Talk:Neuro-linguistic programming/ archive10

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This article is a former featured article candidate. Please view its sub-page to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates (where the individual nomination does not exist) please check the archive. Once the objections have been addressed, you may resubmit the article for featured article status.
Peer review This article has had a peer review which has now been [[Wikipedia:Peer review/Template:ARTICLENAMENeuro-linguistic programming/ archive10|archived]]. It may contain ideas that you can use to improve this article.

[[Category:Old requests for peer review|Template:ARTICLENAMENeuro-linguistic programming/ archive10]]

This is a controversial topic, which may be disputed. Please read this talk page discussion before making substantial changes. (This message should only be placed on talk pages.)

Please follow talk page guideline while posting on this page. No ad-hominem attack on this page please. All messages that deviate from the guideline will be deleted.

Contents

[edit] General Neuro-linguistic programming chat page

For general chat not related to improving the NLP article, see

[edit] Unprotected on one condition

Flavius presents a good compromise, so I will unlock the article on the condition that only reference conversion to superscripts and end notes is permitted. This is a good guideline to cleanup and to prevent edit wars.Voice of AllT|@|ESP 13:30, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Good. First go over the ^ on the references section and see what code name I assign it (like frogs). Then replace the corresponding Harvard notes with {{ref|name}}.Voice of AllT|@|ESP 03:09, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
I'd like to request editors use html comments around any citations they plan to remove (in leiu of deleting them). These citations carry strong evidence of the edit history on the article and are useful for future editors. I trust all editors will find this suggestion amicable. Peace. Metta Bubble 04:49, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lets stop doing further edits and give VoA a freehand to improve the article

I suggest that we should all stop doing edits and lets give VoA complete freedom (referencing, restructuring, cleanup, etc) to improve this article, if he doesn't mind undertaking this task. We can comment on the final draft using the peer review page. I don't mind further personal attacks as long as you can bring yourself to consider this idea in a positive way. --Dejakitty 17:48, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Any help converting references would be welcome, preferably from the "anti-NLP" group, so as to avoid accusations if an error where made. The subarticle is still there, and can be edited as desired.Voice of AllT|@|ESP 17:52, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree, but we should avoid splitting the editors into anti-NLP, pro-NLP. Every one believes that their opinion represents neutral point of view. --Dejakitty 18:37, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, I put in quotes.Voice of AllT|@|ESP 18:41, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
At any rate, can you help out with those refs?Voice of AllT|@|ESP 05:05, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
Is there any one particular editor you would like to nominate to help you with the references? --Dejakitty 22:50, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
Anyone who wants to :).Voice of AllT|@|ESP 23:16, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
There is still alot of work to do on the references and notes. There must be a better way to handle the page numbers? What is the Wikipedia standard for this? Can we get a comment on this? --Comaze 00:11, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Senses

In the section Foundational Assumptions I can see the clear academic sourcing for the statement " person's experience of the world is processed and organized in terms of the five senses". The trouble is, in modern science, even the most basic models of human beings assume at least nine senses -- and some more than 20. Might this be worth a minor change? See Senses.

Coricus 18:20, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Coricus, that's a good point but the section is intended to provide a non-normative account of NLPs foundational assumption. All of the NLP literature and seminars that I have experienced identify only five senses. The submodality lists provided at most NLP seminars are divided into visual, auditory, kinesthetic, olfactory and gustatory and the emphasis is generally on the first three. I've yet to encounter otherwise. In terms of providing an accurate account of NLPs position the assumption is correct. In terms of modern science it is plainly wrong. My guess would be that a NLPer would reduce all of the other senses into kinesthetic submodalities. In any event, most of the assumptions are either logically and/or empirically questionable, the unsoundness is not confined to that one principle you have identified. We can't say this as this would be OR, we are obliged to source an expert that specifically critiques the NLP foundational assumptions. If you can find an expert statement that specifically challenges this foundational assumption of NLP then we can add this as a further criticism of NLP. NLP is much more flawed in its detail than the NLP-specific research indicates (on both conceptual and empirical grounds) but because the scientific research into NLP stopped in the 1990s and because Wikipedia policy specifically prohibits OR much of the criticism -- derived from discoveries in neurology, psychiatry, psychology, genetics and psycholinguistics -- will have to go unstated until an expert covers the matter (which is unlikely since NLP is considered dead and discredited anyway). flavius 23:00, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Flavius. NLP doesn't teach 9 senses (nor 20), and we need to reflect what it teaches. The sense of heat and cold (Thermoception as described in Senses) is just part of kinesthetic, I even use humidity occasionally. Vestibular (Equilibrioception??) is the possible exception - some people teach it as integral with Kinesthetic and others as a separate subset of kinesthetic. Grinder does teach Vestibular, though I'm not sure if it's in his books at present. It's certainly part of the New Coding of NLP. GregA 00:13, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Coricus, "A sensory system is a part of the nervous system that consists of sensory receptors, neural pathways, and those parts of the brain responsible for processing the information. Commonly recognized sensory systems are those for vision, hearing, somatic sensation, taste and olfaction." see sensory system --Comaze 23:43, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Comaze, you're missing the point. The five senses -- which NLPers claim are the basis for encoding of experience -- are insufficient to capture all subjective experience. For example, equilibrioreception and the sense of the passage of time (even though there is no specific system associated with time perception) cannot be reduced to VAKOG. flavius 00:00, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
In NLP, time is covered in Temporal predicates (Patterns 1 1976). A similar example would be Vestibular as they are sometimes lumped together with somatic or Kinesthetic. The 4-tuple (VAKO) is a gross reduction to model primary experience. --Comaze 00:13, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
Again, you are missing the point. Time perception and proprioception can't be reduced to kinesthetic experience. Time predicates can't be shoe-horned into your beloved 4-tuple. The 4-tuple is indeed a gross reduction such that it is incapable of representing the richness of subjective experience. What is primary experience and why doesn't it include time perception? From a purely phenomenological standpoint time perception is no less important that experience obtained from VAKOG. Similarly, proprioception is also subjectively important -- especially for somatic skills -- and it isn't reducible to VAKOG. Even as the self-described definitive (implied by the) study of subjective experience NLP is sorely lacking. flavius 00:40, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
In 4-tuple, proprioception is noted as Vp (developed by Grinder) and this type of tactic knowledge is normally captured via imitation. The 4-tuple is used in the coding phase of NLP modeling. In standard notation future is represented as Vft and past Vpa. Some people reduce this to Vc (visual construct), Vr (visual remembered)... This of course would depend on your modeling project. --Comaze 01:02, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
Then it is an incomplete conceptualization of subjective experience. flavius 01:41, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] BAGEL model

The BAGEL model, as described, is a model for determining the internal representation systems in use by a person. Body, Access cues (voice tone/tempo), Gestures, Eyes, Language etc. Then the next section ("Eye accessing cues, body cues, and NLP representational systems") describes the rep systems more fully, and then the Eyes and body cues again in a slightly different way. Is there a reason these 2 subsections aren't merged? EG: A "representation systems" section with a subsection for cues to the rep systems (Body, Eyes, etc... "BAGEL".) I have a few other queries about the 2 subsections but that's secondary to the layout/merging question. GregA 01:34, 22 January 2006 (UTC) (ps. I assume the glaring spelling mistake "kinesthetic" is known?)

[edit] NLP Model

See NLP Chat Page

[edit] Let's concentrate on improving this article please

Everyone, let's help fixing the references together for starters. We can improve the content later. --Dejakitty 11:25, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I have reverted one set of edits[1] by flavius so as to avoid more content bickering and edit wars while refs where being worked on (so as to avoid ref fixing being reverted in the process).Voice of AllT|@|ESP 06:06, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
VoA, How should we reference this statement? Replace the (XXXX) with a footnote superscript? "and Professionals(X) such as Author(Y) (XXXX) consider blah" This is really just a variation of the citation style we are converting from. --Comaze 11:46, 17 January 2006 (UTC)


Dejakitty. Your "archiving" of my comments is consistent with all the other NLPfanatic's censorship efforts. It seems to be a habit of NLP zealots to try to whitewash their agenda. There is nothing wrong with pointing out your persistent attempts to censor facts. HeadleyDown 01:13, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

The comment was a bit harsh and was likely not needed. However, I would recommend that everyone here avoid removing other people's comments. If rude comments pile up and slow progress, I will deal with them. If a comment is harsh but also contains specific article suggestions, then it should not be removed.Voice of AllT|@|ESP 02:29, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi VoiceOfAll. It is a bit rich, the NLPers demanding so much over the months, and advocating the format change, but then making excuses why they cannot be bothered to do it completely. If they really want to make the impression that they are being constructive, and not just looking for whitewash or excuses to make sneaky deletions, then they should just get on with changing all the citations to the new format. Its also annoying that they take such liberties with changing the discussion page headings, organization, and such to either obscure facts about their own misdeeds, to obscure conclusions that the facts they want banished are actually valid, and to rearrange discussion to make it look inconclusive. Their removing or archiving of comments is just more of the same nonsense. Considering the demands they constantly make for more evidence and more explanation, its time they did some work for a change. Camridge 04:38, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Only those with a true Inquisition mindset would consider it to be an unfair burden when others demand that lies be removed from the page. Thanks for exposing yourself as being unwilling, even in principle, to let this page be accurate. Quit whining, you flat-earther. 01:36, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
hello everyone, I've been away for a bit, I"m not sure if I have time at the moment but hope to be around more often.
So I don't tread on toes - could someone summarize the current rules for editing which have been agreed to? I notice that VoA said the article was locked and that it's only unlocked for referencing purposes, I assume that means any and all work/discussion is now done here? Is that still current? etc
Thanks GregA 00:03, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
They're the same old Wikipedia rules. Any of your censorship, promotion, spam, or whitewash will be reverted, and recruited NLP fanatics will be ignored. HeadleyDown 02:36, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
Then I assume we're keeping the rules of no personal attacks too? Seriously Headley, have you deliberately ignored my question, and responded against me personally? Or is it your understanding that there are no special agreements for editing at the moment? VoA wrote "Flavius makes a good compromise" and said he'd open the article provided editing was only done on references. Is there an agreed procedure for improving the article? If anyone else could fill me in I'd appreciate it, perhaps Headley needs a reminder too? GregA 10:09, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Assume what you like. But you have just started with the same old repeat questioning again. Go ahead, gang up with some more NLP fanatic meat puppets and vote for arbitration, a change of mediator, or whatever else you think will get the article to promote NLP. HeadleyDown 14:27, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi Greg. The NLP fans advocated for a new format for references, and it seems that they only wanted to do so in order to make sneaky censorship of criticisms or whitewash. So the thing now is to allow the NLPfans to go ahead and change the ref format, while reverting their sneaky deletions. Well, we're waiting! Camridge 04:55, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Is this grammar correct

Is this grammar correct. It sounds odd to me "Council Against Health Fraud, and has characterized by ...". Also would it be appropriate to change the word in the article generalisation to generalization if that term spelling specifically through references is spelled with a "z"? Course maybe in B&G books in england they print them different hehe. It was kind of odd to see the "s" and I am totally cool with it. I was thinking it might make the article more conform to its own references? Or whatever :)jVirus 07:51, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

jVirus, I've corrected some of the spelling errors. The standard for this article is US English. A typical example is the US spelling of modeling (UK:Modelling). Correct me if I'm wrong, but in general usage "z" and "s" can be used interchangeably for words such as generalization (US) and generalisation (UK). --Comaze 01:55, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Comaze, the spelling style is not so important. You should get a move on with those citation format changes though. Come on now. ChopChop! DaveRight 02:47, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi jVirus. You're right, the grammar is incorrect. Instead of has characterized by it should say has been characterized by. (I'm ignoring the content here - just talking about the grammar). GregA 10:15, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POV editing - all parties

Comaze, even after explaining the situation to you multiple times, with references, you still try to narrow a view that has been presented in a way as to bias the reader into thinking that the view is fringe skepticism. Your efforts simply show that NLP is just Dianetics for wannabe manipulators. As it has been explained to you already so many times on the discussion page, the only option open now is to explain it more clearly on the article itself. I realize that as an NLP zealot that must be excruciatingly traumatic for you. Tough! Wikipedia is about facts. Now get on with your ref format adjustments. Camridge 05:24, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I think we need to get a third party comment on this. I think Camridge/HeadleyDown's edits are biased POV [see diffs]. Why did you (HeadleyDown) alter the direct quote from Harry Edwards' Skeptics Guide to the New Age? [see diffs] --Comaze 22:51, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Widely held by people who agree with you. So what? Akulkis 01:27, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Comaze, I think you're being mischievous (again). Edwards' position is widely held, for this reason it is not necessary (and misleading) to attribute it specifically to him. It is apparent that you are attempting to create the illusion of isolation and idiosyncrasy, painting Edwards' view as the lonely voice of a eccentric contrarian. As HeadleyDown correctly points out, that view is shared by many experts, it is the consensus view. We don't need a third party opinion on this. The easy solution (if we are to accept your view that there is a problem) is to rephrase the statement so that it bears no resemblance to Edwards' whilst retaining the content and embellishing it with the numerous references that argue the same point. Clearly, you and GregA are unwilling to accept NLPs status as marginalia in the history of ideas. You and GregA reject all negative expert opinion regarding NLP wholesale. This is fanatical, cultist and irrational behavior. Yours and GregA's position is fundamentally emotive and disconnected from reality (yes John Grinder there is a reality) that is why your dispute is non-justiciable. It is a matter of fact that a minority of universities and colleges teach NLP. It is a matter of fact that a minority of psychologists, psychiatrists, nurses, social workers and pastors practice NLP. It is a matter of fact that a minority of all professionals (in all categories) use NLP. It is a matter of fact that a minority of the human population have had training in NLP. It is a matter of fact that most topic experts (psychologists, psychiatrists, linguists, philosophers and neurologists) that have researched NLP have concluded against it. It is a matter of fact that most topic experts (psychologists, psychiatrists, linguists, philosophers and neurologists) have either not heard of NLP or if they have regard it as bunkum. It is a matter of fact that NLP was written off in the early 1990s as not worthy of any further research. It is a matter of fact that NLP often appears amongst a constellation of New Age concerns in trainings, books, therapies and personal interests. NLP is not an "epistemology", it hasn't got anything to do with philosophy, maths or logic, it isn't applied psychology, it isn't science, it isn't art, it isn't craft, it isn't a "bridge between empiricism and rationalism", it isn't the study of subjective experience, it isn't a means of accelerated learning, it isn't the tip of an emerging paradigm shift. It's just a great big steaming pile of Californian New Age, Human Potential horse shit that has become big business. flavius 03:40, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Topic moved to arbcom page. --Comaze 23:15, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "eschews" ?

To eschew is to avoid habitually. In the Overview shouldn't eschew be replaced with an antonym such as embrace? NLP embraces the New Age notion of "clearing blocks". flavius 12:41, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

This is just another attempt at subversion by inserting Scientology terminology (clearing) ... NOBODY in the NLP community uses such terminology, and you know it, you asshole. 01:11, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Is there anyone that ban's users for personal attacking abuses? ^---Weak users unskilled in dismantling content resorting to attacking the presenter. WEAK. jVirus 05:23, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Aaron, you don't know what you're talking about (again). The article doesn't claim that the phrase "clearing blocks" is used in NLP but rather that the concept of "clearing" is ubiquitous. VK dissociation, submodality attenuation, Time Line Therapy, Change Personal History and collapsing anchors are all concerned with eliminating obsolete and now pernicious learnings. They are all regressive methods (ie. the problem is re-experienced) that are predicated on the notion that some present problem is due to some past learning that must be undone/removed/cleared/unblocked/de-energized/neutralized. This is the (re-)programming component of NLP. Also, both the phrase "stuck-state" and the underlying notion are very common in NLP[2]. Do yourself and everyone else a favor and f*ck off. flavius

[edit] Guilt by association argument - Scientology/Dianetics

"Historically, NLP has many pseudoscientific associations such as the erroneous adherence of some NLP models to the engram concept"

This was ALREADY HASHED OUT MONTHS AGO....I move that whatever editor AGAIN put this deliberate disinformation into the page be banned from editing the page. 01:25, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

This matter was settled in favor of its inclusion. The notion of the engram is used by NLPers (especially in Europe and Asia) to explain how VK dissociation, submodality attenuation and collapsing anchors are supposed to work. The word engram is not peculiar to Dianetics and Hubbard's use of the word is distinct from neurologists and NLPers. Again, you don't know what you're talking about. flavius 07:30, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
..and yet, there is a distinct failure to make it clear that the word is being used in the sense that is used by neurologists, in your never-ending quest to connect NLP with Scientology. Is it too much to ask that you quit being an asshole who drags misleading (not to mention completely untrue) writings into this document???? Akulkis 10:10, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
No, you're wrong again. The way NLPers use the term engram is distinct from the way neurologists use it. NLP has nothing to do with Scientology (the CoS "spiritual" doctrine) it's related to Dianetics (the CoS "psychological" doctrine) in a number of ways which I'll detail for you shortly. Rather than spray this page with your paranoid rantings try doing some earnest research. You know f*ck all about NLP and Dianetics as you repeatedly demonstrate so sit back, shut the f*ck-up, read and learn. Soliciting information and evidence from others -- rather than ranting and typing banal expletives -- would go towards relieving you of your ignorance and broadening your pathologically narrow perspective. The only asshole in this discussion is you. Would it kill you to simply ask for more detail regarding a matter which you contest? Or is it that you simply cherish your groundless prejudices and can't bear to lose them (a kook without prejudices is no kook at all). You made a complete dick of yourself regarding Fritz Perls and Dianetics, the false ineffectual-harmless/effective-harmful dichotomy, the issue of Dianetics and hypnosis, the problems of anecdotal evidence etc. etc. etc. and you're about to do it again regarding the similarities between Dianetics and NLP. Is your ability to learn impaired or are you so f*cked-up in the head that you can't resist your own aberrant urges to make an ass of yourself on the WWW? flavius 11:48, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
AKluckis. Its interesting how your behavior has only managed to demonstrate exactly how extremely cultish your obsessions and agendas are. Not only have you clearly been bent on censoring and whitewashing your dearest NLP devotion, but you have demonstrated how much intense pain it causes you to have the plain facts presented. Just try to realise that rational people can see what you have written. And try not to resent them for being realistic. HeadleyDown 12:55, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
The above article text mentioned by Akulkis does not seem too problematic to me, as the engram is much different in NLP than in neurology. The Scientology associations do seem a little over the top. The research and reviews alone will do here, and we have plenty of them. BTW, lets try to avoid personal attacks, even against other people who use them.Voice of AllT|@|ESP 13:14, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Let's avoid guilt by association arguments. Lee Lady's comment [[3]] is personal opinion, and weak evidence at best. Is the intention to denigrate NLP or promote Dianetics/Scientology? With 8 repeats of Scientology, and 11 repeats of Dianetics -- it certainly begs the question. I think we can reduce this to about 1 or two sentences. this is not an article about Dianetics or Scientology. Should we remove the unnecessary repeats of Dianetics/Scientology or do we need to get a RfC on this? --Comaze 03:32, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
No it doesn't "beg the question". The point is to present an accurate description of NLP. Since its inception -- because it is fundamentally a commercial venture -- NLP has been shrouded in myth, hyperbole and mystification. An encyclopedic article should educate and enlighten, striving to cut through deliberate obscurantism and obfuscation. B&Gs malignant propagandizing continues till today (as evidenced by the Grinder interview at Inspiritive.com and the Bandler interview on mp3.com). NLP doesn't represent a paradigm shift in psychology or psychotherapy, it isn't the cutting-edge of applied psychology, it isn't the future of psychology. NLP is cut from the same cloth as Dianetics and EST -- the experts say this much and the parallels are apparent -- and this is worthy of mention. This is unpalatable to you Comaze because you would like to think of NLP as some sophisticated system of inquiry based on mathematics and logic that somehow evades scientific scrutiny. flavius 15:29, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Hold your horses. I'm currently (re-)reading Dianetics and you'll be surprised about the similarities between Dianetics and NLP. Dianetics contains an explicit understanding of sensorially encoded memory, the characteristics of those encodings in terms of their sense-specific qualities (ie. submodalities), "reverie" (i.e. light trance), the notion of a "time track" (not unlike the NLP time line), an explicit appeal to instrumentalist epistemology, an explicit understanding of associated/dissociated memory, it's replete with IT metaphors and jargon (just like NLP) and the auditing process itself bears numerous similarities to VK dissociation, Time Line Therapy, submodality attenuation and collapsing anchors. Lee Lady conjectures the role of CoS as a template for B&G:
For a while, Bandler and Grinder thought that they could turn NLP into a product which could be promoted to the general public for a lot of money. I'm sure that they must have had the examples of L. Ron Hubbard and Werner Erhard in mind. (You have to remember that at this point they had no academic position and were living on the edge of poverty. But of course this sort of attitude certainly didn't endear them to the academic world.) (http://www2.hawaii.edu/~lady/archive/history-3.html)
Lady's conjecture is not unusual. Hubbard and Erhardt served as pioneers for the New Age/Human Potential industry. It was my intention to detail these many parallels in this subsection of the discussion page in an effort to put the myth that NLP has nothing to do with Dianetics to bed. flavius 02:00, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Comaze, read some of the Dianetics literature written by Hubbard. You will find that there is a great deal of scope for writing more about both Dianetics and Scientology in the article. And it will make the article even more encyclopedic and clear. Presently the mention of Dianetics and Scientology are only brief mentions. Each one can be better explained in their own context. HeadleyDown 03:24, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


[edit] disambiguation engram

The engram page has changed to provide disambiguation for the different usage of Engram (Dianetics), and Engram (neuropsychology). I made the change in the article to reflect this. It is still not clear what definition of engram is being used in that section. --Comaze 03:45, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New Paper Published in Peer-Reviewed Highly Regarded Journal Critical of NLP

Devilly, Grant J. (2005) "Power Therapies and possible threats to the science of psychology and psychiatry". Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry 2005; 39:437-445

ABSTRACT

Objective: Advocates of new therapies frequently make bold claims regarding therapeutic effectiveness, particularly in response to disorders which have been traditionally treatment-refractory. This paper reviews a collection of new therapies collectively self-termed 'The Power Therapies', outlining their proposed procedures and the evidence for and against their use. These therapies are then put to the test for pseudoscientific practice.

Method: Therapies were included which self-describe themselves as 'Power Therapies'. Published work searches were conducted on each therapy using Medline and PsychInfo databases for randomized controlled trials assessing their efficacy, except for the case of Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing (EMDR). Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing has more randomized controlled studies conducted on its efficacy than any other treatment for trauma and thus, previous meta-analyses were evaluated.

Results and conclusions: 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.

This paper is significant for several reasons:

  1. It represents an answer to Figley's hyperbole on his Traumatic Stress Forum.
  2. The existing criticisms and conclusions regarding NLP are re-iterated (this convergence is important in evaluating earlier research -- pro and con).
  3. NLP is characterized as pseudoscience and essentially a commercial venture.
  4. NLP's status as settled and not worthy of further research is reiterated and it is demonstrated that research has shifted towards the newer "Power Therapies" (EFT, TFT, EMDR, TAT and TIR), which are incidentally advocated and practiced by many NLPers.
  5. It is concerned with efficacy, i.e. NLP (and the other Power Therapies) are assessed on their own terms.
  6. It is recent.
  7. It is in a mainstream professional journal.

This vindicates the position of the critical camp (myself, HeadleyDown, Camridge, DaveRight et al) and it shows the position of Comaze and GregA to be untenable and fundamentally dissociated from reality.

This vindication should have an emboldening and encouraging effect on those that have struggled against the relentless spray of propaganda and the surreal "alternate world landscaping" efforts of GregA and Comaze on behalf of Inspiritive [4] and Grinder.

I will re-read the paper and add the paper as a reference.

PS:- For your amusement see http://sudotherapay.tripod.com/ It's telling of the status enjoyed by the "Power Therapies" (including NLP) that they are being lampooned in this manner. flavius 15:14, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Flavius, Clinical psychologists' criticism of NLP is already represented in the article. Does Grant Devilly find anything that was not covered by Lilienfeld et al (2003)? To be fair we should probably expand Figley's support of VK/D in Traumatology workshops. --Comaze 00:13, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Firstly, Devilly isn't a clinical psychologist he's a researcher in neuropsychology. Secondly, you don't appear to -- or perhaps don't want to -- understand the notions of consensus of opinion and convergence of opinion. Devilly (2005) converges on the same conclusions as other scientific papers on NLP. We're getting at the point where a firm consensus of expert opinion is being further consolidated. This is very significant. Devilly (2005) presents another literature review that is two years after Lilienfeld (2003) and reiterates the broad consensus opinion on the matter. Furthermore, the Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry is an important peer-reviewed journal. Devilly (2005) didn't find that previous research into NLP was inadequate, that NLP is based on a whiz-bang epistemology that is not amenable to scientific scrutiny, that NLP is the way forward. In short, he did not find anything that suggests that any of the claims on this site[5] are true. On the contrary he reiterates the consensus opinion of Sharpley, Lilienfeld, Eisner, Druckman and Swets etc. etc. etc. Devilly (2005) is eminently more citable that the shit you have snuck into the article such as Mathison, Tosey and Malloy. No credible peer-reviewed journal would carry the junk spouted by Grinder or Malloy and lapped up by sycophants. Figley carries no weight. Devilly (2005) answers Figley's hollow claims. You are clutching at straws. You've spent AU$10,000 on this crap course[6] and now you're dissonant. In an attempt to reduce this dissonance you're trying to convince yourself that your time and money was well spent. In order to do this you've resorted to landscaping and grooming Grinder's imaginary parallel universe so that you can comfortably reside in it (with GregA). Your sustaining weltenschaung is becoming increasingly bizarre -- I fear that it will soon become so dissimilar to everyone else that all communication with you will become impossible. This is very cultish. The pattern of your thinking is becoming increasingly plain. You appear to have accepted the content of your Grad. Cert. in NLP as perfect -- Grinder, Bostic-St Clair and his Australian sycophants the Collingwoods are infallible. The prophet and his apostles have the Truth and they will allow you to share in it for AU$10,000. Thus the validity of the content of your Grad. Cert. in NLP is axiomatic -- it's truth is beyond question (not unlike a Euclidean axiom such as "Things which equal the same thing also equal one another."). The job you have assumed for yourself -- it would appear -- is to re-order the Universe so as to accommodate the content of the Grad. Cert. in NLP taught at Inspiritive. Screw science, screw linguistics, screw logic, screw statistics, screw research design you effectively declare. Your modus operandi appears to be that if anything contradicts anything the Collingwoods taught (passed down to them via Grinder) it must be wrong and must be torn usunder to accommodate the Truth as espoused at Inspiritive. This is cultish thinking. This is all becoming creepy and concerning. In the "Web of Belief" Quine contended that beliefs form interdependent networks, that a given belief will have antecedent and consequent beliefs. In Quine's scheme any belief -- no matter how ridiculous -- can be accommodated the only cost is that the "web" of surrounding beliefs must be altered. Depending on the nature of the belief the whole web may have to be changed. This provides an epistemic understanding of how an adult can believe the Xenu story of the CoS. Clearly, accepting the Xenu story as true will require a massive re-organisation of one's web of beliefs: science will be one of the main casualties. You too are doing the same thing as the Scientologists which you are so desperately attempting to distance yourself from. You too have re-organised your web of belief such that NLP remains true regardless of any contrary evidence. You have in fact gone one step further, you -- following the lead of Grinder laid out in Whispering and to be further elaborate in Red Tail Math have redefined the very concept of evidence. The notion of evidence has been reconstructed in an attempt to invalidate all negative scientific finds against NLP and to preserve its apparent truth value in the face of any future criticism. I'm interested to read from you what your position is regarding the epistemic status of the content of the Grad. Cert in NLP. Do you deem Grinder to be infallible? Is it possible -- according to you -- that Grinder is wrong about NLP? This cuts to the heart of the matter of whether you are entirely rational and worth my (or anyone elses) time and effort. If you do regard NLP as a perfect doctrine in the same way that Fundamentalist Christians regard the Bible (i.e. as inerrant and absolutely authoritative) then your position is one of faith and you are being disingenuous with all your "research". Do you have any criticisms about any of the content imparted to you during the Grad. Cert. in NLP? Is New Code NLP perfect and by implication Grinder infallible? flavius 03:17, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Flavius, What I personally think about NLP has no relevance to this discussion. I have trained in material from all major schools of NLP including Robert Dilts, Dr. John Grinder, Dr. Stephen Gilligan, R. Bandler, Leslie Cameron-Bandler and Judith Delozier so I can present the different schools of NLP fairly; this is quite a challenge because most of the schools content and delivery differ significantly. However, there are some common elements that can be traced to the beginning of the field. The skeptics and academics points of view should also be represented fairly and attributed to the correct sources. Additionally, there is no need to ditch linguistics, science or any other linguistics subjects --- many people use NLP as an adjunct to their academic and professional qualifications such as cognitive science, linguistics, sales, business, change management etc. There are plenty of published books on the applications. In NLP modeling there is a preference for direct sensory based evidence and for the modeling process a preference for live experience and imitation much like a mentor/apprenticeship relationship. During the initial stage (unconscious uptake) of the NLP modeling process all linguistic filters (prior knowledge) are suspended; later in the coding phase all the academic, scientific, linguistic competencies are enabled -- giving you full freedom to explicate the coding, artfully so. There is some work being done to get those interested in NLP to work alongside researchers in neuropsychology but most NLP practitioners are interested only in what can be directly applied.. --Comaze 12:29, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Firstly, your personal take on the epistemic status of NLP and the fallibility or otherwise of Grinder is relevant in that it will ultimately determine whether what you deem contentious is justiciable. If you deem Grinder infallible and New Code NLP perfect then any dispute becomes non-justiciable. On the surface it may appear justiciable but at its core it will be found to be non-justiciable, i.e. unable to be adjudicated over. We can't adjudicate over matters of faith. If your acceptance of NLP is faith-based -- and it appears to be since their is no evidence to support your fervent advocacy -- then the article, unless it is rendered a piece of NLP promotional material, will be always be "biased" in your view. Secondly, that you have trained extensively in NLP is more of a hindrance than a help since it makes you all the more dissonant. You have such an heavy investment in terms of time, money and self-identity in NLP that you have been "captured". You are in this way no different from a member of a cult. Your two broad options are not unlike those of long-term cult members (1) reject NLP and deal with the consequences of the wasted time and money, misplaced trust and ramifications on self-concept; or (2) become more immersed in NLP and re-organise your web of belief more extensively to deal with assaults. Clearly you have chosen the second option and your comments have betrayed the extensiveness of the eccentricity of your network of sustaining beliefs. In an earlier discussion you suggested that psychology isn't scientific and that their are divisions within psychology ergo NLP is a peer of psychology. I answered this concern yet you didn;t respond. The issue of your dissonance is also relevant in that it robs you of your impartiality -- you will see bias when their is none. Thirdly, you write "there is no need to ditch linguistics, science or any other linguistics subjects --- many people use NLP as an adjunct to their academic and professional qualifications such as cognitive science, linguistics, sales, business, change management etc. There are plenty of published books on the applications". There is a need for you (and every other NLP zealot) to reject science and everything else that contradicts the doctrine of NLP and that is precisely what you have done. The consensus of scientific opinion is that NLP is ineffective, theoretically unsubstantiated and pseudoscientific. If you reject the consensus scientific opinion you are effectively rejecting science. Also, "sales, business, [and] change management" have nothing to do with science and their practitioners are not scientists. There are no eminent or even prominent scientists that "use NLP as an adjunct to their academic and professional qualifications". It is not possible to be scientific and embrace a theory and practice that is so fundamentally at odds -- in method and results -- with science. Who are these scientists that "use NLP as an adjunct to their academic and professional qualifications"? Malloy? Do they number more than 100 globally? Are they reputable? Malloy is a nobody, is he your example of a scientist that uses NLP. This is all reminiscent of CoS propaganda. Specifically, given that TG is dead in linguistics what sort of linguist would embrace a doctrine based on an outdated linguistic theory? Answer: a linguist like Grinder, i.e. a hack academic without reputation that lost his tenure from a New Age College (Kresge). Fourthly, you write, "In NLP modeling there is a preference for direct sensory based evidence and for the modeling process a preference for live experience and imitation much like a mentor/apprenticeship relationship. During the initial stage (unconscious uptake) of the NLP modeling process all linguistic filters (prior knowledge) are suspended; later in the coding phase all the academic, scientific, linguistic competencies are enabled -- giving you full freedom to explicate the coding, artfully so". This is thoughtless zombie-like repetition of doctrine. Grinder advocates the use of eye accessing cues in the modelling process so as to determine the exemplars "strategy". Eye accessing cues have been thoroughly and conclusively discredited. Bandler himself has abandoned them and concedes (possible) error. Furthermore, many of the patterns derived from NLP modelling have been shown to be ineffective (eg. predicate matching, mirroring). Thus there is evidence that the process of NLP modelling itself is flawed. The acceptance of NLP modelling as sound requires a simultaneous rejection of the results of scientific inquiry into NLP modelling (because the results are not supportive). Grinder's response to the results from the most thoroughly researched aspect of NLP -- namely eye accessing cues and PRS -- indicates that what you are saying is given only lip-service. Grinder's response to the overwhelming lack of support found for the eye accessing cues and PRS hypotheses is a wholesale rejection of scientific method -- I provided the relevant quotes from Whispering in an earlier discussion. Fifthly, you write, "There is some work being done to get those interested in NLP to work alongside researchers in neuropsychology but most NLP practitioners are interested only in what can be directly applied". This is plain bullshit. Devilly is a neuropsychologist and Devilly (2005) is representative of the neuropsychological professions opinion of NLP. Finding two neuropsychologists that think NLP is shit-hot science is entirely insignificant, it is statistical noise. If we searched we could probably find at least five Crowlian Magickians that are neuropsychologists. What of it? This notion of "what can be directly applied" is a naive means of avoiding the matter of demonstrable efficacy. Eye accessing cues have been thoroughly discredited. Can they be "directly applied"? What does "directly applied" mean? flavius 00:05, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Maybe this thread should be moved to email -- we need to keep this directly connected to the article. If you are interested I can put you in contact with a cognitive scientist who is currently doing a Graduate Certificate in NLP; he's finding much of NLP is intellectually underpinned by theory available in cognitive science, linguistics (especially Noam Chomsky and Transformational Grammar), neuroscience, and neural networks. He is better informed than me on the latest research in this area. He mentioned a current argument in neuroscience over the role of localization of certain brain functions such as Visual, Auditory and other sensory systems. The latest fMRI technology is too slow to test eye accessing cues and localization. Nonetheless, mainstream neuroscience accepts eye movements as indicators of internal imagery, and other cognitive functions. This is where typical scientists fail -- in NLP we can use trained subjects, introspection and testimonial evidence. Statistical approaches are not useful for sensory acuity and calibration skills. Even if eye accessing were false they are excellent way for people to hone their calibration and sensory acuity skills by listening for predicates and watching eye movements. I'll hold off on commenting on Devilly (2005) until I get comment from an expert in this area. With the professional postgraduate program in NLP some graduates are moving back into academic and professional circles. We may see an increase in published papers, and updates to connect NLP to the latest linguistics, neuroscience and other research. With Grinder moving back into academic publishing (with Malloy and Bostic), there is renewed interest in the academic side of NLP. Prof. Charles Figley[7] (Florida State University - Founding member, Traumatology) is an academic with an excellent reputation. Grinder has set up a research framework so that NLP can be updated with the latest developments from cognitive neuropsychology. By "directly applied" I mean that after seeing a live demonstration of the skill and short instruction, another person can imitate and elicit the similar responses as shown in the original demonstration; for testing the original demonstrator would sign off that the skill was performed to the same degree of quality. --Comaze 01:02, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
This is becoming ridiculous. So you can put me in contact with one cognitive scientist that thinks NLP is shit hot! I reckon that I can find one of any X that thinks Y is valid (where X is a profession and Y is any theory, religion, cult, superstition, sect, philosophy, creed or conjecture). I want to see a substantial body of opinion from any profession with relevant topic expertise that concludes that NLP is valid. One cognitive scientist won't cut it. If this persons opinion re NLP was worth a shit he'd publish a paper in a peer-reviewed journal of repute. TG is dead amongst linguists. Does your cognitive scientist know that? Also, (artificial) neural networks are a paradigm for computing (as are genetic algorithms), neither is necessarily relevant to human neurology. Arguments about localization of brain function are conjectures or hypotheses, as conjectures and hypotheses they are to be tested not used to justify NLP. Regarding eye movements all we can say that is true is that eyes sometimes move when we think and remember. This far removed from the eye accessing cues diagram in Frogs and the pile of shit in Whispering. You write, "This is where typical scientists fail -- in NLP we can use trained subjects, introspection and testimonial evidence". Are you serious? You use "trained subjects" because they know what they are supposed to do, they know what role they supposed to play. If NLP were uncovering truths about human neurology and behavior you should be able to observe your results in people drawn at random from the general population. A trained subject moves his eyes in accordance with the goofy diagram in Frogs because he knows about that diagram and believes that eye accessing cues are real. Testimonial evidence is very low quality evidence and in many domains it isn't even evidence at all. Scientists don't use testimonial evidence because it isn't a valid form of evidence. The rejection of testimonial evidence isn't confined to science. Most people wouldn't believe me if I told them I saw the Loch Ness Monster or a Yeti or a space alien, they would demand something more than my testimony in order to accept my claim s real. Scientists do study subjective experience but they do so in an objective way. NLPer study subjective experience in a subjective manner that is why they produce crap. You claim, "Statistical approaches are not useful for sensory acuity and calibration skills". This is vague and perhaps meaningless. Despite Grinder's blather on the topic, inferential statistics are used to aid in the testing of hypotheses. Using inferential statistics we can test whether claimed "sensory acuity and calibration skills" are making a person more persuasive, better able to communicate, more empathic etc. You write, "Even if eye accessing were false they are excellent way for people to hone their calibration and sensory acuity skills by listening for predicates and watching eye movements". No they wouldn't. They are false (so I won't so if) so why gather useless information and then proceed to make invalid inferences of of it? These invalid inferences will only hamper communication. You write, "With the professional postgraduate program in NLP some graduates are moving back into academic and professional circles. We may see an increase in published papers, and updates to connect NLP to the latest linguistics, neuroscience and other research". It's a f*cking certificate (and at AU$10,000 its probably the most expensive certificate in Australia -- a TAFE certificate costs between AU$200-$500). In Australia a certificate is the lowest grade of academic certification. The hierarchy is: certificate, advanced certificate, associate diploma, diploma, degree, masters, doctorate. The content wasn't sufficiently substantive to have it classed even an associate diploma. Can't the CoS say that they too have members in the academy? We may see many things, even a crocodile riding a unicycle (Hubbard reports to have seen one). You write, "With Grinder moving back into academic publishing (with Malloy and Bostic), there is renewed interest in the academic side of NLP". Where is this interest? Given that Figley is involved in the promotion of Power Therapies then he isn't reputable. You write, "Grinder has set up a research framework so that NLP can be updated with the latest developments from cognitive neuropsychology". Where? If NLP were "updated" with scientific discoveries there would be nothing left of it since so part has found any support in science. Also, how can something which you claim to be non-scientific and possessed of its own "criteria of argumentation and evidence" be updated with developments from a scientific discipline? You write, "By 'directly applied' I mean that after seeing a live demonstration of the skill and short instruction, another person can imitate and elicit the similar responses as shown in the original demonstration; for testing the original demonstrator would sign off that the skill was performed to the same degree of quality." By this definition, throwing your excrement at someone would count as a directly applied skill. flavius 04:42, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Flavius, Based on Charles Figley's tenureship, editorialship, publications -- his reputation is excellent. Correction: Under the Australian qualification framework, the hierarchy is: Certificate I-IV, Advanced certificate, Diploma, Advanced Diploma, Degree, Graduate Certificate, Masters, Doctorate. The Graduate Certificate in Neuro-linguistic Programming is 333 hours and requires bachelors degree for entry, (the order of Australian qualification Grad.Cert. is in between Bachelors degree and Masters Degree in terms of grade[8]). The certification is issued by a Registered Training Organisation under the Australian Quality Training Framework[9] and is endorsed by co-founder of NLP, Dr. John Grinder. On your question about cognitive scientists, Patrick Merlevede has a PhD in NLP and masters degree in cognitive science[10]. I'm not sure if Patrick Merlevede PhD or Jane Mathison PhD did the first PhD on NLP. Dr. Stephen Gilligan's PhD was in part based partly on his work with Grinder and Bandler in the mid 70s. --Comaze 05:26, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
If Figley is promoting Power Therapies then he is ipso facto not credible. The imposition of the prerequisite of requiring a Bachelors degree in anything for acceptance into the Grad Cert. in NLP is artificial and instituted only to raise the apparent prestige of the certificate. Inspiritive will accept you without a degree -- it after all about lining the Collingwood's pockets. The Grad. Cert. is not between a bachelors degree and masters degree because it is unrelated to the base degree. In Australia, a masters degree consists of advanced study of the material covered in an undergraduate degree. I have a graduate diploma and it is considered a degree equivalent because it contained all the units required to qualify for a degree less the enrichment electives that undergraduates have to enroll in -- it is not considered more advanced than a bachelors degree and it is a diploma that took 1 year full-time to complete. Hence a Grad. Cert. is not just beneath a master's degree. That's just crap. The only graduate diplomas and certificate that are deemed more advanced than bachelors degrees are those that carry undergraduate study to a higher level. Australian tertiary education is in crisis and turmoil so te accreditation of an NLP course is just another negative development. I'm sure it makes it all worthwhile if John Grinder endorses it :-) Patrick Merlevede doesn't may have a PhD in NLP and Stacey Abbott -- God bless her -- has a PhD on Buffy the Vampire Slayer[11], Djoymi Baker is completing a PhD on Star Trek[12]. Does this mean that Buffy the Vampire Slayer is a substantive topic? flavius 12:38, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Nice one Flavius. Sure, Devilly needs some more airtime in the article. I seem to remember a similar paper that had Scientology in the same list as the other bullshit therapies. I'll see if I can find it. Comaze seems to be begging for it, bent over, trousers round ankles etc. You can hear Comaze whimpering "Please please please, audit me! Clear my engrams and heal my painful traumas"! Cheers DaveRight 03:27, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Overviews (criticism and overview)

I've removed the overview text and the intro the the criticism section. Both section were biased. Sathnam Sanghera is a newly appointed columnist (London Fin. Times) and if you include this author it opens the gates for a whole host of authors from similar publications (pro and con). Harry Edwards' Skeptics Guide to the New Age is also inappropriate for the overview of NLP -- it should be written from a Neutral Point of View. --Comaze 02:28, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Comaze, Sanghera's view and Edwards' views both converge towards the same view as the experts. This convergence suggests where the truth of the matter lies. You are attempting to manufacture an illusion that your views are something other than fringe. flavius 03:21, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
If the skeptical views of Sanghera and Edwards' views are acceptable then so are the hundreds of non-academic books that have been published by reputable authors. I really think we need a separation of academic and non-academic authors here. DaveRight reverted my edits so I'll we might have to resolve this via RfC. --Comaze 03:33, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Comaze, you seem to have reverted to your last summer's reversion fest. It was clear from the beginning that are not going to remove facts on Wikipedia. We all know you just want to promote NLP. The authors presented are presenting the facts concisely, but that does not mean you can erase them off the face of the article. You must realize how desperate you look to rational people. I think its time to torture you with some more realistic facts. Why are you so desperately into sucking money grabbing gurus? Falling for pseudoscientific confections is fair enough once in a while, but being such a daily sucker for bullshitting gurus on a daily basis will not do your self cred much good. Once you realise the charlatans have you bent over, taking you roughly from behind, you are supposed to react by kicking, screaming and fighting to recover your self worth. You're not supposed to return to the same old "roger me brutally again, I'm Comaze the guru babble sucker". DaveRight 04:57, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Comaze, no your reasoning regarding "non-academic books" is unsound for at least two reasons: (a) if being non-academic were grounds for exclusion then there would be no citations on the pro-NLP side. We wouldn't be able to include even the NLP primary texts since none of them are academic; (b) again you show an inability or unwillingness to grasp the fundamental notions regarding opinion of consensus and convergence. The profile of expert opinion (that of linguists, psychologists, psychiatrists, psychologists, anthropologists, philosophers, neurologists, neuropsychologists) regarding NLP is that it is ineffective, there is no evidence in its favor, it is theoretically flawed and pseudoscientific. This too is the opinion of most pragmatic clinicians. It is unlikely given the history of science that given the magnitude and direction of consensus and convergence that the opposite is in fact true, i.e. that NLP is efficacious, there exists evidence of its efficacy and it is theoretically sound. Any non-academic opinion is evaluated -- at least partially -- with regard to its relation to the consensus of opinion and whether it converges on the same opinion as experts. If a non-expert, published -- in some place other than a peer-reviewed journal -- some "thumbnail dipped in tar" essay in support of NLP (like this one [13] or this one [14], incidentally how is it that research using basically those methods that Grinder rejects that finds in support of NLP is included?) that was inconsistent with the broad consensus and that did not converge on the same opinion as most of the other research then that would be not worthy of mention let alone citation. Sanghera may not be a topic expert but his conclusions are consistent with those of topic experts hence he is most likely correct. Edwards' too is citable for this same reason. Non-academics provide a different perspective on the truth as established by experts. They are also able to present expert opinion in an amusing or witty manner. flavius 04:45, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Flavius, There are actually a few separate issues here 1) Currently, NLP is not primarily an academic subject, recently there have been some papers published by Craft, Tosey, Mathison, Malloy, Grinder & Bostic in academic journals 2) NLP has different criteria for argumentation and evidence to that of science 3) Wikipedia also has different criteria for evidence for academic v. non-academic subjects 4) Robert Dilts, Carmen Bostic & John Grinder [15] consider NLP to be a newcomer, a fledgling field that has yet to be established; what is the Wikipedia policy for a field that is not yet established? 5) There are thousands of non-academic books published in many different languages all over the world for sales, sport and other non-academic applications --Comaze 05:56, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Comaze, I'll respond to your points as you've enumerated them. (1) I have copies of Tosey and Mathison's paper and I've commented on it earlier. The journal that they published in itself isn't reputable in its field (it's editorial standard are low, the paper that they respond to that is critical of NLP is itself quite poor). Malloy and Grinder/Bostic published in an online journal without reputation. All journals are not equal. NLP is 30 years old and it is still tightly bound to Bandler and Grinder, so much so that their split spawned two broad schools (or churches) of NLP. NLP isn't a subject so it can never become an academic subject. (2) This is a ridiculous contention! "NLP has different criteria for argumentation and evidence to that of science". Can you list them for us for our benefit? If this were true then how is the substance of these[16][17] possible? It would seem then that NLP has the same "criteria for argumentation and evidence" as science when the results are supportive but different "criteria for argumentation and evidence" when the results are non-supportive. NLPs criteria for argumentation and evidence are that what Grinder says is true and Grinder need not supply argumentation and evidence only assertion and anecdote and anything that contradicts Grinder is false. Is it as simple as that? Does NLP then have a criterion of evidence such that if something doesn't work according to most people it in fact does work. Is this a form of Dadaism? Is Grinder then a Dadaist? So is NLP art or religion? (3) A non-academic subject doesn't make claims about the nature of illness, cognition, learning, memory, thinking, neurology, motivation etc. unless it is pseudoscience or pop-psychology. (4) Who cares what three NLP advocates claim about NLPs status as a discipline. To date literally hundreds of topic experts have investigated NLP and the consensus opinion regarding NLP is that it is pseudoscience, charlatanry, fraud, New Age pap, cultish and a fad. If NLP is a "fledgling field" then so is Dianetics. The appropriate policy for Wikipedia vis-a-vis NLP is that of on New Age and pseudoscientific topics. (5) So what? If they are at odds with the consensus scientific opinion then they too are bunkum. flavius 00:37, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Altering the direct quotes from Sanghera and Edwards violates copyright and Wikipedia policy. Someone is doing copy and paste job here and presenting it as original work. If you have permission from the original author then we would need this in writing. --Comaze 05:06, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Personal attacks - report to ArbCom or Mediator

There has been an increase in the number and severity of personal attacks on this page. I will report any attacks against anyone directly to arbcom. [18] or via email to our mediator. --Comaze 05:13, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

They have been quite funny so arbcom should get a chuckle. flavius

[edit] Rule-governed behavior

I modified the second paragraph to this:

It is predicated upon the assumption that "[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" [3].

This is the basis of majority of NLP that extends Chomsky's (1957) notion that language is rule governed, Bandler & Grinder (1975a) argue that all human behavior is also rule governed --Comaze 08:10, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rewrite this paragraph on meta model (NPOV)

The meta-model involves the identification of the abandoned theoretical concepts of Chomsky's transformational grammar [19][20]. 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 (REF).

Can someone please rewrite the paragraph above and reinsert it into the meta-model section. At the moment it is poorly articulated. --Comaze 08:40, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Two distinct points of view: NLP is a therapy / NLP is a model methodology

There seems to be two main points of views in the article, from both the advocates and skeptics of NLP. One group seems to define NLP as an approach to therapy, and the other group as a way to model high performers. We need to make clear distinction betweens the different versions or types of NLP. --Comaze 08:53, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Comaze, they are just two aspect of the same thing. The distinction itself is dubious. If the products of a method are defective then the method itself must be defective. NLP is predominantly concerned with psychotherapy. The vast majority of NLP "patterns" and literature are concerned with therapy. The aspect of NLP are not mutually exclusive: it is purported to be a method of modeling excellence and an approach to psychotherapy. flavius 00:45, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
There is a necessary distinction here. Modeling is a methodology and psychotherapy is the application of the results of the modeling process. Just as many people apply NLP to sales and business, and apply it to psychotherapy. If you look at the different definitions of NLP provided by the developers, you'll find that the majority do not define NLP as a therapy, but as a methodology for "modeling human excellence". It is mostly the AMA biased "alternative therapy" skeptics (Jack Raso, Stephen Barrett, etc.) who ignore the application of NLP to learning, business, and sales training. --Comaze 01:21, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
This is very disingenuous of you. When NLP debut it was as a set of (alleged) psychotherapeutic patterns. The primary NLP texts have an almost exclusive psychotherapeutic focus. NLP does the most harm as a psychotherapy that is why it has drawn the attention of the AMA. The damage when it is used in sales and management is confined to the companies stupid enough to use it -- there is no public damage as such. Nevertheless, NLP has been heavily critiques in HR and management journals. The distinction isn't important in that NLP (patterns) are crap as is NLP (modelling) so it is sound to simply say NLP is crap. Since you are compelled by useless formalism: (X = A) & (Y = A) → X = Y flavius 05:00, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Astray

I have noticed that blanket reverts and personal attacks have returned, and the discussion is going astray. Please try to avoid this. Try to avoid making so many edits at once, and try not to be to careless. Some of the edits that where reverted had poor wording and some of the ref changes (like "|21") had no affect.Voice of AllT|@|ESP 17:05, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Replace (I'll wait 24 hours before making this change):

It is predicated upon the assumption that all behaviors have a practically determinable structure [21] [22].

With this:

It is predicated upon the assumption that "[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.
Voice of All: I want to replace the first sentence with the second, a direct quote from Grinder & Bandler (1975a). I'd settle for an accurate paraphrase of the second. This book has over 175 citations on google scholar which is an acceptable rule of thumb for Wikipedia. --Comaze 23:07, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
VoiceOfAll. I appreciate your balanced mediation. But there must be someone official here who can point out Comaze's whitewash, and censorship of fact or ref, and take a good long run up to kick hard his tiny balls. Camridge 04:37, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What are we doing, guys?

I think that how the article is looking right now doesn't correspond with the requirements for a good Wiki-article. Mostly, as it seems to me, you try to put as many footnotes as you can to prove that your point of view is correct. But this does not clarify anything about the NLP itself (at least for me), most things you're doing is either attempts to say "NLP is bad, bad, bad[1][2][3][7][8][99]" or to say "NLP is not bad, not bad, not bad[4][5][6][33][56][232]." The fact is that NLP is used by thousands of specialists, businessmen, psychologists, therapists, doctors, intelligence services in many countries. (And it is not used by thousands of specialists as well.) So you cannot just take that model and say "blah blah yada yada yeah it happens, but many people think it's a psycho cult, so we shall put the message that it is a psycho cult in every line of the text." What I suggest is to divide the article into two sections - one's describing what the meaning of NLP is, what NLPers do, what they are supposed to do, and the second section's for pro's and con's. Perhaps, we should even make a separate article NLP Criticism (where the right to speak should be given to those, who criticize arguments of those, who criticize arguments for NLP, too), because GUYS, WE'VE GOT TO MAKE THIS ARTICLE READABLE, now it's only a worthless piece of a "who's the sharpest nail" battle. Please think in a scientific way--and the scientific way means you don't get prejudice and you're ready to check the model or at least you give the chance of checking the model to others. Cui bono? 7even 20:20, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Thanks 7even. I really appreciate your constructive comment. The article needs some more fluid structure. Maybe 1. NLP as described by the seeming founders with citings. then 2. What others have described NLP to be Promoters and then Critics. 3. Then maybe a brief history dates and such perhaps. etc... then other points. Maybe we really should think of hammering out a different form ToC here. JVirusX
  • Thank you for understanding the meaning of my comment. 7even 22:26, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
7even, you make two distinct points and attempt to present them as one, illegitimately drawing conclusions from the wrong set of premises. You write, "you try to put as many footnotes as you can to prove that your point of view is correct". So what you suggesting is that we shouldn't let facts get in the way, screw substantiation, just engage in Monty Pythonesque dialogue: "Oh yes it is!", "Oh no it isn't!". That would be very encyclopedic and informative wouldn't it? You write, "But this does not clarify anything about the NLP itself (at least for me), most things you're doing is either attempts to say "NLP is bad, bad, bad" or to say "NLP is not bad, not bad, not bad". How so? Don't you understand the concept of evidence. What is "NLP itself" as opposed to what the article covers? Are you looking for a tutorial on NLP? You write,"The fact is that NLP is used by thousands of specialists, businessmen, psychologists, therapists, doctors, intelligence services in many countries. (And it is not used by thousands of specialists as well.)". No the fact is that it is used by an very small minority of professionals. Furthermore, so what if it is used by X number of people, what of it? There are most likely as many Scientologists as there are NLPers. Since when could truth be arrived at by a vote? You add, "So you cannot just take that model and say 'blah blah yada yada yeah it happens, but many people think it's a psycho cult, so we shall put the message that it is a psycho cult in every line of the text.'" NLP isn't a model -- in any technical sense of the word -- and your conclusion doesn't even follow your flawed premises. Are you suggesting that because "NLP is used by thousands of specialists, businessmen, psychologists, therapists, doctors, intelligence services in many countries" the assessment and results of research by topic experts are irrelevant? How did you make the leap from this premise:
P1. "The fact is that NLP is used by thousands of specialists, businessmen, psychologists, therapists, doctors, intelligence services in many countries. (And it is not used by thousands of specialists as well.)"
..to this conclusion?
C. 'So you cannot just take that model and say "blah blah yada yada yeah it happens, but many people think it's a psycho cult, so we shall put the message that it is a psycho cult in every line of the text.'
An encyclopedic article reports experts opinion on a matter. Numerous authoritative topic experts characterize NLP as a psycho-cult and even a quasi-religion. For this reason, that it is deemed a psycho-cult should be stated. You write, "What I suggest is to divide the article into two sections - one's describing what the meaning of NLP is, what NLPers do, what they are supposed to do, and the second section's for pro's and con's. Perhaps, we should even make a separate article NLP Criticism (where the right to speak should be given to those, who criticize arguments of those, who criticize arguments for NLP, too)". The article isn't a Usenet forum. The criticisms provided aren't those of the editors they are those of scientists and other experts and none of the criticism published in peer-reviewed journals has been answered by NLP proponents because no answers exist. You suggestion has zero merit and you betray a frightening degree of ignorance about NLP, science, basic reasoning skills and the concept of evidence. My suggestion is that you remedy your profound ignorance -- which I would be embarrassed to parade even under an alias -- and then revisit the article. Then you add, "because GUYS, WE'VE GOT TO MAKE THIS ARTICLE READABLE". So the issue of content has magically transformed into and insue of form. How so? You write, "now it's only a worthless piece of a "who's the sharpest nail" battle". So you want to read an advertisement for NLP stripped of any critical opinion, comfortably oblivious of all the pile of criticism leveled and non-supportive research against NLP? You finish (ironically) with, "Please think in a scientific way--and the scientific way means you don't get prejudice and you're ready to check the model or at least you give the chance of checking the model to others". The little numbers that appear on the upper-right of (critical) remarks refer to peer reviewed scientific research. Are you suggesting that Sharpley, Lilienfeld, Eisner, Levelt, Devilly, Druckman and Swets, Winkin, Beyerstein, Pratkanis et al don't "think in a scientific way". Perhaps you should write an email to Willem Levelt -- the Director of the Max Planck Institute of Psycholinguistics -- to let him know that he doesn't understand science. The scientists cited have "check[ed] the model". The debate isn't where you think it is. NLP has been throughly researched and found to be theoretically unsupported and ineffective. Any dispute should be made with reference to the existing body of research into NLP. You don't have a grasp on basic thinking skills let alone of scientific method so it is most presumptuous and deluded of you to proffer advice about being scientific. I honestly don't think you'd recognise a scientific journal if one was being stuffed into your flapping mouthing. Also, I suspect that you are a sock-pupper of that half-wit DejaKitty. You have the same peurile writing style and exhibit an inability to reason which is structurally similar. flavius 01:26, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Thank you, flavius, for exposing my ignorance and for such a huge comment. :) I understand your opinion concerning NLP--and this is your map as NLPers say. As for me, I don't like or dislike NLP, I just use it as one of the tools in my inventory. Well, right now I guess, if I am to find some info on NLP that makes sense, I should search someplace else (but I'm sure Wikipedians will keep working on the article and a solution will be achieved after some time). By posting my previous comment I didn't want to start any new discussion, I only sincerely suggested some ways of climbing out of the crisis, how I see them. That's why I didn't try to write a logically structured essay on the topic here. So I'll answer just to a few points you've made. "Since when could truth be arrived at by a vote?" - in fact, there is no absolute truth. There are things which can be considered (only considered) as truth after some verification (and hey, there can be 2+ quite opposite truths with equal amount of evidence for each). But I'm sure you are familiar with the scientific methods, so I won't go further in my comment here. "The debate isn't where you think it is." I do not think what you think I do think. That was a bad piece of telepathy, flavius; and I don't even know what to answer here because I suspect this message was designed for somebody else. "Perhaps you should write an email to Willem Levelt" - That's a good idea, thanks; I might do it if I decide to work on this topic closely. "You have the same peurile writing style and exhibit an inability to reason which is structurally similar" - I hope the fact that English is not my native language can excuse me, my writing style and an inability to reason. 7even 22:26, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
7even your inventory in the clear thinking department is bare and NLP isn't helping you here. No, you don't understand my "opinion concerning NLP" and it's not my "map". I'm presenting the consensus of scientific opinion that is derived from objective experimentation. For the time being that is the truth. If you understood the cited literature and comprehended its significance then you wouldn't be advocating NLP. The role of Wikipedia isn't to promote pseudoscience, its primary function is to educate. Education is about imparting knowledge. The best method devised so far for obtaining knowledge about the universe is science. The man that coined the phrase "the map is not the territory" -- Alfred Korzybski -- argued that science contains the most accurate maps and the scientific method produces the most accurate maps: "Science represents the highest structural abstractions that have been produced at each date. It is a supreme abstraction from all the experiences of countless individuals and generations" (p.553, Science and Sanity). Bandler and Grinder forgot that bit huh? If "there is no absolute truth" then what is the status of your statement that "there is no absolute truth"? Is your statement that "there is no absolute truth" absolute truth? If it is then there is absolute truth. Your statement that "there is no absolute truth" is self-refuting. Statements such as "there is no absolute truth" or "everything is relative" are idiotic banality disguised as profundity -- nonsense on stilts (to borrow a quote from Bentham). In your attempt to be clever you have once again demonstrated your abject simplicity. I'm sure an eminent, world-acknowledged expert in psycholinguistics that directs one of Europe's most prestigious psycholinguistic research facilities has been waiting all his life for a letter from a follower of a pseudoscientific, psycho-cult regarding his ignorance of matters scientific. You must have your head so far up your backside that you're some sort of human Klein bottle. flavius 17:29, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
JVirus/7even, Arbcom is currently voting[23]and it looks like various editors will be assigned mentors. Arbcom will most likely assign 4-5 administrators to this page to help stabilize the article. We need a whole bunch of experienced wikipedias to assist us in bringing this article up to scratch. --Comaze 23:12, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
MMM thx. guess i didnt pick that up from my talk readings :) jVirus 23:37, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm sure it will be worked out well. Good luck! 7even 22:26, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Makes no difference. If Comaze or any other idiotic NLP fool want to remove facts, having mentors around will not make a bit of difference. The facts remain or will be restored. HeadleyDown 02:43, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

JVirus and 7even. You are wet behind the ears. READ THE ARCHIVES! We have gone over this too many times already. The current format is fine and if Comaze does his chores properly, the current version will be LOCKED into place due to the hard to change new ref format. Its a done deal! DaveRight 03:57, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

DaveRight, Thanks for letting me know I am wet behind the ears. It was a real concern to me. Without it, you might have been lost. ;) jVirus 08:19, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
DaveRight, I'm sorry I hadn't had free time to read all the archives. I thought that I could suggest another direction for this discussion. But now I see the work is being done, so my comment was indeed redundant. 7even 22:26, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Not a personal attack; Comaze has been wasting everybody's time yet again

Comaze has:

  • Been deleting facts that were agreed valid through mediation, yet again.
  • Been whitewashing NLP again
  • Been whitewashing his own rotten actions again yes! eg [24]
  • Been making unwarranted accusations on editor's talk pages again (harassment), and has been adding warning stickers when he was told not to. He has also made SEVERAL threats to block editors[25][26] when he was told not to by arbitrators/mediators
  • Comaze has also been removing refs. Any place on the article where there is a (ref) there used to be a reference. Comaze has removed them. He has been censoring solid citations. He should put them back.
  • And Comaze has been acting in bad faith


These are not the kind of things that Wikipedians should be doing. Its very naughty. Take a look at Comaze's history, especially that of last summer. When zealots pretend to be concerned Wikipedians, just look at their history and highlight it on the discussion page. Rub their nose in their own shit. DaveRight 04:03, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Indeed! Comaze has developed a whitewash knee jerk. Thats about all he ever does. Either whitewash or censorship or some kind of vexatious litigation. Wikipedians should not behave like the church of Scientology. Comaze has shown the worst side of cult activities, and is his own worst enemy. Deal with him sharply and briefly. Do not waste too much time on explaining NLP research to him. He only wants to waste everybody's time, cause conflict, and promote his NLP. Camridge 04:25, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Please be aware of WP:NPA as you are in extreme violation. Swatjester 09:57, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Swatjester. You have not explained exactly why pointing out persistently bad behavior is an extreme violation of WP:NPA. Instead of just waving your little forms around for people to look at, why don't you take your head out of your arse and give us a good argument for why Comaze has never been in violation of any Wikipedia policies or conventions. HeadleyDown 13:40, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Persistently? I pointed it out twice. Learn to WP:AGF. I never once said Comaze has never been in violation, instead scroll down. Furthermore, you need to avoid personal attacks yourself. Is this how you great newcomers to an article? How about WP:BITE Swatjester 14:00, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../n/e/u/Talk%7ENeuro-linguistic_programming__archive10_3f78.html"