Wikipedia:Cleanup Taskforce/Neuro-linguistic programming
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[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. —Preceding unsigned comment 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)
