacher encouraging you and the case of a NLPer claiming that the origin of all ills (mental and physical). Similarly, there is nothing analogous between telling someone you wish they die in a car crash and that the car remains undamaged and the malicious desire being manifested and the connection between stress and ill-health and surgical complications. Furthermore you are confusing the effects of non-specific effects (eg. placebo, doctor-patient relationship, patient expectations, therapist charisma) on healthcare with the effect of excessive physiological and psychological "stress" on health. The two are unrelated. There is no evidence that "stress is worse for your body than smoking a pack a day". Can you direct me to any peer-reviewed research that makes this strong conclusion? "Stress" is a normal feature of life the absence of it produces boredom and under-performance. It is an excess of stress that is harmful to health and even then it doesn't have a causative role in ill-health, it's role is contributory. Smoking on the other hand does play a causative role in the development of numerous illnesses including emphysema and lung cancer (and yes I can provide you many citations). I know no medical doctors that refuse to perform sugery because a patient is nervous. Almost all patients are nervous before surgery -- if what you were saying is true then there'd be hardly any adult surgery and no paediatric surgery. The purpose of the "pre-med" administered by the anesthetist is to relieve anxiety. Per-operative anxiety is so common that premedication with anxiolytics is routine surgical procedure. Surgeons do often refuse to operate on smokers because of their increased risk of thrombosis, respiratory and wound infection infection, necrosis retarded post-operative wound healing.[198]. Humans have adapted to deal with physiological and psychological strain -- they actually need it in moderate amounts -- but they have no adapation (or need) for tar, nicotine and carbon monoxide. You are disseminating misinformation. Regarding FUD, what can be more characteristic of FUD than the idea that peoples words can give you cancer? flavius 04:59, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Flavius, you are again misusing the primary texts to make your point. If you had quoted the very next sentence, you would see that the full quote is, "What if, when faced with what they consider to be terminal cases, doctors were a) able to talk positively to their clients and give them hope and b) willing to refer them to alternative practitioners? These professions should not be at odds, but should work together to create holistic health care. Bandler agrees." That is how I managed to reconcile that the article suggests using alternative therapies IN ADDITION to standard medical care. The anecdotes in the article seem fabricated. However, I don't see any evidence for your claims that NLPers are claiming that NLP is able to systematically make people crash their cars or cure cancer. These anecdotes, probably fabricated, are only used to lend support to the idea that people are more likely to get healthy if they believe they will or die if they believe they will. Which is true. And if you read the article, hexing isn't used to mean a supernatural spell. When the author says the doctors put a hex on a patient, they simply mean that the doctor's method of communication is causing the patient to be depressed which makes the healing process more difficult. From Emotional Intelligence p. 168, "For instance, Dr. Camran Nezhat, an eminent gynecological laparosopic surgeon at Stanford University, says, "If someone schedules for surgery tells me she's panicked that day and does not want to go through with it, I cancel the surgery." Nezhat explains, "Every surgeon knows that people who are extremely scared do terrible in surgery. They bleed too much, they have infections and complications. They have a harder time recovering. It's much better if they are calm." The rest of my claims come from chapter 11 of this book. Anyway, I know I confused the placebo affect with the effects of optimism or whatever. Mea Culpa. That being said, after reading the article twice I still find no evidence that NLP blames the victim for illnesses of biological cause. Nor I do see any evidence that NLP is a panacaea that can cure any medical disease. The article says that doctors who instill a positive outlook on their patients are following best practices, and NLP is one way of doing that. It says we all have the power to create positive or negative emotions (called hexing) in others. Maybe using NLP isn't sound advice, but it's a far cry away from your claims about what the article says. Alex Krupp 16:04, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Hello Alex. Nobody is going to quote Flavius in the article. However, there are plenty of experts who share his view and we can place those views in the article. Regards HeadleyDown 17:51, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


HeadleyDown I'm assuming this is some inside joke based on previous discussion I missed. Anyway, if NLP really does advocate having a quick fix for homosexuality then we should include that. However, this one anecodote doesn't really suggest that. B&G mention one guy who came in and asked for help with a problem, they hypnotized him, and he blurted out that he was living as a homosexual but he really wasn't. I don't see in any way how this represents a claim that NLP can make gay people straight. I know that some Christian sects believe that homosexuality is a disease that must be cured, so if B&G have these beliefs then I suppose it would be guilt by association. However so far I don't even see any evidence of B&G having anything against homosexaulity. Perhaps it has been discussed before and I never made it that far in the archives...Alex Krupp 14:21, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Hi Alex. I'm relieved that you recognize humour. I do suggest that it is carefully applied. The intention here is to show that there is the use of spirituality throughout NLP, even in its very early texts. I'm sure there is more of the same to come. Regards HeadleyDown 03:47, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
Oh, you may want to read up on Dilt's NLP Healing Patterns of Jesus of Nazareth, or his Spiritual Toolbox. There are a great many claims in NLP. The exagerated claims in NLP have recieved a great deal of criticism from many quarters (over four quarters at least:). Grinder, a key originator has also claimes such things in relation to shamanic healing rituals within NLP. Tony Robbins still claims that NLP can help you walk over burning hot coals. Please don't try it at home, because it doesn't work with proper hot coals. Only with specially prepared ones that he uses in his "peak experience" firewalking ritual. Regards HeadleyDown 15:11, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
True Camridge. And it is immensely valuable to say what is similar, and what is different, with EVERY association we make (NLP is like X).Greg 20:58, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Hello GregA. I really hope you see the possibility of cooperation on this point. The non-advocates have always been interested in NPOV fairness and balance, supplying the article with good research, and briefly clarifying the text. And now we may even have a chance to properly re-attribute the facts after the last months of constant deletions. The only things we object to are unclear definitions, "sexy" and confusing NLP language, and the removal of scientific views. We have a great deal of literature that says what NLP is not or what NLP is not like. For example, Levelt says NLP is not neurolinguistics. Yet we have NLPers saying (and implying) it is neurolinguistics. This could do with brief inclusion in the article, and I am sure you will agree as it fits closely with your statement above. There are many other such points that show what NLP is not (eg, it is not scientifically supported, yet we have some NLPers saying/or implying it is). Lets cooperate on these points and have them thoroughly clarified in the article. Camridge 03:11, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Headley - the firewalking is another excellent example. The coals they use really aren't that hot - but people think they are. In life, people worry about some things that are far easier than they realise, and exposure to the unreasonable fear in a safe manner allows the brain to relearn its way of doing thigns. This is a metaphor for breaking an anxiety pattern (identical to Behavioural Therapy CBT... but metaphoric). AND it's not true (since the coals aren't that hot). Greg 20:58, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Katefan.. sorry, I've gone theory again. I think the above demonstrates the need to differentiate "what works" from "truth" early. If Alex doesn't propose a section, I will (and will ask his help). Greg 20:58, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
No worries, GregA. The firewalking example is not theory. It can be added to the article as an example of what is daft and dangerous in NLP. Try it at home, and you will suffer injury. Regards HeadleyDown 01:29, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Note that no individual practitioner represents NLP, firewalking is an Anthony Robbins thing. And you've just made obvious the differences in our POV. I'm talking about what NLP teaches, you're talking about how it can be misused Greg 05:51, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
T Robbins is a key promoter of NLP according to many independent sources. His claim that NLP can allow you to walk barefoot on hot coals has been criticised for being both fraudulent and dangerous. Indeed that can be clarified in the article. Camridge 07:35, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Lastly, I like your religious analogy to "what works". Whether god exists or not - does believing in god benefit people? That's exactly the question NLP asks of a belief. For many, many years people have believed things that science shows are wrong. NLP simply asks "is it useful to believe that, in this context?" (linked to the questions of consequences of believing it, effects on others, etc). From this example - does believing in god have a beneficial effect on society? Greg 02:46, 23 March 2006 (UTC)


Scientific reviews have already stated that NLP is ineffective. "Do what works" is commonly referred to as the mantra of pseudoscience according to Eisner, Lilienfeld and many other reviewers. ATB Camridge 06:10, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
ps. Camridge hasn't really responded to any of your questions of (a) NLPs stated focus on "what works", nor (b) the research both for and against (he does say there is NO support at all I think). Instead, he claims (c) NLP was developed from occult rituals (ignoring modeling and patterns). He does mention postmodern new-age and I think the post-modern association is a real similarity (this refers to registered Psychologists who say that statistical/quantitative research is not enough and qualitative and subjective experiences are valid - (have a quick look at [199])) Greg 02:46, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Hello GregA. Subjective experiences were measured in studies and these have been taken into account by reviewers such as Singer, Eisner, Lilienfeld, and so on. They all state that NLP is ineffective, doubtful, dubious, pseudoscientific and so on. ATB. Camridge 06:10, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
GregA/Greg/G?. This is yet another case of your cherry picking sources as it suits you. Constructivist Psychology is not mainline psychology and the naked assertions of "registered pcychologists" irrespectective of their number does not establish validity or substance let alone truth. It is this type of appeal to authority that Lilienfeld (2003) and Dawes' House of Cards: Psychology and Psychotherapy Built on Myth thoroughly debunk. To be blunt who cares what a group of registered psychologists "say" all that matters is what they can prove. Just as there are quacks with MD or MB BS that are registered to practice (so long as they successfully evade malpractice registration and deregistration) there are quack psychologists. Postmodernism is dead -- it's deader than disco. Every aspect of postmodern theory and practice -- in all disciplines -- has been so thoroughly critiqued and discredited it survives only amongst zealots just like Marxism (which at one stage was used to "inform" every discipline, yes, even psychology) does. Constructivist Psychology is thoroughly postmodern and hence thoroughly without basis. Basing a defence of NLP on postmodernist principles is still-born. You would not be building on weak foundations but instead in imaginary ones. flavius 01:25, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Refer to me as GregA or Greg in future.
Are you seriously accusing me of appeal to authority, and then straight away appealing to authority yourself? :) Greg 05:51, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
GregA or Greg, I am accusing you of an appeal to authority but I'm not resorting to the same thing. Lilienfeld et al and Dawes are replete with references to empirical evidence. Post-modernism has been critiqued to death. There are enough fatal critiques of post-modernism (as applied to ethics, epistemology, aesthetics, political theory, science, technology, economics, sociology, anthropology, history, literary theory sychology and psychiatry) to fill a book. Post-modernists have failed to answer these critiques and consequenly post-modernism's influence started to decline in the 1990s. In relation to science and maths the so-called Sokal Affair was the last nail in the coffin of post-modern critiques of science and math. In relation to epistemology and philosophy of science some of the most devastating critiques of anti-realism (i.e. post-modern philosophy of science) came from Mario Bunge. I could go on and on about this topic, however I'm not obliged to educate you. Go to your nearest reference library. If you can find a sound peer-reviewed rebuttal of criticism of post-modernist theory in any field other than art (where it is largely inconsequential and has produced some interesting paintings and films) then let me know. I know of none. flavius 15:56, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Let's focus on the article, please. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 03:10, 23 March 2006 (UTC)


Hi Kate, the above description comes down to a simple 'philosophical' change, with a few complicated effects.
Can we provide a section early in the article to describe NLP's focus on "what works" vs "what's true". It might clarify some of the later disputes. This section may also have the existing "history of NLP", and "NLP modeling" sections moved in as subheadings.
My question to you and others is: Is this, in theory, okay? If so, we can discuss how specifically to do it. Greg 03:28, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Proposing discrete language (or, in fact, just inserting whatever you propose into the workshop page) is fine. Chatting about theories isn't. Talk pages should be used to discuss changes to the article, not to discuss the article's subject in general. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 03:30, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Greg, Alex. I'll try to honour Katefan0's admonition reagrding discussing the article rather then the topic and in the process I hope to address your concerns as a secondary effect. The empirical research underatken into NLP thus far has been concerned with whether "it works" and the balance of it indicates that it doesn't work. Furthermore there is no research that indicates that NLP works i.e. exhibits anything other than non-specific effects. I covered this issue of "what works" versus "what's true" in an early incarnation of the article and Comaze -- who sits firmly on the pro-NLP side -- described it as an exemmplary piece of writing save the small amount of OR. This matter has been covered and it will recur so the matter should be covered in the article. The epistemological theory that you are describing and that B&G specifically appeal to via their copius quoting from Vaihingher's The Philsosopy of 'As-If' is termed fictionalism (which is a type of instrumenalism). Headley, Camridge et al and especially me are well aware of this, you aren't raising anything new. However, NLP fails the fictionalist criterion of utility, i.e. it doesn't work, hence it is't useful. I repeat, there is absolutely no evidence in the form of randomised studies reported in peer-reviewed publiccations that demonstrate the efficacy of NLP beyond non-specific factors. None. Zip. Zero. Zilch. A practice that is justified in terms of fictionalism can still be tested: either matching/mirroring increase rapport or they don't, either eye accessing cues work or they don't, either the fast phobia cure cure works or it doesn't. Another matter that we -- we on the critical side -- are cognizant of but we whioch we are repeatedly reminded is the distnction between NLP modeling and NLP applications. Given the recurrence of this issue something should be added to athe article about this. There is no evidence -- absolutely none -- that NLP modeling works. None. Zip. Zero. Zilch. Hence, the appeal to fictionalist epistemology doesn't help NLP here either. So even if we set aside NLPs theoretical basis and look exclusivbely at the evidence of results, NLP is withou use since it doesn't work. NLP modeling too is taken from Eastern and Western Magick. The notion that you can assume the qualities of something that you imitate is strong in the Yogic and Shamanic traditions. Mircea Eliade in "Shamanism: Archaic Techniques of Ecstasy" (1963) -- which is an authoritative study of Shamanism -- has covered this matter in detail (not specifically in connection with NLP of course). This very notion is the basis of NLPmatching/mirroring. The idea being that by imitating the person's gestures, tonality, sensory predicates, posture, breathing and emotionality you become like the person -- some NLPers say you become the person in a superficial sense -- and this purportedly heightens rapport because the person is in a sense agreeing with himself. "Imitating the gait of an animal or putting on its skin was acquiring a superhuman mode of being... by becoming this mythic animal, man becomes something far greater and stronger than himself... He who, forgetting the limitations and false measurements of humanity, could rightly imitate the behavior of animals their gait, breathing, cries, and so on-found a new dimension in life: spontaneity, freedom, 'sympathy' with all the cosmic rhythms and hence bliss and immortality" (Eliade, 1963, p.460). The notion that mimesis is magickal can also be found in the Yogic tradition where the asanas are imitations of animal postures and movement. We can also find magickal mimesis in Kung-Fu , Chi Kung and Tai Chi -- there are in fact schools of Kung-Fu named and styled after animals eg. White Crane, Monkey, Praying Mantis etc. It is a matter of historical fact that B&G were deeply immersed in Shamanism and that Bandler was immersed (and remains immersed) in Crowlian Western Magick. Crowley wrote oneof the first English books on Yoga. NLP is -- as Camridge put it -- an amalgam of numerous Magickal and Occult traditions (Crowley's Magick, Golden Dawn, and Shamanism) given a thin veneer of technicality (via the redundant mathamtical and logical formalisms in Magic I&II and Patterns I&II) and (pseudo-) scientific buffing (via references to neurology and scietfic sounding jargon such as "pragmagraphics", "submodalities", "VAKOG" etc.). NLP is just Magick -- ask anyone that has studied both. Many NLPers "advance" to Magick because they find out that NLP is just a "chepened" imitation packaged for mass consumption. There are authors such as Phil Farber and Phil Hine that consider themselves Magick practitioners and NLPers. Since OR is forbidden I would like to include their material in the overlap between NLP and Magick. flavius 00:28, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Flavius, that was exactly what I wanted to know. I think we are making progress here. Alex Krupp 16:39, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Man, are the postures (asanas) in Yoga (like "downward dog") really considered "magickal". (Where do you get these spellings?). Will answer anything serious in appropriate change request Greg 05:51, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
GregA, I can't tell whether you're referring to my abundant typos or the term "magickal". Crowley coined the term magick to distinguish spell casting, rituals, sigils etc from magic i.e. conjuring. Crowley added the 'k' because it is is "numerologically correct". Magick is standard, widely rcognised jargon amongst occultists. It is their terminology. The Yoga that is taught in YMCAs and gymnasiums is a sanitised and stripped down version for Western participants -- it is not authentic Yoga. The asanas are indeed supposed to be magickal. Are you not familiar with Yogic chakra theory and kundalini? Refer [200][201] for excerpts of translations of original Hatha Yoga texts. Refer [202] for a description of authentic Yoga. I am being entirely serious. NLP modelling is nothing more than the mimesis that you find in Eastern and Western occult and Magick. flavius 15:04, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks Flavius. Further to your helpful explanation, here is just a taste of the literature that supports the accredited NLP practitioner view that NLP is magick: [203]. She states "NLP has been around longer than we can remember, though it has only been known by that name for only the past 25 - 30 years. The ancients referred to the use of this knowledge as magick and today, you’ll find NLP methodologies used in both spiritual and psychological work". This lady has a MNLP qualification and is devoted to NLP. There are many more book sources to support this view. Camridge 02:57, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Camridge, there is also this one [204]. This person is accredited by Bandler's ociety and he was trained by Bandler, McKenna and Breen -- that's as mainstream as it gets in the NLP world. There are many more such trainers. When he says he has had training in "Western self-development traditions" he means Magick proper as the name of his site suggests (see his other pages where he gives the info out piece-by-piece). I also have Phil Hine's Chaos Magick which I'll revisit tomorrow if I have time. Hine explcitly mentions NLP. flavius 16:20, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Woah, some people are seriously cracked. I think this is safely an insignificant POV. Greg 05:51, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Hello GregA. This view is common in the NLP community. This simple link is just the tip of the iceberg. There are plenty more like it verifiable right now on the web and in the books from such developers as Dilts and Tad James. And there will be plenty more discovered over the next months this year. The view is very significant and representitive of the more obviously occult NLP practitioners such as Richard Bandler, et al. To restrict the views within the article to one of the most sanitised and "management guru" style would be strictly against NPOV policy. All views are to be fairly represented. I have a strong belief that we can cooperate on this point now and in the months to come. Camridge 06:25, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
GregA. I second Camridge's view. You are unfairly attemptng to characterise that trainer as a fringe crackpot. If she is a fringe crackpot then so too is Bandler, Grinder, Dilts, James, Cleveland, Jeffries, Farber,and even Hall and Belnap. In The Sourcebok of Magic (a popular compedium of NLP "patterns") is included the "Receiving Wisdom from Your Inner Sage Pattern" (pp. 108-9). That is coming from Hall, someone that is considered by many NLPers to be free of mysticism and occult in his teachings. Bandler teaches magick as part of his NLP Master Prac[205][206]. Your position is untenable. The evidence that NLP is magickal and shamanistic is overwhelming. flavius 15:18, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Well GregA, Richard Bandler is widely known for his shamanic magick practices, and Grinder teaches shamanic rituals in his seminars and books. Their occult connections are undeniable. Tad James teaches that if you go to his seminars, you will believe in past lives whether you did before or not. He also teaches Huna death curses to the more advanced students. He developed time line therapy, which is widely praised in NLP groups and considered a type of NLP. In Dilt's NLP coaching book, he prescribes rituals that involve dispelling demons, and more of the shamanic rituals borrowed from Grinder. Grinder used shamanic rituals to develop the earlier rituals of NLP that involve linking with your "horizon" and fundamentally changing your energies. If you think the above registered NLP practitioner is seriously cracked, then one might conclude that you think Grinder, Bandler and Dilts are seriously cracked also. The above link is completely consistent and congruent with NLP's literature. Regards HeadleyDown 11:21, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Headley et al. You may be interested to know that James' Time Line Therapy is a stripped down version of the Golden Dawn Ritual To Go Back in Time (that's what it's called). It is taught at the "Zelator Grade" of the Hermetic Order of The Golden Dawn. Its description can be found in the Zelator Initiation (I don't have an online link for this one but I'm sure someone has placed it on WWW). flavius 15:39, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks Flavius. Thats a new one on me. It does look all too familiar. Very Bandler! Regards HeadleyDown 18:58, 24 March 2006 (UTC)


Recap for this section:

OK, just coming back to answer the question of the faculty being poorly explained, and pulling the facts together:

The productive side of this section has brought a lot of new facts and links.

So do we agree that:

  • Bandler, Grinder, Dilts, Robbins, James, and many other NLP authors promote or teach some form of original or sanitized occult ritual in their books/teachings/seminars!
  • The aforementioned authors developed NLP rituals from occult rituals (eg Grinder’s perceptual positions (moving attention or energy (self) to another reality).
  • These are all pseudoscientific excuses according to the literature: (do what works, reality is subjective, we use another kind of truth, this may not work, holism). (Lilienfeld, Carroll, Drenth, and Singer for example)
I think the specific techniques NLP offers (eye movement, mirroring, etc.) are pseudoscientific. I think the presuppositional beliefs would be better classed as religious though. Alex Krupp 14:54, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
  • NLP developers do claim that NLP is science or scientific. Science is arrived at using scientific method. For one example, Singer quotes Dilts saying that NLP is based on neuroscience, linguistics, and psychology.


Possible clarifications within different sections of this discussion:

The Beyerstein/Tye section pretty much explains the “mechanism” of any action from NLP. The science section already shows the major reviews of NLP (NLP is ineffective, and theoretically flawed according to THEIR review of all the research)

Regards HeadleyDown 14:30, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Alex, the presuppositions of NLP are not actually NLP beliefs - rather they are useful to presuppose when you're working with a person. An analogy is a dentist saying to a child "How much money did the tooth fairy give you for your last tooth?". The dentist doesn't believe it, the child may or may not believe it, but saying it as if it's true may be a useful thing for the dentist to do (depending on various factors of course, including the client's age in this case!). In _theory_ it might be because it distracts the child, or the child thinks of money, or thinks "my dentist believes in fairies!"... but the theory doesn't matter (to NLP), so long as asking this (for example) distracts the child from the dentist removing his/her tooth :)
Hello um whoever wrote this. Independent researchers state that NLP has a strong belief element, that it is a sect or a cult, and that nlp is a new age religion. They say this because NLP has a strong spiritual element. Do you deny what is written in the literature? Alex is totally correct, and neutral. NLP presups, are more accurately termed NLP presupositonal BELIEFS in NLP literature. The term "NLP presuppositional beliefs" will help the reader in this article. JPLogan 02:55, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
Headley, you wrote:

So do we agree that:

  • Bandler, Grinder, Dilts, Robbins, James, and many other NLP authors promote or teach some form of original or sanitized occult ritual in their books/teachings/seminars!
There seem to be a couple of questions here.
  1. I agree that Bandler & James advertise teaching some spiritual stuff side by side with the NLP (in contrast to teaching that it IS NLP). I agree that Anthony Robbins does firewallking in his seminar, and that he teaches NLP, but again, not that he says one is the other. NLP is widely applicable to many fields, and has often been applied to spiritual things.
  2. I do agree that Bandler, Grinder, Dilts, Robbins, and James represent a core group of NLP and what they say represent the widely held beliefs of NLP.
  3. I do agree that they teach "the circle of excellence" which involves imagining a visual cue, and then deliberately associating an emotion (or other state) with the imagined cue. Like Pavlov taught dogs to salivate when they hear a bell, NLP teaches people to change their state when they imagine a cue (rather than when they actually see or hear something)
  4. Note that further to #3, NLP teaches people to change their state when they see or hear an anchor from another person too. Greg 21:18, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Again, NLP is strongly spiritual according to independent researchers, and is spiritual according to NLP books. JPLogan 02:55, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

  • The aforementioned authors developed NLP rituals from occult rituals (eg Grinder’s perceptual positions (moving attention or energy (self) to another reality).
I agree that NLP studied anything in their vicinity which anyone claimed worked, found the bit that actually worked, and threw out the rest of the junk. NLP perceptual position definitely does teach that you can move your attention, and that you can expand how you see the world to see things from another angle ("develop a better subjective 'map'". However NLP does not teach there are multiple realities or that you can move to another reality) Greg 21:18, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Dilts states in the NLP Encyclopedia that perceptual positions were developed from occult/shamanic rituals, and that you use them to change realities and move energies. Look at the entry under Carlos Castaneda. The early development of NLP has a significant developmental influence from the occult. Those are Dilt's words, and they are echoed in Grinder's Whispering in the Wind. JPLogan 02:55, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

JP, Are you agreeing with what I'm saying? (see my query below) I hear you on the piece you're adding and would like to check it, separate to my question. Greg 04:27, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
  • These are all pseudoscientific excuses according to the literature: (do what works, reality is subjective, we use another kind of truth, this may not work, holism). (Lilienfeld, Carroll, Drenth, and Singer for example)
A few points again:
  1. Absolutely they say do what works and
  2. they say that YOUR interpretation and understanding of reality is subjective (not that reality itself is subjective).
  3. "We use another kind of truth"... I think that would need clarification since they say they don't really care if it's true, just whether it's true that saying it (or doing it) works... is that what you mean? It seems a repeat of the first excuse sentence. and they certainly don't teach or use the scientific method as part of NLP so that may be part of it.
  4. They also definitely say that "this may not work" and if it doesn't do something different. Though one of the previous criticisms you gave was that there were no boundary conditions (science defines contexts in which something doesn't work).
  5. Repeating the last criticism (#4), I'd agree that NLP teaches flexibility and not ever restricting yourself to one process. As you work with someone you may see small cues that something is useful and working, or something is not, and change to doing something else. I think NLP's claim, and Lilienfeld's criticism, agree on that.
Note that saying something like "Lilienfeld says NLP is holistic, which is an often used pseudoscience excuse" is not representing what NLP says, followed by what Lilienfeld says. It is all what Lilienfeld says.

NLP Made Simple by Harris, states that NLP is holistic. Yes, critics state that NLP uses abundant pseudoscientific excuses. JPLogan 02:55, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I think we're in agreement here about holistic (though I'd like to clearly define holistic). The pseudoscience reply is irrelevant... lets say what NLP says first. Greg 04:27, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
  • NLP developers do claim that NLP is science or scientific. Science is arrived at using scientific method. For one example, Singer quotes Dilts saying that NLP is based on neuroscience, linguistics, and psychology.
  1. Personally, I think the answer to this is yes, NLP developers claim NLP is scientific. And NLP does not use the scientific method. However, science is also described as "the systematic study of the structure and behaviour through observation and experiment". NLP modeling has specific steps for studying how someone does what they do, including observation and experiment.
  2. Dilts saying NLP is based on X or Y is probably a separate point to whether NLP is scientific - are you using that as an example of NLP claiming to be a science? or something else (sorry, not sure).

I agree with Headley. There are no valid excuses for this. None. Though the excuses can be quoted in the article as excuses. JPLogan 02:55, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Ummm, no valid excuses for what? For not using the scientific method? Anyway, I don't think it matters - it seems that both POVs dovetail nicely and can be presented, no?


I think there are many points of discussion above... though the main thing is to find what we do agree that is (1) representitive of NLP (and integrate that), then (2) find where NLP has different approaches (and integrate that). We also need to find where we both read the same book and take away an entirely different meaning and work out what's going on so we can represent it clearly. What of the above do you agree with - can we list those off for integrating, or not? Then we'll go to multiple POVs later Greg 21:18, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I think this is about verifying whats in the literature. To my knowledge, Headley's statements are all correct. The next step is to go ahead and validate the changes that have been made to Comaze's objections, to include what has been presented here with good quotes and refs, and to move forward regardless of whether people deny the existence of the views or not. JPLogan 02:55, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I haven't asked whether I am correct or Headley is correct - I've asked what Headley (and yourself and everyone else) actually AGREES on - so we can present that with consensus. I don't think you disagreed with anything I said - though you added another perspective. If you disagree with something I've said please let me know. Greg 04:27, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Recap-New Age aspects of NLP

Hello all. Considering the above constructive discussion, I believe we need to change quite a few sections.

  • There is a lot to do though, and I am quite overwhelmed by the range of choices.
  • The opening line of the article needs to include the term New Age. It is the preferred marketing category of NLP, and many independent researchers refer to NLP as new age.
  • Clarity is needed concerning the "magickal" aspects of NLP. Bandler teaches a form of wicca, Grinder teaches various forms of shamanism, Dilts teaches new age healing and also shamanism of the Grinder variety, and there are other authors such as Tad James, who openly teach NLP magick and Huna as an integral part of NLP. The weblinks above definitely corroborate this fact and even state that NLP is synonymous with magick. Additionally, many of the independent books on the new age, that place NLP as new age, talk of occult activities generally being used in new age groups. The most clarifying and technically correct term would be "occult". Shamanism, wicca and so on can be mentioned, but the occult label will be the most clarifying for the reader.
  • Clearly the spiritual healing elements of NLP need a better mention, and I think that can be done in the overview. NLP is considered part a kind of healing movement of the new age, and in this case, healing is related to channelling, ritual, relationship and prayer according to Dilts, Grinder and others.
  • Progress in general has been interesting. Certainly the non-advocates have shown a strong ability to "over-compromise". I don't believe this has done the reader any good at all. Simply state whats in the literature, and stick to facts. I believe I would have personally been completely overwhelmed in Katefan0's position, and though I don't believe the swish line is clear or correct at all, it is fine to move us on. It would be nice if the NLP advocates could check the work that has already been done on the attributions and adjustments to the objections they made (Dreyden, Beyerstein, and so on). Reinstating what's clearly stated in the literature would help reduce the overload. Discussing how to brevify the lines will be more constructively dealt with when discussion has become more fluent and productive. I welcome the mentor's suggestions on how to best direct the current movement towards cooperative editing. JPLogan 04:33, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Most of the New age/shamanism/occult/spiritual healing associations can be excluded because this does not appear in reputable/reliable peer-reviewed sources. See NOR, "But precisely because the expert community does not take their work seriously, they are almost never published in a reputable peer-reviewed publication, allowing us to apply this rule."
  • The same policy also excludes our personal experience, "This policy prohibits expert editors from drawing on their personal and direct knowledge if such knowledge is unverifiable." Verifiable does not mean, I read it on a web site, it means it was published by a reputable publisher, or better still by a peer-reviewed journal.
  • Also, "When characterizing people, events, or actions, assertions should likewise be attributed to an acceptable source." Wikipedia:Guidelines_for_controversial_articles ---=-C-=- 07:28, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
C, no NLP text is a reputable/reliable peer-reviewed source. I don't hink your reading of Wikipedia NOR policy is correct. Phil Hine and Phil Farber are not self-published (Farber is published by Eschaton and Hine is published by New Falcon Publications). Phil Farber is a well-known North American NLP trainer and practitioner. Phil Hine is considered an authority on Magick within the occult community. The expert community (i.e. psychologists, psychiatrists, lingusists, neurologists, anthropologists, sociologists, mathematicians, philosophers, logicians, computer scientists) don't take NLP seriously and NLP "results" aren't published in reputable peer-reviewed publications. This precludes the inclusion of many of the references you would like to have included in the article eg. Grinder's posts to his own "Whispering in the Wind" forum regarding NLP modeling, and Bolstadt's highly skewed summary of NLP research that he has put up on his website. These should be removed from the article. The offerings of NLP trainers as they are found on the WWW -- in the form of promotional material, articles and reviews -- are valid sources as descriptions of NLP. Why wouldn't they be? Are you suggesting that references to Bandler's NLP seminars shouldn't be included because he exposes aspects of NLP that don't suit your private agenda? Bandler, James, Dilts and Hall are major figures in the NLP industry. Your aim of excluding any reference to their embarassing seminars, books and articles is entirely arbitrary and without justification. This stratagem has been exercised by you and GregA for many months now and it has been the source of much conflict and stagnation. You and Greg have attempted numerous tactics in relation to this stratagem: (i) there is a true NLP that you and Greg (and presumably the other "graduates" of Inspiritive) have a nunique insight into and everything else is bastardisation. You suggested this very thing on my talk page. This is the One True Church approach or One True Communism tactic -- an old propganada device; (ii) pretend there is some definition of NLP that is universal and appeal to it 'As-If' there was hoping no-one will notice; (iii) unilaterally assert an arbitrary standard eg. books published by B&G before 1975; (iv) assert that the bibliography of an arbitrary book or obscure paper (eg. Mathison and Tosey) serves as a definition of NLP; (v) protest the inclusion of references on an ad hoc basis, selectively appealing to Wikipedia policy as it suits; (vi) insist on the acceptance of Grinder's arbitrary and not widely accepted even within the NLP community distnction between NLP modeling and NLP application and use it as a basis for censorship (there is no distinct NLP modeling that is the "core" of NLP -- the core of NLP is a set of assmptions and presuppositions that NLP modeling is itself based upon), NLP modeling is just another NLP "technique" and that is the view of most NLP trainers not mine). The NLP authorities -- and this includes Bandler, James, Dilts and Hall -- define NLP. There is no indepedent standard about what NLP is tha you can appeal to and it is not your or our place to attempt to formulate such a standard. By what possible authority can you stipulate that we confine our discussion to the bibliography of Mathison and Tosey's junk paper that wasn't published in a peer-reviewed repubale paper? Would Bandler agree with you that he hasn't been doing NLP after 1975? AFAIK Dilts considers all of his writings and training to be NLP -- he co-wrote the NLP Encyclopledia -- by what authority are you excluding Dilts' work? James too is a leading figure in the NLP industry and he regards Time Line Therapy as NLP and he teaches Huna "patterns" is his NLP trainings. If you and GregA want the article to progress rather than repeat history then both of you should cease attempting to invent and impose a standardised definition of NLP (something which never existed, doesn't exist and never will exist largely because the notion of demarcation and delineation is anthithetical to the post-modern worldview). I've spent much keystrokes on this matter with you before and your response was something along the lines of "you present a good argument I'll consider this and respond" yet you are still to respond. How can a post-modern, eclectic, social constructivist, anti-realist, decentralised, derivative, commercial enterprise -- that NLP is -- have a standardised definition imposed upon it? It can't. To borrow a post-modernist phrase that would be "doing violence" to NLP and those camps besides Grinder's. That would be committing the "pomo" sin of "rpivileging". Besides, it would be totally arbitrary, lacking authority and legitimacy. Finally, I think anyone is proposing to include their own original research or personal expertise. flavius 12:17, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Hello Kalauarana. Thanks! If you have anything more substantial to add please do, and invite all your friends to do the same. HeadleyDown 13:34, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Hi Kalauarana, I'd prefer if you didn't address an anti-NLP (or pro) group of editors; as wikipedians are we're all working towards a neutral point of view, WP:AGF. I've been restricting myself to specific statements that need to be check against wikipedia policies. see, WP:NPOV and other related wikipedia policies; this is our best chance at filtering out bias and inaccuracies to hopefully arrive at a Wikipedia 1.0 candidate. ---=-C-=- 08:21, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
C, with friends like Aaron Kulkis, Walter Bowart (Remember him? He was the guy that identified himself as the the author of "Operation Mind Control" and gave us his "authoritative" opinion on psychology, science and NLP) and Kalaurana who needs enemies? That NLP attracts "special" people like the aforementioned is sociologically significant. There are too many such "special" people with "special" needs involved with NLP to brush them off as people that are "very special" and rare. I encountered many "special" people that have "special" needs that aren't being met when I was an NLP seminar enthusiast. flavius 10:07, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Kalaaurana. Thanks for that contribution, it confirms much of what we have been arguing about NLP. Regarding the "Huna Death Curse", you are in effect claiming that the mentors are biased against the anti-NLP camp. There is no evidence of this. I'm speaking as someone that has been banned for one week. Also I've not experienced any physical or somatic distress of late (any change has been in the direction of improvement). My energy level has been higher than normal, I had a good week at work (solving a complicated technical problem after many hours of sustained concentration), I've been sleeping well, I've had only one headache in the last three weeks (and I'm a migraine sufferer) and it was minor requiring only one dose of OTC medication to treat. I scored perfectly on a test last week. The evenings where I live have been warm and pleasant and I've had many late night walks without any concerns. Also, I got laid last week and I came twice in 90 minutes (the period between detumescence and full erection was around 10 minutes). It doesn't appear that your cursing is working. You and your coven will have to meet again and give it another go. Keep on trucking. flavius 09:39, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I am not happy at all. I am having pins and needles and headache. Its confusing. HansAntel 10:23, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I think I agree with Comaze. I certainly wouldn't include myself in Kalauarana's "us". In fact, the comments seem so extreme and so specifically supporting of the "NLP is magick" arguments that I have to wonder if we're not seeing some Sock-puppet "strawmen" in a couple of "new editors". Greg 12:38, 25 March 2006 (UTC)


I wouldn’t worry about it Hans. Timing is everything with raindancing. You may possibly get some minor nocebo response from such “curses” but, well, you get used to it! Its mostly just natural revulsion. We’ve had NLP tricks all along, some obvious, some not so obvious, and we will just have to put up with it and handle it civilly whatever is presented to us. On a more productive note, this pattern or ritual relates to various NLP patterns such as “negotiating parts” and similar (alignment) notions. That’s page 160 of “The Sourcebook of Magic” by Hall 2001. Its another possibility for clarifying the article. Stiff upper lip! HeadleyDown 13:17, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Format references

Can someone assist me in properly formatting the notes and references section (eg. authors=, publisher=, page=, etc.). We could also separate book citations from peer-reviewed journals. There are still many refs to be sorted and check - while you are checking references please add page numbers to the notes and references section so we (and future wikipedians) can easily verify the facts. ---=-C-=- 04:11, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

This is the first good section added to this discussion page in ages. Thank you Comaze. We need to fix the article, not go on long off tangent discussions about NLP. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 11:10, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Hello Comaze. Your formatting is making it extremely difficult to search the page for references. You can click on a number in the article and it sometimes takes you to the right place, but you can't go the other way round. Is there a way of fixing this particularly annoying problem? I suggest that we convert all references back to how they were before - clearly written within the text without the technologically flawed links. HeadleyDown 13:27, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Hello Comaze. You deleted the Crabtree ref/link from this discussion and the article without any agreement, or any permission to do so. I don't believe any other editor here would take it upon themself to do so. Crabtree is not a personal website as you claimed. It is a UK company with expertise in NLP and the occult. It would help matters if you reinstated the ref to the article notes. The information therein requries clarification in several parts of the article. Regards HeadleyDown 03:40, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
Hello again Comaze. Perhaps a more pressing problem is to verify the changes to the objections you have made in this discussion page. A lot of those have been answered, and all it takes is a search of the literature in order to verify them as correct. HeadleyDown 13:30, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
I wish to state that this "task" of Comaze's (ref formatting) is way down on the list of priorities. Firstly it requires that we scrutinise his every move, and more importantly, he has made a lot of objections to the literature, and his objections have been promptly answered. I have verified those responses myself and they are all correct according to the literature. If Comaze or GregA do not want to try to verify those responses, then I suggest the text moves be reinstated according to my verification. This would reduce load, and move the discussion forward. Good day. JPLogan 03:00, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
I agree. Ref formatting is not a priority. In fact searching the page will be made far easier by converting the refs back to names stated in the article. Editors have been patiently waiting and refraining from making further text moves into the article until Comaze's have been verified and replaced. Regards HeadleyDown 03:51, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sociological view???

Hi Headly. You, Camridge, and JPLogan continually say "from a sociological perspective" and similar phrases. Could you elaborate on what you see as unique in this perspective, and how the perspective compares and contrasts to scientific viewpoints, psychological viewpoints, etc? I'm not asking what they say about NLP - you've said that several times. I'm interested in your idea of where they fit. Thanks GregA 10:58, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi GregA. I've also been having a good squint at the soc docs. They basically take an overview of the whole thing. They recognize the fact that NLP and other such new age stuff is pseudoscientific and generally anti-science. So to put it mildly, you have a whole bunch of sociologists in their ivory towers looking at NLP as an extra-ritualistic and obscurantic extension to magick. The difference is the sociology chaps place NLP with a massive overlap with Scientology/Dianetics. Mainly because they see NLP and Scientology in the New Age movement in terms of its basic principles/attitudes (which are as good as identical from psychology, scientific, sociological views). Cheers DaveRight 01:34, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Dave, I'm not sure if you share the views of the other 3 but I appreciate you answering.

As I said to Headley - it's obvious what you're claiming sociologists say about NLP. I'm only interested in how this fits with other perspectives. Your last sentence answers this - you believe sociologists identicial to psychological views. This doesn't seem to be a good reason for all the comments about needing to add their view. Perhaps you can clarify.

I've read the sociological links from the wiki page (and onwards). The sociological perspective is intriguing in that it approaches groups and societies as an individual mind (like Bateson's Criteria of Mind) - any group they analyse is approached from this perspective. They also say it's impossible to see without having preconceptions, but that this is part of the challenge. Anyway (from a sociological perspective) minority ethnic groups, religions, disabled groups, cab-drivers - all are similar and will have beliefs, values etc (probably related to the concept of emergence?). I know the divergence in NLP teachings has lead many to say "there is no NLP community", this makes 'finding' that 'community' intriguing. The research would have to be extensive (and not assume that one NLP trainer represented them all), it would be an intriguing study. Did someone give a link I could read or was it mainly "we'll give references soon!"? GregA 05:00, 6 March 2006 (UTC)


Sure Greg, the Sociological view will add more context, and a lot of that has been covered in this discussion, so things are actually progressing there. The refs can be provided when we have resolved some things with Comaze. The general context is that of a New Age new alternative religion. NLP is very much part of that movement according to the literature. It explains that this "healing" movement is full of anti-establisment, anti-science philosophies, and harkens to the first new age (early 20th century) when occult thinking was popular, and then the "age of acquarius" of the 60s onwards. The interesting stuff is in relation to NLP's use of magickal ritual. Fascinatingly, the obscurantism "the circle of excellence" is actually rather interestingly termed "the lesser banishing ritual of the pentagram" in earlier and even more modern occult circles. So obscurantism also pertains to the whitewashing of occult rituals in the guise of management training. This will all add good context. ATB Camridge 05:54, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Its easy GregA. NLP is part of new age occult and cults. The experts say it and it is obvious. Look at where NLP is sold. All occult magazines have NLP advertising psychic mind control, magic, unlimited power over the element of ritual, and other outrageous claims they put in management adverts also. Social view is very clear. NLP is the sale of snakeoil and other "sparkling wines"! You can do anything with NLP: even walk around in your barbeque! HansAntel 04:26, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

You're confusing the meaning of this Hans. NLP can be used to model occult stuff, and has been. Naturally, in an occult magazine, the NLP ads would be for NLP used in that way! :) They noticed NLP was useful for them and so they used it. This does not show in any way how major or minor an application of NLP this is.

Just take a look at where computers are sold. Computer game magazines have Computer advertising for all the things they can do to make games faster. Societies view on computers is clear - they are games machines and focussed on frame rates and online gaming. I hope the analogy fits for you. GregA 11:07, 11 March 2006 (UTC)


Hello GregA. I am not sure where you are going with this, but we already have scientists and sociologists and plenty of other verifiable sources calling NLP New Age and involving spirituality and religiosity.
Even at its most sanitised, NLP in bookshops is sold as New Age, pop psychology, or inspiration.
In professional bookshops, and within business in general it is seen as New Age.
Therapists, it is called a new age therapy.
The amount of times they use the term “magic” is astounding. They use the terms, soul, spirit, ritual, and apply all the new age principles to be adopted as beliefs, not just in the adverts, but throughout the literature.
NLP is new age, and is inextricably involved with occult, shamanism, wicca, magick ritual and so on. In occult NLP they worship gods, angels and demons, and in business they worship money and ruthless exemplars of success. The symbols are slightly different, but the rituals are the same. NLP is New Age in every application according to independent research. Regards HeadleyDown 13:38, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Recap

Do we agree on these facts:

  • The “sociological” perspective is one of the most independent research areas into NLP. As such it is a high point of independence that we can use to more neutrally view NLP.
  • It corroborates largely with the scientific research and reviews into NLP.
  • The sociological view places NLP as a New Age development, which involves healing, the occult, and human potential (eg Hunt 2002p195) (Partridge 2000p45) (wuthnow 1999 p75) (Heelas 2000 p94) Lewis 2004 Kemp 2004 page 103
  • The sociologists presented place NLP as a new alternative religion specifically within the healing/human potential movements of the new age (though not a centrally organized religious movement) . It is characterized by strong spiritual elements. (eg Hunt 2002p195)
  • The sociologists view place with Scientology as an alternative version of Scientology, albeit the religiosity is more implied in the case of NLP (eg, Hunt 2002p195)
  • NLP promoters such as Anthony Robbins and Bandler are known as New Age heroes . Kemp 2004 page 103 Drury 2004 page 128

Regards HeadleyDown 07:33, 26 March 2006 (UTC)


Yes, I agree on all points, and I it does correspond closely with the scientific views. Beyerstein, Druckman and Swets, Carroll, Singer, and many other scientists do state that NLP is New Age, that its developers are new agers, that NLP is spiritual or psychospiritual or quasireligious or quasispiritual etc. ATB Camridge 06:49, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


No we don't agree. But that doesn't matter does it? What lines are you planning on changing? Greg 07:51, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
OK we may not agree. But do you agree that these facts are written plainly in the literature? I am considering changing the whole article based upon this rather independent view. And more specifically, the overview needs more of this information to clarify things for the reader. HeadleyDown 08:05, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
I agree that some people have said this, but it is NOT a common viewpoint and can not be presented as such. It is important to note if some group sees it that way - presented as their POV (and preferably we would give more detail - possibly a way to reconcile some differences). Once all facts are presented we simply let readers make their own conclusions. Can you present a section which summarises the New Age relationship - for discussion (and counter-proposal)? Greg 08:43, 26 March 2006 (UTC)


Hello GregA. I agree that you have your own position, and I believe your's is a very remote position from the qualified position of these peer-review published sociologists.
The position of sociologists, corresponds closely with the view of scientists. I hold the same position as the scientists and sociologists. They both place NLP as New Age.
The literature that shows that broad and mostly independent view of sociologists is large, and growing. More scientists are standing up to state that NLP is pseudoscience and new age, and metaphysical, and more sociologists are giving their similar view.
Scientists and sociologists make up a highly significant view. This view is echoed in the public media.
The public is also very aware of the New Age nature of NLP. Any member of public browsing a comprehensive bookstore see NLP’s New Age book covers eg [207] in the New Age and pop psych section. (notice the book there is keyworded as magic or magick studies amongst others)
When picking up these books these members of the public will find it full of weird new age terms, claims, and stories of Carlos Castaneda. They tend to conclude that NLP is new age. This is why when they talk about it on the web, in newsgroups, in the street, in interviews and so on, they tend to call NLP a New Age practice.
The view that NLP is new age is a widely held view to both lay persons and to experts. As such it will contain all of the new age connotations, such as ritual, guided imagery, transcendental spiritual and mental enhancement through some kinds of reflective trance, and so on.
And we’ve only just started. The audio tapes such as “Ultrasonics paraliminal audios” use “silent” NLP to “program” insecure managers for “excellence” as they drive in a somnambulistic trance to their office each morning. So the common intuitive view is very significant and its area has some variety but it is largely consistent and reasonable and supported by research. Your stated view, on the other hand, seems to be quite a few horizons away from the common view.
I have no problem with writing: sociologists and scientists state that “…….” And so on. Regards HeadleyDown 11:30, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
The term New Age is loose. Perhaps we could use settle on, "personal development movement"? ---=-C-=- 12:54, 26 March 2006 (UTC)


Well we could just quote word for word from the text. The new age article of Wikipedia is clear enough, and we can add further clarifying links for New Age. The writers make brief and clear enough statements. The sociology scholars say that within the New Age, NLP is classed as an "alternative version of Scientology" quote. Both of them fall within "healing movements". So we can clarify the New Age term with "healing movement" and "new alternative religion" and state that NLP has a strong spiritual element, and primarily involves the occult, rituals and beliefs but also includes human potential and notions of “prosperity abundance” we can also mention that its not an organized religion but its religiosity is more implied than Scientology’s obvious claim to organized religion. We can make reference to the presuppositional beliefs of NLP. Regards HeadleyDown 13:39, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
Please provide titles for Partridge 2000 p.45, Wuthnow 1999 p.75, Heelas 2000 p.94, Lewis 2004, Kemp 2004 p.103, Drury 2004 p.128 so we can check the facts. Also, do you have a source that characterises these authors as Sociologists? ---=-C-=- 23:19, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
Hello Comaze. Some of these references have already been fully provided. You deleted them from the article several times over the past few months. They are no longer here. Perhaps you could retreive them from the article history. Otherwise I will provide them after you have been given a few days to do so. Regards HeadleyDown 01:55, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
The [sociological perspective] is interesting. Comments like
  • "the way different groups of sociologists interpret what they see (often in the most fundamentally opposed kinds of way) means that we can only really talk about the sociological perspective in the most general of terms." [[208]]
  • "The same situation can be viewed in radically different ways, even within sociology" [[209]]
Do these mean that "the sociological perspective on NLP" is not as uniform as you imply, and much more interpretive?
  • "b. Human social behaviour is learned, not instinctive" [[210]]
Please note that :) Flavius (06:08, 26/3) criticised NLP for teaching the same thing.
  • "social organisations... are not people... They are systems, or patterns, of beliefs and actions, by people, which are carried by people."
NLP talks about change not occuring just in an individual, but interacting with their whole environment. We look for patterns in a person's actions and between people, check changes against the whole system (the ecology). Grinder is also researching the emergent properties of systems - ie, the unpredicted group responses resulting from the behaviour of individuals - which fits nicely into this.
Further reading of the links I gave above shows other similarities between NLP and sociology - eg: they are very firm on the belief that we can not view the world objectively. And they teach to remove filters (they describe it as "sociology teaches us to look at things in a scientific (descriptive) and non judgmental way". [[211]]
The sociological perspective deliberately focuses on the community/interaction. It's an interesting perspective on NLP as it looks through the lense of NLP-as-a-community, and NLP may need to be manipulated a bit to fit that (I've read criticisms that NLP has no community, no structure nor control of its development). I don't know what the sociological perspective of karate-students would be but I think it'd be a similar kind of perspective. You could probably do a sociological perspective on people who drink Powerade - finding certain shared beliefs about the body, philosophies of life, etc.
Don't get me wrong - I like the fact that sociologists say they're trying to look at things from a perspective that others don't see, and I agree that these other perspectives are illuminating and useful. All of this is interesting stuff but we're not here to teach sociology, nor NLP.
ps. There's so much loose talk on here at the moment - the mentors' original requests were to discuss in relation to the article. I notice that on DaveRight's talk page there's a mistaken interpretation that no response is an endorsement! A lack of response by me, at present, is a reflection of the volume, and of reading the same old arguments... so why give the same old responses? It gets us nowhere. Personally I'll respond occasionally to some comments (as above), but will focus on stuff that is clearly linked to an article improvement. Greg 00:15, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Hello GregA. Do you have any evidence that relates directly to NLP that will allow you to remove the views of the above sociologists? If they exist, please present them. If my "talk" is not tight enough, please inform me directly.
The sociological views above may vary to some small degree, as is the norm with independent researchers. So they can each be presented more clearly as seperate statements as per NPOV policy. eg. Prof. Smith says NLP is a sort of Scientology, Prof Jones says NLP's presup beliefs are New Age, Prof Brown says NLP uses occult magic notions in its teachings, and so on. I am starting to see the value of presenting the references using such an attribution style. ATB. Camridge 03:55, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
The sociology viewpoint is promising. Are there any sociologists who disagree or provide counter-arguments for these assertions? ---=-C-=- 04:24, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks Comaze. Fabulous question! The literature that I have read shows the sociologists quoting each other quite a lot. So they make statements, and provide sources while comparing with each other's fine research. The literature I have read shows them all saying NLP is new age. And they talk of NLP "pure" as being central to New Age in the Healing/Human Potential sense. And as is mentioned above, the religiousness of NLP is related to its core beliefs, and its lineage of New Age gurus such as Perls, Satir and so on.
In relation to this, there is no evidence whatsoever of Perls or Satir being any more successful than any other therapist in the past. Indeed, on a commercial scale, Hubbard seems to have excelled in that human potential new age field. He has probably contributed more to the human potential industry than any other individual in the 20th century. No wonder NLP developers have chosen to model his commercial success over the "more troublesome" empirically supported developments of psychotherapy. ATB. Camridge 04:43, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Hello Comaze. Do you believe it is the task of editors to exclude the independent views of experts? Camridge 05:02, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Hello Comaze. I fully, and cheerfully, encourage the application of NPOV policy to any section in this article. I've just been reviewing some of the new research we have been motivated to search for over the past weeks. ATB. Camridge 06:12, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
agreed. Let's include counter-examples and aim for NPOV. See my proposed change: personal development movement. ---=-C-=- 06:24, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Yes lets briefly include all view and represent them appropriately according to NPOV policy. OH, that reminds me, if you are not interested in verifying the changes I and others made to your text moves, I am sure others will be happy to do it for you. And I would also like to kindly remind you to replace the Crabtree UK occult company link. I can see at least 3 sections where it can help to clarify things for the reader. ATB Camridge 06:43, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed change: personal development movement (Comaze)

  • What portion of the article do you take issue with? (Quote the actual text. If what you want is an insertion, indicate the position for the insertion.)
  1. to be inserted, after initial discussion and approval from mentors.
  • On what basis do you object to this portion? Quote and link to the Wikipedia policy or guideline that justifies your objection.
  1. sociologists more commonly categorise NLP as a "personal development movement"
  2. according to wikipedia policy any characterization must be attributed to a source.
  3. new age is pejorative and has a spiritual connotation which does not fit all NLP
  4. "If we're going to characterize disputes fairly, we should present competing views with a consistently positive, sympathetic tone." WP:NPOV
  5. "3) "The article could more closely conform to neutral point of view by ascribing controversial viewpoints such as "NLP is pseudoscience" to those who have expressed such opinions, rather then presenting them as bald statements of fact."Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Neuro-linguistic_programming#Ascribing_points_of_view
  6. "When characterizing people, events, or actions, assertions should likewise be attributed to an acceptable source. A regular news story from a mainstream media organization is best, but don't rely on the journalist to report the bias of its sources accurately."Wikipedia:Guidelines_for_controversial_articles
  7. "Identify the possible bias of the source (including organizational, financing, and/or personal ties with interested parties). If the status of the source itself is disputed, it is best to avoid such characterizations altogether; instead, a link to an article on the source, where those conflicting viewpoints are discussed, should be used (if possible)." Wikipedia:Guidelines_for_controversial_articles
  • What new wording do you suggest? (Indicate if your suggestion is a deletion.)
  1. To be written after discussion.
  • What are the counter-examples (provide a clear description of any counter-arguments)

"It's worth observing that scholars are trained so that, even when trying to prove a point, counter-arguments are included, so that they can explain why the counter-arguments fail." WP:NPOV

  • What are your references?(Quote the actual text, and full citation with page numbers)

[edit] Discussion

Please assist me in finding references that support this view. We may end up combining this with HeadleyDown's suggestions (above). ---=-C-=- 07:35, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Hello Comaze. Please clarify something for me. Are you going to try to remove the term "New Age" from all of the direct quotes of sociologists and scientists, within the whole article? So far, I have counted over 15 brief, clear and direct quotes from sociologists, and some scientists that state NLP is a New Age...., or NLP's New Age commercial promotions is.....etc. They certainly do not consider the New Age to be a perjorative remark. Additionally, the Human Potential Movement is widely considered to be inextricably linked to the New Age. I am sure we will be happy to supply evidence to clarify NLP's New Age characteristics. (most of its there already) ATB. Camridge 09:44, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm not concerned that some people call NLP "New Age" - I'm concerned that "New Age" has broad meaning, and by not clarifying what the authors mean specifically we will mislead the reader. Druckman & Swets (88) is a prime example - they classify NLP under "New Age", but they define "New Age" as "developing outside of the academic mainstream". Clearly, for this example saying "NLP was developed outside the academic mainstream" is far more useful/descriptive than "NLP is New Age". Same goes for anybody using a word that's either less easily understood or has a broad range of meaning. The mentors also said to make it understandable rather than use the author's exact words - this is a good way. Greg 12:57, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Hello GregA. Would you like to banish the word "New Age" from the references section also? It is going to appear quite often in future. Also, a lot of NLP terms are vague and generally meaningless. Does that mean we should seek to banish them also? HeadleyDown 14:06, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Camridge "counted over 15 brief, clear and direct quotes from sociologists" -- if you do have 15 such quotes from reputable/reliable sources, please present them with page numbers so they can be checked. ---=-C-=- 00:48, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Hi Headley,
  1. I would like to use the term New Age where appropriate, and in a way that makes clear its meaning (and the context in which it is used).
  2. If an NLP term is vague and generally meaningless we should say that it's vague and meaningless, with references (perhaps to different NLP people using the word in totally different ways). I just do not think that using a vague and meaningless NLP word as if it's meaningful, in the article, will make the article better. YMMV.
  3. The word and concept banish is being discussed here in this section with occult connotations. Please do not use it in conversation as well, as it may mislead a reader. Besides, I'm trying to clarify things (see #1 & #2), nothing to do with removing anything (let alone banishing).
Greg 21:23, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Let's not try to guess at each other's motives. That could distract us from working on the article. Johntex\talk 21:31, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Okay, reworded in this case.
Speaking of staying on topic, do you have a comment on my points #1 and #2. Greg
I find New Age unclear at best, and pejorative at worst (as per Comaze). What's the article actually trying to say at the point where the term is used? ॐ Metta Bubble puff 22:29, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Hello Mettabubble, GregA, and Comaze. NLP has been using New Age notions as a basis for their methods since 1975 (its inception). Its a plain fact and doesn't even require the major support it has from independent researchers. They point out NLP's use of notions such as "the eyes are the windows of the soul", and the use of "Simplistic body language plattitudes" within their texts. The term "New Age" is as neutral and clear as the term "Scientific" and equally clarifying to readers. Concerning the requested list of New Age mentions, I'll be very happy to provide such a list myself, but I don't think that would be a productive use of our time. I believe it would be more productive to focus on verifying the changes that have been made to Comaze's text moves. DaveRight 04:48, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Saying something is Scientific is another way of saying, "The (mainstream) scientific community" and is a phrase to avoid on wikipedia. Wikipedia:Avoid_weasel_words. Any such characterization must be attributed to a source and its biases identfied. ---=-C-=- 05:40, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Hello Comaze. I believe you have no need to fear editors placing the term New Age in the article without correct characterization and attribution to authorities. I am satisfied that all terms will be characterized accurately in order to clarify facts for the reader. ATB Camridge 06:42, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion of Comaze's deletions from the article

Hello Comaze. You seem to be making many undiscussed changes to the article. Please discuss them first.

We will start with this one: "based on outdated metaphors of brain functioning and is laced with numerous factual errors (Druckman and Swets 1988)." You removed it from the pseudoscience section without discussion. Reinstate it, then discuss. I suggest that you don't make a text move as you already have too many here for people to reasonably tolerate. Lets keep to the spirit of the workshop please.

If you want to dispute the Crabtree ref, then bring it back to Wikipedia and discuss it here also. DaveRight 04:41, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, he needs to make whatever moves he wants and then put them here, not the other way around. I do agree though that he needs to open up some sort of discussion here when he makes changes. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 05:08, 28 March 2006 (UTC)


Thanks Woohookitty. It would have been great to have your guidance 8 months ago. I suggest that though this discussion is necessary, there are many other things that require progress as a priority. For example, as Dave stated above, there were changes made to Comaze's text moves weeks ago, and they have yet to be verified. It would be very easy to clear those up and move forward. ATB. Camridge 05:15, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
I don't, admittedly, have time to follow everything going on here at the moment - but any time someone makes a specific request working on a specific change I'll make the time. You say there are some things that are easy to clear up - what are you talking about, and how would you clear it up? Greg 05:25, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Hello GregA. I will remind you again. Comaze made many text moves, and a lot of them have been adjusted. They have also been verified by other editors. If you, Comaze, or anyone else do not want to run a check on them, I suggest they be reinstated. They have been in their adjusted state for quite a while, and you seem to be far more interested in other things. ATB. Camridge 06:34, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Removal of duplicate text is not a change, "2006-03-28 03:30:11 Comaze m (→Pseudoscience - remove duplicate, "based on outdated metaphors of brain functioning and is laced with numerous factual error")". This is more of a minor copyedit than a change - this should not require any discussion as it would just clutter up the discussion.. See first paragraph of Scientific Review:
"In relation to current understanding of neurology and perception, NLP is in error (Bertelsen, 1987), and instead of being grounded in contemporary, scientifically derived neurological theory, NLP is based on outdated metaphors of brain functioning and is laced with numerous factual errors (Druckman and Swets 1988)."
  • I have not removed or changed any text attributed to Crabtree. ---=-C-=- 05:31, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Yes. Generally, stylistic type edits would not need to be discussed unless someone objects in which case they can always bring it to our attention. As long as nothing attributed is removed, it's ok. We want to encourage attempts to make the article less ugly. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 06:04, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Hello Woohookitty. Thanks for your input. Hello Comaze. I thought it was obvious why Davey objected to your deletion. Firstly, what is wrong with repeating something that needs mention in both sections? Also, how do you decide which part to delete? So there are clear objections. The removal of duplicate text guideline is clearly and reasonably directed to errors of editors. There seems to be no error or ugliness in placing that line in either section. The lines are correct in both sections. It is not a matter of style. ATB. Camridge 06:34, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, a little more respect for discussion would be constructive, and if we could focus on those verifications, it would be much appreciated. HeadleyDown 10:45, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Progress: Neutral Tone Recommendations for Discussion

Hi guys

Discussions are improving here. I wish to prompt a further raising of standards to a higher level. Discussion of issues and additions to the article is important, and sometimes keeping the language of discussion neutral is extremely difficult (mia culpa). However, I suggest that more effort/patience be applied to this end.

NLP is profoundly New Age-spiritual, and there will be believers frequenting this article for ever. So we need to keep things as unconfrontational as possible.

Practically speaking, I suggest that if editors wish to present a particular view, do so using some kind of quote from the literature. There is plenty of it available in the article, and a vast amount in the library and web. Make neutral statements, and place the quote in brackets or inverted commas, preferably with an authority source attached.

Also, please take time in anwsering objections. Even where you are accurate and correct, a pingpong discussion can be unconstructive. I suggest waiting at least an hour before providing solutions objections.

I'm sure there are many more ways of improving discussion long term. I trust editors will be able to move forward constructively. Bookmain 08:21, 28 March 2006 (UTC)


Good suggestions Bookmain. I'll endevour to persevere with constructive discussion. ATB. Camridge 08:28, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Yes! Well done Bookmain. Good suggestions. Regards HeadleyDown 10:30, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../n/e/u/Talk%7ENeuro-linguistic_programming_Workshopgeneral_d63e.html"