Talk:Neuro-linguistic programming

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archives
Pre-Oct 2005 Oct 2005 Disputes Oct 2005 (Mediated) Disputes 1 Oct 2005 (Mediated) Disputes 2 Nov 3 - 13, 2005 (Mediated) Nov 13 - 25, 2005 (Mediated ) 2005 Nov 25 - Dec 22, 2005 (Mediated) 2005 Dec 22, 2005 - Jan 14, 2006 (Mediated) 2006 Jan 14, 2006 To ArbCom decision Feb 6 2006 Mentorship begins Mentorship ends, HeadleyDown and many socks blocked The Swish discussion (March 6th - March 9th, 2006) General Workshop discussion (Feb 12th to May 10th, 2006) June 6 2006 to December 31 2006 Longterm abuser trolling/disinformation discussion (December 17 2006 to Present) Late December to January 19 2007

[edit] Toward feature article status

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

Neuro-linguistic programming has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

This article is being improved by the Cleanup Taskforce to conform with a higher standard of article quality. It is likely to change frequently until completed. Please see its Cleanup Taskforce page for more details.

Cleanup Taskforce page → Edit | Purge

[edit] Neuro-linguistic programming

The editors of this article need some assistance on cleaning up the article. A number of editors would assist in the cleanup job. Assistance would be greatly appreciated.

Comments-My problems & suggestions

I'm guessing this is the wrong place for comments, I could find no other, I hope somebody will move it to the proper place.

My notes while reading the article: about halfway done. My context: I know nothing about NLP.

Pretty crappy article. It seems to be more a discussion among NLP experts - a debate really,-- than an attempt to define NLP to newcomers. First I noticed that it's jargon heavy, plus relies too much on links. IMO, links should expand concepts, not be an integral, needed part of the larger NLP "definition." (I avoid links since I'm not likely to return, limited time, etc. Here my vague impression is, the links are bigger than the actual article. )

By the time I reached the "Humanistic psychology" section, I was weary of the debate: "is NLP valid and sound?" Basically I still had no idea what it is, how it functions, what one would expect "in therapy" (does it require one to be in therapy?) and so forth. This childish, redundant, redundant, redundant, redundant debate seems to occupy half of most sections. Perhaps I would be more tolerant if I knew what the hell it was, which is my goal for being here. The debate is a friggin debate! Not germane info. Hello? anybody home? Please get with the agenda: teaching about NLP. And Mr. anti-NLP, your function is not as my nanny. Mr. pro-NLP, your function is not as NLP defender. Please confine this to one short section only. I blame this debate on my continued lack of understanding. At best it's confusing, at worst, it obfuscates.

Specific Complaints & suggestions

An encyclopedia is for general readers, not experts. Hence terms like "nominalizations" should not be used, and because it's linked does not excuse this. Again, links should be expansions, not definitions. ...Frosting, not part of the cake. The printout should be free standing, a complete work as perceived by the target audience. The hypertexted, simply; more complete. Again, I get the vague feeling of shrinks trying impress each other.

"influenced by the ideas of the New Age era " Not the latter Vietnam war era? Or whatever? Oh it's "California!" "California!" "California!" Why not just say it's by crystal chasin kooks?

"NLP is based on the idea that a person's language and behaviors (whether functional or dysfunctional) are highly structured [1], and that this underlying structure can be modeled into a reproducible form." How about a clue what "this underlying structure" is?

"often being mixed with pop psychology and other applications outside of mainstream." and "remains scientifically unvalidated.[4]" That's fine. Allow one or two more, then enough already. We aint STUPID. Chill out, Vendeta Man.

"is based on the idea that our mind-body (link: neuro) " Is the *generic* link REALLY gunna help me here? Or are these terms NLP-specific jargon? Is this sloppy language actually a covert defense of the term: NLP? Chill out, Defender Man.

"Most notably, the idea that 'the map is not the territory' and..." 'the map is not the territory' is a link! Yer shittin me, right?

The three sections: "1980s: New developers, new styles, and scientific assessment," "1990s: Controversy, division, and marketing," "2000s: Legal settlement, government regulation, and new fields" take up most of the article so far! You are giving us esoteric meaningless names, history, politics, and details on a topic that has not yet been adequately defined. Move it to rear, where these might have meaning. It's mostly all optional, "nice to know."

"an emphasis on ways to change internal representations or maps " internal representations ? Change? Such as? (At least note it's explained below, to avoid terminal frustration. (click out))

"a person's model or 'map' of the world. " Expand/define

"limits to people's maps of the world." Maps? example?

"how an individual represents each experience " example?

After the first defining (encyclopedia styled) paragraph, should be the standard essay's first paragraph: (intro and) overview.

"location and brightness of internal imagery, the volume and location of internal sounds," Location?

"Additional teachings" This appears to be the last useful section for awhile.

"Reception"... "Concern has been expressed that this article or section is missing information about: The positive reception of NLP by the public, by publishers, by clinicians, and corporations." No. Again, I think the Big Picture is being lost.

The Big picture is: does this debate even belong in an encyclopedia, which by definition, is an overview, not comprehensive? My complaint however is not that it is too comprehensive, but that the proper info, the basics, suffers, is too short, and in this context, seemingly impossible to organize.

"Science and pseudoscience" wrong label. should be: "More Damned Debates." SB: "Science V. pseudoscience?" Sigh....

Highly frustrated, In closing;

First rule of writing: Nobody is as interested in yer words as you are. Nor your topic. If one has never seen a car, and wants to learn about them

in an encyclopedia,* likely he's not going there to learn about

Henry Ford, unions, the Great Depression, WWII, or paint applications. ...Probably not even the Stanley Steamer nor Model T. However, those topics will be many *books* on the topic. He probably does wanna know how internal combustion works. Possibly even sparkplugs and pistons...the heart. ...what it does, what it is, how it functions. Global warming, Ecological, safety debates yada yada yada yada yada yada yada yada yada yada...not wanted, or worse.

I often use wikipedia several times a day. I've never been so frustrated here. This article needs to focus. How about putting the debate in a link? Both the article and debate would improve. 4.246.84.77 22:00, 31 December 2006 (UTC)Doug Bashford, Fresno

Great idea, Doug: one page for NLP, another page for the debate. Jbhood 09:48, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Under "influences", the fact box lists "transformational grammar". This linkage to Chomskyan linguistics is never made explicit in the text and is impossible to infer from the pov of a linguist. It may well be that there is some influence there, but unless it is spelled out in text the fact box gives the impression of trying to boost the status of NLP by coopting the (in itself debatable :-) status of older Chomskyan linguistics. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.170.188.212 (talk • contribs).

Perhaps it could be covered in the meta model (NLP), John Grinder article or otherwise the specifics could be clarified in the main article. --Comaze 12:03, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

[edit] Proposed changes

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

[edit] Change subtitles and order of research reviews and mental health sections

Discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Update tags for reception

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Resolve confusion over criticism and reception

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Summarize research

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

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

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

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

[edit] Preference peer review sources

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Views of prominent organizations

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Research Summaries

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

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

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

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

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

	To-do list for Neuro-linguistic programming:	edit · history · watch · refresh

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

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

[edit] Talk page format

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

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

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

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

[edit] Spelling

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

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

[edit] Levels of proficiency

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

NLP practitioner
NLP master practitioner
NLP trainer

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

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

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

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

[edit] sockblock

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

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

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

[edit] Summary

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

Psychology research and reviews

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] New proposed summary

Psychology research and reviews

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

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

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

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

[edit] Editorial view on NLP (RFC)

Basis of RFC and concerns:

I am concerned that the overall editorial view on NLP is rather fragmented and inconsistent at present.

Part of this is a hangover from the POV warfare that's dogged the article for over 18 months now, which placed heavy emphasis on a few critical views rather than balancing them with other evidence, and part of it is due to the tendency to try and improve from this starting point, rather than take a fresh look at the entire question of balance.

The concern I have is around how NLP is represented. Following the vandalism, the following notions were heavily argued, and a sense of "fair balance" was lost:

Fringe notion / mainstream
Pseudoscience / respected
Integrated / excluded
Widely used by credible bodies / almost unused within credible bodies
Often supported by research but more research needed / mostly dismissed by research
Becoming more marginalized to date / becoming more widely used

The impact of the well known POV vandal was to invent facts, selectively cite results, and heavily misrepresent the balance of findings in research, in order to present and force a view on the article of "pseudoscience". The article ended up attacking its own subject. The problem in addressing this, was that there was so much misinformation in the article that the usual method of reviewing the article itself for balance was no longer viable. Untangling truth from falsehood regarding "independent opinions of NLP" had become impossible based upon the article itself, because the article was that badly damaged.

Back around a year ago, I tried to look up these issues myself, independent of the present article (which at that time was heavily slanted and untrustworthy). Instead of any preconceived notion, I and other editors looked up all that could be found of users and usage, and professional views and studies of NLP. It took some time. Only sourced cited works that we could check and others could review too, were accepted, in order to avoid allegations either side of bias. The results were summarized in two reference lists:

List of users of NLP - how widely is NLP used? What credible bodies use it, and how do they represent it?
List of studies on Neuro-linguistic programming - what research has been undertaken? How well does this support or contradict the views and approaches of NLP?

Looking up these questions "from scratch", rather than reliance upon the vandalism influence on the artcile to date, I found very consistent answers were "out there", and that these were sourced, verifiable, and citable. Unfortunately, the articles we have at present, are still greatly influenced by the POV imposed during trolling.

The problem which I have submitted for RFC is, to ensure that the articles on NLP fairly and neutrally represent their subject, and to obtain independent help in editing them so that the issues of credibility, usage and research are appropriately addressed and balanced. Editors of this article have been under sustained attack for 18 months that any positive view of NLP is said to be "promotion". So outside help would be useful in ensuring that a genuine balance that is based upon consensus not bias, is created. The following issues are therefore central to the RFC and to getting a fresh, neutral, starting point for the article's representation of its subject:

Views on the two lists above (credible usage + research).
Other sourced, verifiable evidence related to research, usage and credibility.
Bearing in mind these lists, do the articles on Neuro-linguistic programming and NLP and science fairly represent their subject in a balanced manner at present, or is there still a NPOV problem in the present articles?
Third party editorial help in editing and removing imbalance or misrepresentation in the articles, so that the article doesn't accidentally swap one extreme for another.

(Note that I am not asking for RFC on "what NLP is" or its techniques; but purely on whether credibility, usage, and research are fairly represented in the two main articles, and help from independent editors in rebalancing that aspect if needed. If there is evidence that the two lists compiled by editors are unrepresentative in any way, that of course would be part of the RFC discussion and consensus-finding.) FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 12:58, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Just a note on the above. It is my impression that various psychological and related fields are in a similar boat. Our role here is not to judge what "science/culture's view should be". It is to note the evidence of what it is. For example:

The evidence seems to be that NLP is widely used in contexts that suggest a wide range of notable current users consider it credible in some way or another.
It is not our job to guess NLP users' motives or guess why they feel that way, whether from experience, or concept, or results, or research, or indeed "just a phase" and "latest fad".
We are not being asked to choose between protoscience or pseudoscience, or indeed between these and "not fully tested", or any other category, if reliable credible sources have not done so. We aren't into OR here. The question is, what reliable, credible views on NLP exist, and what would seem to be a balanced way to represent them. So fortunately, we don't have to guess at our own synthesis or opinion. We don't have to ask if it is "right" or not, or if 40 years is "enough" or not. We just have to ensure the article comprises what we feel is a fair balanced representation of reliable, credible, verifiable sources.

The purpose of this article is to represent NLP fairly and neutrally. Whether other articles are notable or not is in a sense secondary. The question for this article is its balance and neutrality and representation of verifiable, citable, neutral, credible, factual information. The rest is a little bit tangential. (My $0.02) FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 16:41, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Please clarify:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] PRS and non PRS techniques

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] The German article on NLP

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

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

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

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

[edit] Evidence based

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Techniques

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

[edit] Cults!

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

[edit] Towards Completion

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

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

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

[edit] Lead Section

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

[edit] Religiosity and Spirituality

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Cleanup

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] this should be obvious, should it not:

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

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

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

user harlequence

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

[edit] Access to references online???

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

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

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

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

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

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

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../n/e/u/Talk%7ENeuro-linguistic_programming_ae2d.html"

Categories: Old requests for peer review | To do | To do, priority undefined