Talk:Neuro-linguistic progamming/ archive 12

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Mentor intros

[edit] Woohookitty

I thought it'd be easier to introduce myself here, since there are many users involved in this conflict. Just a little introduction. I've been on Wikipedia since December 2004, an admin since June 2005. I believe very strongly in NPOV. Despite my political leanings, I believe very strongly in writing for the enemy. As for my admin style, I try to give people every benefit of the doubt before blocking or banning. My main motto is...argue the issues, not the people. If you follow that, you will be ok. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 11:12, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jdavidb

Hi, folks. Just a quick hello and an intro. I've been on Wikipedia since about 2004-02. I'm a firm believer in NPOV and consensus as the guiding principles that make Wikipedia work; I believe without reservation that these principles will ultimately result in a high-quality encyclopedia.

Hopefully I'm pretty well-suited for this job. I'm well-accustomed to what needs to be done in order to represent a non-mainstream point of view within Wikipedia's NPOV framework. After all, I'm a fundamentalist Christian who believes the earth is most likely 6000 years old. ;) (Not sure if that will encourage people or dishearten them, at first.) But I know how to take the high ground in making Wikipedia a place where beliefs are fairly and accurately represented without allowing Wikipedia itself to take a stand.

I'm reading up on this article and the arbCom case, and I can see that I'll have to read this talk page's history and probably the history of the article, too. Give me a couple of days to get acquainted with the issue, and then we'll all start moving.

I know all three of my fellow-mentors and happen to know from experience that each of them is a great Wikipedian. I think everyone involved here who wants to see a high-quality, fair article on NLP is in for a real treat! Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 13:56, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ral315

I suppose I should introduce myself as well. I'm Ral315, and I've been editing Wikipedia since December 2004. I also strongly believe in NPOV. Like Jdavidb, I'll be looking through the archives, trying to get a feel for the dispute here. I can also say that all of my fellow mentors are good editors, and will do a good job to try and settle this dispute and get this article to where it should be. Ral315 (talk) 17:20, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Katefan0

Hi everybody. I won't go into great detail about myself, because my userpage should explain lots about who I am. But as it pertains to Neuro-linguistic programming, I promise that I'll do my level best to help everybody come up with an article that Wikipedia can be proud of. At the risk of sounding repetitive, I have full faith in all my fellow mentors and look forward to getting started. As an initial comment, I'd like to echo the sentiments already expressed about sticking on-topic. As tempting as it may be, especially when you get angry or irritated, try not to comment on contributors (or even generically to lob tomatoes at "the other side.") It does nothing to further the debate, and only ends up inflaming passions. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 22:52, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mentor comments (from Jdavidb)

Okay, folks, your mentors are still busy getting up to speed on everything, but I've read every single comment that's gone across this talk page since I first posted on it, and I have a few observations:

  • Cries of "censorship" are generally unproductive. Your mentors are going to commit to making sure that everything is fairly represented in this article. No government agencies are going to descend here and bowdlerize the article for public consumption. We'll all get the chance to discuss each point that anyone feels needs to be included and weigh it against Wikipedia's standards to decide if it belongs or not, and if so, how to word it.
  • Personal attacks are counterproductive. Please define "personal attacks" as broadly as possible, meaning please stay as far away as you can from wording that could even be remotely construed as a personal attack. At best, personal attacks add nothing to your point (and they do not add an point to your argument if it did not have one on its own without the attack). At worst, they inflame people, making it more difficult for them to respond constructively, they generate more personal attacks, and the whole situation deteriorates. Simply state your point. If you're hot when you're commenting, consider emailing your comment to a mentor and asking them to translate it, C-3PO style, into a polite statement of your views and posting it on your behalf.
  • Wikipedia does not exist to determine truth. It is not our purpose to decide if NLP's claims are true or not. It is instead our purpose to fairly represent both NLP's claims and the claims of its critics. The purpose of consensus within Wikipedia is not to determine truth, but to determine the wording of articles. Nobody needs to modify their personal views in order to achieve consensus on the wording of the article. However, anyone who is not committed to Wikipedia's core principles is likely to be more concerned with hammering their viewpoint than they are with agreeing upon wording which fairly represents all side.
  • Lots of people appeal to their own personal beliefs as to what the standard for the article should be. Very few people are appealing to Wikipedia policies. The previous point is one example of this. Some folks (on the 'pedia in general, not specifically this article) have the idea that Wikipedia is in fact here to determine truth. Citing actual passages from actual Wikipedia policies helps eliminate this, and helps keep us focused on the task of writing an encyclopedia.
  • Focusing on each other's personal thoughts and motivations is unproductive. Focus on the text of the article, and how you believe it needs to be improved. More on that, later.
  • This article is protected and is going to stay protected until your mentors agree to change that. Any changes you want in the article during that time period are going to have to get by us. It is my hope that we will guide you through the process of first convincing us, using Wikipedia standards, what the wording of specific parts of the article should be, and then eventually peacefully convincing each other. The magic of Wikipedia's policies is that even people who disagree completely about the subject of an article can, in fact, agree on its wording.

Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 20:34, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Adding a couple of things from Woohookitty

Just wanted to say that all of our email links work and that includes Ral, who hasn't chimed in yet. So if you have any concerns or questions that you want to address to us privately, do so. Also, we're going to have a next to zero tolerance policy on uncivility and personal attacks. Argue the issues, not the people. As jdavidb perfectly said, we're here to make an NPOV article, not to "determine the truth". --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 20:51, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A quick note from Ral315

I've been busy with other issues, but I am monitoring this talk page as well as my e-mail, and will chime in when necessary. Ral315 (talk) 21:36, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mediators

Note: we'll finish filling out this section after the 24 hour protection period. Thanks, Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 01:00, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Looking at all the posting on this page, I'm having a little trouble sorting out who the previous mediators are here, so just for myself I'd like to ask anyone posting on this page who considers themselves to be a mediator to sign in below. And I recognize that not everyone may have accepted mediation from any particular mediator, so if you did, I ask you to indicate that. Use three tildes to sign. I'll demonstrate the format.

Also, let me clarify the difference between the mediators and the mentors. The mentors are appointed by the arbitration committee, which reports directly to Jimbo Wales. There are four of us; we're listed above. There may be any number of other people who have stepped in in the past to mediate formally or informally. As I understand it, mediation is voluntary; some participants may accept it, some may not. ArbCom mandates, however, are not voluntary. :) So even if you've got personal feelings about whether or not the mentoring process will work, we're automatically everybody's mentor for the duration, even if you never agreed to mediation. I've even seen articles in the past where somebody considered himself a mediator but nobody on the page actually accepted him as such.

Okay, so please, anyone who's been mediating, sign in below:

Examples:

  • JimBob, informally mediating
    • Kaloss, I accept JimBob's mediation
    • Marcus, I accept JimBob's mediation
  • Chevron, formally mediating
    • Kaloss, I accept Chevron's mediation
    • CmdrTaco, I accept Chevron's mediation

Thanks, Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 20:47, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

  • SWATJester, I came here as a formal mediation request. Now that mentors are here, I'm cutting back on the amount of mediating I'm doing. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 23:25, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Comaze, I accept SWATJester's mediation
    • --Dejakitty 00:13, 10 February 2006 (UTC), will support SWATJester's mediation.
As I've mentioned on the mentors talk pages, though it hasn't been signed here, Headlydown originally did accept the mediation.⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 17:47, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Archived -- and going forward

All -- the page has been archived in its entirety, save a few comments from mentors intended to guide our discussions from here on out. This is so we can start fresh, with a clean slate. I know this will probably not be popular with some of you, and we're sympathetic to those concerns. So we want to reassure everyone that your views will be heard and considered. This isn't an attempt to censor anyone's viewpoints, but rather to clear the air a bit.

Additionally, you all should know that as of this posting, we will be enforcing Wikipedia's policies on no personal attacks and civility on this and related pages. If a comment falls afoul of these rules, we will refactor it so that it's not offensive. Please try to focus on content, rather than making personal comments, either directed at someone in particular or at a side of the dispute in general. This isn't rocket science -- just be polite. You don't have to agree with one another, and you don't even particularly have to respect one another. But you must be cordial. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 23:56, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Just chiming in so everyone knows Katefan0 wasn't acting unilaterally. I think we all agreed this was the thing to do. Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 00:35, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Just wanted to say that I agreed to this as well. And no we are not trying to censor anyone. Just need to clear the air and start fresh. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 09:40, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
As do I. Sometimes it's best during heated discussion to take a 24-hour break, and reflect on things. Ral315 (talk) 15:55, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Thank you Katefan0. --Dejakitty 00:08, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
I noticed that some of my comments are not in the archives...strange...meh.Voice of AllT|@|ESP 17:49, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
It's possible some comments may have gotten lost in the cleanup; you can add them to the archives if that's the case. But in any case, they're all in the page history. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 17:51, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
I see what happened... sorry. I thought I'd copied all the way down, but hadn't. Everything should be in there now. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 17:58, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Workshop

All,

We have opened a workshop page which you are free to edit; it's at Neuro-linguistic programming/Workshop. Here are the ground rules:

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

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

[edit] Universal applicability claim needs explaining

Hi all. A very important claim that NLP promonents make is that NLP is universally acceptable simply because it is all form and no content (Dilts et al 1980).

I think this needs explaining especially from a scientific point of view. I can have a stab at it now though. Generalizablilty is a key word often used in scientific papers that measure the efficacy of various methods. Also, the term "limitations" is a very important concept. These seem largely to be absent from NLP texts, and indeed, the NLP push is generally towards "unlimited potential" and universal application or general use. I believe the terms, "panacea", "universally applicable" and "unequivocal" could be used in both the opening and the main body of the NLP article. Camridge 09:11, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Citation

When the page is unprotected, could the citation in the first line, Lilienfeld et al 2003;Raso 1994, be footnoted? — Asbestos | Talk (RFC) 14:45, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

We already agreed to footnote the citations...that can therefore be done while protected, as nothing is being deleted/added.Voice-of-AllT|@|ESP 01:36, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unprotected

I've unprotected this because there has been no discussion on the talk page in well over a week. --Tony Sidaway 01:39, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Try Talk:Neuro-linguistic programming/Workshop instead. Of course this could've been pointed out if you'd left a polite talk page message to one of us four. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 22:35, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I didn't realise the mentors were holding this on that tight a leash. Wow, must be some serious problems here! --Tony Sidaway 02:42, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Yep there is. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 02:49, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Understatement of the year award, Tony...and it's only March! ;-) Akulkis 22:30, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pseudoscientific

forgive me for not reading the umpteen archived talk pages, but is it really accurate to state that NLP is pseudoscience? i was under the impression that NLP methods were subjected to hypothesis testing, and that the researchers found that the NLP methods work. also, even if this is disputed, isn't it POV to describe NLP as pseudoscientific right there in the first sentence of the article? not trying to rouse rabble; just trying to increase knowledge. Streamless 14:07, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

  • I agree. IMO, it violates WP:NPOV to explicitly state (and in the opening) that this is pseudoscience. NPOV would dictate that we say that authorities A, B, and C have called it pseudoscience, without actually taking a position on the issue in the encyclopedic voice. BTW, why is this article protected? Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 18:06, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
As the result of a recent arbitration committee case Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Neuro-linguistic_programming. Work is ongoing at Talk:Neuro-linguistic programming/Workshop, which is mentioned at the top of this page. You're both more than welcome to come participate -- much work is needed on disputed text that isn't terribly NPOV. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 18:24, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
i don't know much, but i think there should be a distinction between the application of certain elements of NLP (e.g. using certain phrases, gestures and expressions in conversations in an attempt to make others feel relaxed or happy) and the "sale" of NLP as part of the self-improvement industry. Streamless 20:05, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
I was under the impression that NLP doesn't claim confirmed scientific status, but acknowledges that it's a work in progress; wouldn't using the term protoscience be more accurate while still conveying that it's "kind-of" science? Eringj 00:25, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. I look up NLP on wikipedia and the first thing I see, on a protected page, is that it is pseudoscience and that's a fact. You can't leave that as the first thing on a page, protected for an extended period, using the justification of achieving objectivity! That's just bizarre. --82.41.96.242 00:18, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I completely agree with the previous anonymous writer. No matter the Workshop, blatant vioaltions of Wikipedia policy like that should be removed. There are many others further down in the article, but the opening sentence does have an immediate impact on readers. --213.191.86.35 12:01, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

This is outrageous, I attend Psychology courses at King's College Psychiatry Institute, I have been witness to the benefits of NLP through the LSS (London Seductionist Society) as part of research on whether it improved interpersonal opposite sex relationships in a social environment. I have seen some of these pick up artists apply these techniques with great success rate - Such as anchoring, mirroring, body-feet distinction, tonal manipulation and suggestive body language to name a few. It should perhaps be noted that the self-improvement industry are NOT reliable sources to base something as 'Pseudoscience'. I have seen some videos of Ross Jeffries and Mystery picking up women and applying the same techniques I had read in my research. --213.106.102.178 10:15, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Hello 82.41.96.242 and 213.106.102.178. There is a view that NLP is pseudoscience. There are many reliable and corroborating sources to back this up. Which is why it is mentioned and explained in the article. HeadleyDown 11:36, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Hello again 213.106.102.178. I believe more could be included on NLP seduction. So I added the BJ pattern to the more specific patterns line. Regards HeadleyDown 07:18, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dianetics and pseudoscience.

Hello editors. It's been some time now. An RfC has been filed on the Talk:Dianetics article regarding its npov status (the main page, not the talk page). As NLP and Dianetics apparently have some similarities, I thought you all might be interested to weigh in here. Mentors and admins on this page, I'd be especially interested in your comments on the revert war firing across that page (4 content reversions, and 1 content deletion out of a total of 6 edits for a day?). Thanks for your time and interest. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 07:48, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

The supposed similarities between NLP and Scientology are highly contentious and cannot be suported to any degree that could be describd as meeting a NPOV standard. At the same time, the differences between NLP and Scientology are overwhelming. I can see only one point on the current page referring to a specific similarity between the two practices, but it still seems a little slanted. 'Clearing blocks' is not a phrase I have really seen used in NLP literature. The underlying concept is that we learn patterns of behaviour which serve us in some way at the time, but as circumstances change these patterns can become problematic, so it is more useful to learn new patterns. This concept is not unique to Scientology, or even to the new age. It is the theoretical basis underpinning Freudian clinical psychotherapy. Therefore I propose the following edit (I've been careful only to add to, rather than overwrite someone else's POV):
NLP participants are taught that the human mind can be programmed, and that mis-programming by negative input is the norm. Like Fredudian psychoanalysis, Scientology, rebirthing and other clinical and alternative therapies (Raso 1994)(Lilienfeld 2003) NLP embraces this Null Hypothesis and the classic concept of 'clearing' or 'reprogramming' these blocks (Singer 1996).
Can you quote sources for this view? I've read several NLP books and visited a week-long workshop, and at least there no such claims are being made. What NLP does claim is that the mind can be changed (which is in line with current science) and that input leads to adaption (also in line with the majority of the psychology and education science). NLP claims that its methods provide a more direct access to both existing patterns (modelling) and to changing those patterns than other methods do. But I've never read "clearing" or "clearing blocks" in any NLP literature, and NLP most definitely doesn't start from a Null Hypothesis. --213.191.86.35 12:09, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm new here, so forgive me if this comment is in the wrong place, i'm genuinely interested in contributing to a resolution. --Jrds 05:55, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I know little of NLP or Scientology, but I do know that the author, Robert Anton Wilson, is one of the strongest supporters of NLP but one of the biggest critics of Scientology. --82.41.96.242 00:38, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Hello 82.41.96.242. It is a fact that many scientists view NLP as pseudoscience. Robert Anton Wilson is an advocate of NLP and the occult. In fact, he says that before embarking on practicing occult rituals, start off by taking psychoactive drugs and learning NLP. If you wish to present any such facts, the NLP workshop would be a good place to start. ATB Camridge 03:12, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
If I thought I had much to add. All I'd like to see is a more balanced article sooner rather than later - perfection is never possible. By the way, Wilson holds degress in both physics and psychology, for what its worth. But the point I am really making, is that the workshop process can't be allowed to drag on for months and months as this one appears to be doing. An intermediate update, based on the workshop so far, would be preferable surely? --82.41.96.242 11:08, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please tag appropriately

Hello mentors. Could somebody put a tag or two on this article that accurately reflects the ongoing dispute. Something like {Template:POV} ? I don't think a majority of readers will bother wading through the various sub-levels of talk pages and articles to find out why it's been locked from editing. I realise it's an out-of-process request, but then again, it's fairly out-of-process to lock an article for this long. Peace. ॐ Metta Bubble puff 09:43, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Okey-doke. Ashibaka tock 01:53, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] John Bradshaw

As far as history goes, it might be worth noting that inner child pop psychology guru John Bradshaw was a NLP practitioner and promoter prior to his "dysfunctional family" movement heyday. Mr Christopher 17:53, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Notice

Please note that Johntex has been made a mentor for Neuro-linguistic programming, per the arbitration ruling, to join the current four. Hopefully this will help things run better. Dmcdevit·t 01:33, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much - I hope I can help out. Best, Johntex\talk 01:37, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Basic NLP factuality is still poorly explained

Moved to Talk:Neuro-linguistic programming/Workshop

[edit] Advice (not an order!) from Jimbo

I fully and completely trust the admins who are mentoring this page to use good judgment and to keep a very close eye on the page and work with all the editors (especially those who were the subject of the arbcom ruling) to generate a peaceful and harmonious editing process. I would like to suggest, as gently as possible of course, and with full consideration for the difficult task you have accepted, that protecting the page is something that should be done sparingly and only for very specific reasons.

One of the things that we want to produce as an outcome of this is, hopefully, friendships among the previously warring parties, and a sense among them that they should behave in a trustworthy manner because, in part, we have shown that we trust them. Page protection doesn't move things forward in that arena. Of course, if page protection is necessary, then it is necessary.

As I say, I trust your judgment, and I only came to give a small bit of hopefully helpful thoughts on the matter.--Jimbo Wales 23:18, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Greetings Jimbo. Protecting the page is a hard measure. There are many things I would like to change, especially regarding the improvement and representation of the sociological views on NLP. However, protecting the page has definitely led to a far more peaceful communication between editors, largely due to it preventing the desperate censorship of the article. I believe it to be a wise move. We are getting the hang of civility, and the NLP advocates have been reducing their repeat requests for removing scientific views, and for removing the "incriminating" statements of NLP authors and promoters. "Friendship" is indeed closer than before. The block history is very one sided, but I realise thats only because the NLP advocates are always on the verge of leaving and the mentors are reluctant to scare the NLPadvocates away altogether. Whatever, I also trust the mentors to move this forward, and I appreciate your encouragement. It will all help us in the months and years to come. ATB. Camridge 08:15, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
In the months and years to come? How long do you intend locking this page? It seems to me, as someone just visiting the topic, that someone isn't picking up on the hints from senior wikipedians to get the finger out. The locking process itself is close to vandalism, as I see it, in this case. --82.41.96.242 17:13, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Can I suggest to the mentors a brief, prominent paragraph at the top of the talk page, explaining why the page is protected, how the mentoring works, and directing people to the workshop page? At the moment it's not obvious to people not familiar with this dispute (such as me) what is going on here. Enchanter 07:47, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
There is a prominent paragraph at the top. I added a bit to it. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 07:59, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Thanks! Enchanter 08:36, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why is this page still protected?

I'm getting increasingly concerned at how long this page has been protected for. Protection of pages in the case of content disputes is generally meant to be for a "cooling off" period. That is, when tempers have got too high and productive editing is replaced by unproductive edit-warring, we protect the page so that everyone can go away for a few days and come back when people have had a chance to cool off and maybe give the article some more thought. The current protection has been in place for much longer than is warranted just for cooling off, and it's just not obvious to me why. It is stated that the article is protected "as the result of the arbcom decision"; however, while I stand to be corrected if I'm missing something, I can't see anything there that would suggest protecting the page, and certainly not for this abnormal length of time.

As Jimbo states above, protection should be used sparingly and for specific reasons. I request that the page is unprotected. I'm quite happy to change my mind if there are particular reasons why protection is absolutely necessary, but in any case there needs to be some sort of timetable or specific plan to move towards unprotection. Enchanter 01:15, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

The page is still protected as a result of an arbcom case, as it says above, because the people participating on the page can't work together. At some point it will be, but not yet. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 16:48, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
That hasn't answered my question; as I said, it is stated that the page is protected "as a result of an arbcom case", but I can't see anything in the arbcom case that even mentions protecting the page. Please could you point me to the part of the arbcom case, decision, related discussion where it was decided to protect the page for longer than the typical cooling-off period?
I recognise that page protection is sometimes necessary, and I recognise that I haven't followed all of the facts or background of this case in detail. However, a page protection for this length of time is very unusual and not in line with normal policies, so there need to be good reasons and these need to be presented clearly. Enchanter 17:18, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
The arbcom case says that the mentors (of which I am one) are "to have a free hand" in reigning in behaviors of editors engaged in this article. It's our judgement that the protection is still needed at the moment. You can read the whole arbcom case by clicking on the link at the top of the page. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 19:06, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Again, my question is why, in your judgement, is page protection necessary in this case?
There doesn't appear to be an edit war going on at the workshop page, so I'm confused as to why page protection might be seen as the only solution to stop an edit war breaking out here. Enchanter 21:22, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
No, your question was under what policy we have the right to keep the page protected; I answered it above. Your second question I've also answered -- they can't work together. After two months of nonstop talking on the workshop's talk page, the editors involved have been able to agree on absolutely nothing, not even the smallest change. I have little confidence at this point that that will translate well into opening editing. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 21:38, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
I'll trust your judgement on this one, but I would encourage all involved to move towards unprotecting the page and moving the discussion from the workshop page to here as quickly as is possible - or at the very least, experimenting with doing that for a trial period. Sooner or later this page will need to be unprotected, and waiting longer to do it may not really be helping much. Enchanter 22:02, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
But just suppose it's the intention of one or more editors to never terminate this process. How will the mentors use their "free hand"? Locking indefinitely is not a solution. --82.41.96.242 00:30, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
Hello 82.41.96.242. And welcome to input your ideas to the workshop. The most solid, verifiable, and relevant facts have been objected to on the workshop page. And the editors making all the objections are the ones most motivated to get the article unlocked and changed fast. Its a strange situation. The more Wikipedia verifiable facts are presented, the more stuck the situation becomes. Outside input is welcome. Regards HeadleyDown 00:48, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mentorship changes

As Ral315 and Jdavidb have both recently resigned, Will Beback has been appointed as a new mentor, to bring the total back up to the original 4. Dmcdevit·t 05:34, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposing minor changes

  1. In the Questionable Applications paragraph controvercy should be controversy.
  2. Some words in headings (such as Applications above) have a capital initial without any apparent reason.
  3. The list of developers in the See also section IMO would look better if the asterisks and the footnote were replaced with an entry such as:

[edit] Almost an attack page, needs to be seriously reworked

It's a shame that a page with so evident a POV problem is protected. This article is more about why NLP is not a real science than about what it is. It's like if the astrology article was an endless discussion about why horoscopes are untrustworthy, with two hundred and sixty-one footnoted references, without explaining how they are made. I suggest this is rewritten using Wikipedia:Summary style, so a separate article criticisms of NLP can treat this issue in depth, while the main article deals with what NLP is, rather than what it is not. I have some limited knowledge about what NLP claims (i.e., that using certain body postures you can force your brain to work in certain ways, or something like that), because I once read about it on a magazine. If I didn't, from this article I would have very hardly understood at all what NLP is/claims to be.--Army1987 18:54, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi Army1987; your participation is welcome. Active participation should go to: Talk:Neuro-linguistic programming/Workshop where editing is progressing on a dummy page while people work out their differences in wording. See you there. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 19:07, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
I saw that page, and, well... I think that, being almost totally ignorant about NLP, I shouldn't even dare to post on a page where there are endless arguments about the wording of every single sentence... I'm afraid I can't help...--Army1987 10:16, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
We'd appreciate anything you can give, Army1987. The mentors aren't exactly "experts" ourselves. Anything that can make the article clearer is more than welcome. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 11:55, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Hello Army1987 and Addsquad. Yes, the article has had many requests to back up the negative scientific findings, and has had scientific fact deleted and restored on an almost daily basis for months. Your input is welcome and I believe requires nothing more than common sense and a willingness to verify or acknowledge simple scientific/sociological fact. Some editors seem to require a lot of sexy word-juggling (something about NLP persuasion patterns). Don't let it put you off. The mentors can write pretty straight and have offered a lot of useful guidance. Regards HeadleyDown 13:56, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Do NOT use sockpuppets

DaveRight has been proven to use sockpuppets. Specifically, he created and used the accounts of JPLogan and Medius Maximus. All 3 accounts have been blocked indefinitely. Please. Do NOT use sockpuppets. It is not going to help you. If anyone here is using sockpuppets right now, I would suggest ceasing. Thanks. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 02:20, 18 April 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Change to opening

Hi all. I added a rather well discussed section from the workshop and I have not removed anything else but the first small line. I understand other parts will need discussion for removal. Anyway, I wanted to supply the article with something quite neutral that the workshop managed to provide. Please feel free to state anything you like about how to make the article more verifiable and more neutral. All input is welcome, and please be nice to the mentors. ATB. Camridge 05:35, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

A good start. I'm for your edit and we work from there.--82.41.96.242 23:39, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Here are some general suggestions: The article needs a lot more clarity. This can be provided using the rather large amount of very clarifying literature that has been uncovered in the workshop. The mentors have given us a much better idea on how to clarify wording. I believe this is about the most helpful thing I have seen in months. The section I added shows the "kind" of clear writing necessary. Fancifull unexplained terminology is not going to help much.

If its verifiable, it can be included. We are not looking for truth. All views can be included. To keep it readable we need to prioritize though. The most important statements first, and the most important and clarifying cricitisms (to be fair). Lets leave it up to the reader to decide what they think of NLP. ATB. Camridge 05:46, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I am open to the remaining opening being set aside (removed) for a while at least (the new section remaining). Then we can work on the main body and adjust the opening accordingly. Camridge 05:51, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Well I think some of that original opening needs to stay. We could probably get rid of "the practice mostly attracted...." para, but there is some very useful science based fact in the last para of the opening. Some of it can be toned down though, or can be an enlarged version of the criticism line (second para) including the science facts. Its mostly a case of making the wording more readable and neutral. And using active voice (critics state that..... scientists state that.....) etc. Bookmain 06:28, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

There are many objections yet to be addressed to take into account other points of view. Camridge's opening is essentially the same as DaveRight/HansAntel's suggestion, see my post [2006-04-09 12:11:54 Comaze with subject "DaveRight/HansAntel - not all NLP practitioners are New Age"]. ---=-C-=- 08:41, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Of course there are objections Comaze. But the passage also includes some very clear wording, which I am sure is what we would all like to encourage. Certainly, there were some good lessons included in the new passage that we learned from the mentors during the workshop that will be beneficial to the current article. I am sure nobody is saying anything here is carved into stone. This is Wikipedia. Using this kind of example, it will be constructive to move forward with this kind of clarity in mind. I am sure the "neutrality is disputed" label will be here for a while. But lets stay constructive. ATB. Camridge 09:36, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
Is it ok to make the changes outlined in thia workshop post? I'll attempt to merge your version with the objections outlined here ---=-C-=- 09:44, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
Well camridge, thank you for discussing the change and ignoring any contrary opinion. Greg 16:08, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Hello. I have no objection to making any changes to the opening, as long as it retains the same level of clarity, and only if that passage is moved to the discussion page for the purpose of discussion, and only if that is the only section to discuss.

The only change made to the article on the workshop was the swish pattern, and that was against a great deal of contrary fact. So it would only be fair to provide a clear opening, in contrast with the unclear and confusing swish passage. Of course, neither are immutable.

As it stands, the opening two paras are very good, and clear. They represent the sum knowledge on NLP very well. Of course, if you only ever read NLP books you will find it objectionable. There is nothing we can do about that. Wikipedia includes objectionable facts, and anything verifiable, and the opening is fine in this respect. HeadleyDown 17:01, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

An interesting objective view --82.41.96.242 23:34, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] References and import from workshop dummy page

Are we to discuss here or at the workshop? Anyway, I want to import all the updates that were made to the Workshop dummy page into the article. Any objections? The reference formats are especially important. ---=-C-=- 07:54, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Here. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 09:07, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
Any objections to moving the body of the workshop article into the main article? ---=-C-=- 09:45, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
Give it a day or so, so others can chime in. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 09:52, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Hello Comaze. If you are proposing to make the same amount of objections to the same sections, then I would say that is unconstructive. Those points need proper attribution, and that is a simple task. What we need to do is focus on a single section all together until we gain some kind of agreement, without some editors suddenly finding something else to do in order to simply avoid agreement. Regards HeadleyDown 17:05, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Eye accessing cues

A question which has me curious; what is the scientific evidence on the validity, (or lack thereof), for eye accessing cues? It strikes me as an area which ought to be quite easy to test through experiment, so I'm sure it must have been tried (I'm aware of the evidence against the existence of "preferred representational systems" mentioned in the article, but this doesn't appear to directly address the validity of the concept of eye accessing cues). I think this is an area that could usefully be expanded in the article if anyone has some good references. Enchanter 19:27, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi Enchanter. The studies of eye accessing cues and rep systems are probably the most commonly done ones. Platt (2001) neatly summarised some 70 studies saying that 2/3 don't support what NLP says - and though Platt was just reading abstracts listed on a webpage not really researching anything, that number is probably pretty representative. Medline indexes just 14 NLP studies and 8 of those are Rep System studies. 7 of these studies were done prior to ~1990 and I think were entirely negative, there was one more recent and supportive but in a very specific context (please take my response as a generalisation until I can find a link back!)
Preferred Rep Systems (PRS) and Primary Rep Systems are often confused still (even in this page) and PRS is taught differently now (by some schools) to what was taught originally. The really interesting thing with the research is that many of these rep system studies are referred to as NLP, they are referred to by later reviewers as "the studies of NLP" when, as you've noted, it should have been "the studies of NLP's rep systems concept". Still damning stuff, but it'd be very useful to specify what it is not supporting and what it's not testing at all. The rep systems studies also have a clear reply from Einspruch & Forman about problems with the studies (debated by Sharpley), and there's an extensive US army/government review (Druckman/Swets) which clearly summarises rep system studies pro and con. Greg 22:15, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
Thanks Greg.

Hello Enchanter. Yes there have been many studies on PRS and many other aspects of NLP. Some of the testing was sound, and other testing was not. So qualified reviewers have reviewed the evidence and the results are negative. None of it works according to research (in lay terms). Regards HeadleyDown 00:14, 20 April 2006 (UTC)


Hi GregA. You seem to be presenting your own original research (OR). NLP has failed the test of time (according to triangulating/corroborating scientific reviews). The corroborating reviews all say NLP has failed. NLP has failed the test of time, it has failed to receive any scientific support according to peer-reviewed reviews of the literature, and it has been generally classed as a pseudoscience. In fact, the background "theories" of NLP are so incorrect in neurological and psychological terms, reviewers have said that a key influence of NLP comes from the pseudosciences of phrenology and dianetics. The serious research dried up after Sharpley put the last nail in the coffin in 1987. No reputable researcher has ever answered or refuted Sharpley87. Most of this is already written in the article, and the rest is to follow with added clarity and readability. ATB. Camridge 07:32, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Parlez-vous Français?

This paper (in French) is used as a reference in the article to support the statement "NLP is sometimes referred to in scientific research reviews as a cult". However, I can't see anything in the paper that even mentions cults. Unless I'm missing something, it looks like this reference has been given in error. Enchanter 22:36, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Much of the referencing in this article needs cleaning up -- there are too many references entirely, and some of them are being used as sourcing for points that the text doesn't really back up. I would encourage users to go through the referencing in this article carefully. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 00:04, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
References need to be gotten under 100. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 05:27, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Sure Enchanter. Its all been chopped and changed over the edit wars. Confusion seems to be a general strategy of some editors. The view that NLP is a cult is a widely held one, especially in the scientific community. It will all be sorted in time (when anonymous editors stop arbitrarilly deleting facts. Regards HeadleyDown 00:17, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi Enchanter. Winkin says NLP is like a religion. We have a good deal more new info on NLP as a new alternative religion, and that is so large it will probably require a new section. As far as cults go, NLP is widely considered to be a "secte" in France. Secte is translated as; a cult with a deliberate intention to harm. ATB. Camridge 02:00, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Yes Woohookitty. Keeping refs below 100 is a good idea. ATB Camridge 05:42, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
I've now removed the reference to this paper in the context of cults. Enchanter 19:12, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
I couldn't find any occurrence of the word "secte" in this text. If someone can point us to the specific language, this can be perhaps reinstated; otherwise I support its removal as a reference for that specific point. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 19:16, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Yes Winkin is not appropriate in the cult section (apart from to explain why it is a cult). There are more official French docs to place NLP as a secte. Regards HeadleyDown 02:13, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Suggested opening lines

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

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

My suggestion: If we are going to discuss this on its own to agreement, then fine. If not, we can remove it and work on some other aspect as a group. Regards HeadleyDown 00:23, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
I agree Headley. If we're not going to agree then lets skip it - discuss some of the subsections first till agreement and then use the opening to summarise what the subsections say.
  • Neuro-Linguistic Programming (NLP) promotes methods for enhancing a person's quality of life. It claims to do this through exploring experiences from different perspectives (and states of mind), reproducing an expert's abilities, and techniques for behaviour change - and its approach has been applied to many fields, primarily psychotherapy, communication, and self-development. Critics say that NLP lacks experimental evidence to support its claimed efficacy, and some psychologists label it pseudoscientific.
Please note that the main criticism of this is that "it adds nothing new". I personally do not think the opening paragraph should be adding anything new.
The other alternative is removing the opening line, which is redundant in light of the following information and was thrown in just before the article was locked anyway, without any agreement. Greg 00:30, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Hello GregA. The lines I suggested have been agreed upon by quite a few editors, and they benefit from the kind of writing style the mentors have been encouraging. Your suggestion removes some of the more obvious facts about NLP. What we need to agree upon now is to work on incrementally changing the lines I suggested until we come to agreement. Not to argue for a month and then suddently start getting busy with work, or fascinated with reference format just to avoid the issue. So are we going to work towards agreement or not? HeadleyDown 00:45, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

You know this isn't a case of "agreed upon by quite a few editors". There are clearly 2 camps at present, both claiming neutrality. I must note again that you have not disagreed with anything I've written - should I assume that endorses what I've said so far, but that as you say there are some other "facts" that are still debated? If so lets start with the one we agree to (which doesn't say it all yet) and see what can be added.
ps. I think it's a weak argument to say I've argued for a month and then suddenly got busy - as if I'm holding things up. I don't know where you work but my busy times are not to my choosing, much as I'd like them to be. Greg 13:50, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes GregA. I've been working with that in mind. I have not been disagreeing with your suggestions every time as I've been busy suggesting better versions (in my opinion) and I've objected to them many times before. But I do also get the feeling that after a set of passages have had umpteen refs to back them up, it is a little odd that objecting editors suddenly find something else to do. This is why I would suggest finding one spot, and working on it until agreement. HeadleyDown 14:14, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough - as I've said umpteen times, working on the opening was bound to be controversial. Better to work on subsections. I am busy at the moment, but you're also right that with the to-and-fro-ing without getting anywhere my motivation to respond and get nowhere is low. Greg 06:43, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not clear how one is meant to add comments or make suggestions. (Perhaps a quick introduction and some explanations of this debate and the 'workshop' that is mentioned elsewhere would be helpful to those of us interested in the accurate representation of NLP who are not Wiki experts, would be useful?) Anyway, I have a couple of relatively minor concerns I'd like to raise:

1 At several points the phrase "primarily psychotherapy, communication, and self-development" has appeared. I am concerned that the order of this creates a misimpression - NLP imho began life as a study in communication, was initially applied to sales skills, then to personal development generally, and then as more practitioners emerged from their training and sought to establish their professional credibility it became known as a methodology for psychotherapy. The sequence should reflect this order - ie communication, sales skills, personal development, and psychotherapy.

2 Cults are not the same as religions, and I am not convinced that the extrapolation to claim that NLP is a 'religion' helps anyone. There are many subsets of Christianity, for example, and to claim they are 'religions' would give them far greater significance that they deserve. NLP might be described by 'the application of certain tools and techniques, that assume beliefs on the part of their practitioners, that are similar to those held by followers of the "New Age" movement, especially that all individuals have the potential to achieve far greater things than they currently do."

Best wishes, Graham.

Hi Graham, the workshop is actually closed. It was just a temporary mockup of an article to try to get people working together so that the "live" article wouldn't be as unstable as it had been, with people changing it back and forth all the time. You're free to contribute to this talk page, and also to the article, as long as you register for an account. Thanks for your interest · Katefan0 (scribble) 23:28, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Welcome Graham. Sure your sequence of terms seems plausible, and I am open to that. It may help if there was a source to support the sequence. The view on religions is that of experts in the subject. NLP, it seems, holds a certain amount of religiosity, and people see it as either quasi-religious, quasi-spiritual, or a cult or sect. I believe the reader should be shown how NLP is considered by people within New Age, new alternative religions, and the general sociological view. This helps them see how NLP has emerged and developed. It does need some more clarity, and the literature will help. Presently though, stating that some view it as having religiosity, being akin to a cult or religion, or being part of the New Age movement will be fine, I believe. The reader can make up their own mind what they think of those views. Regards HeadleyDown 03:11, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Baby steps: And confirmation bias

Sorry Headley, I disagree (and I have changed my mind). Flat-out denial has been too much of a kneejerk even during the workshop. So on reflection, the opening is really a huge step (top down). It doesn't matter how much compromise you make, or how much verifiable fact you present, you are not going to get any agreement.

So lets start working on agreeing on verifiability in small steps (bottom up). I suggest the small Beyerstein section for starters. We have done some work on that in the workshop, and it is clearer already. So explaining why people think NLP works even though the evidence is shows that it doesn't. This means, we can attribute one small bit properly, and clarify it, and get some kind of agreement. If we work this way in small steps, we may get editors into the habit of reasonable acknowledgment of facts. ATB. Camridge 01:56, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Here is the last adjustment to Beyerstein and Tye by HeadleyDown:

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


I suggest this be placed at the bottom of the scientific analysis section. ATB Camridge 02:07, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes I agree. If we focus on small parts of the whole, then agreement is more likely. ALso, issues of neutrality and fairness are irrelevant this way. They are only an issue for the article as a whole. According to the workshop, the above lines are about 100 times more quotable and verifiable than any NLP text. So how about some agreement? Bookmain 03:29, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Good point Camridge. I agree, this way would be far more constructive for the article. Regards HeadleyDown 12:48, 20 April 2006 (UTC) OK if there are no objections, I suggest the passage be placed into the article. Regards HeadleyDown 13:02, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I can make an adjustment to the passage. The last line will be better off in the ethical concerns section:
Tye states that NLP can be explained with reference to the "psycho shaman effect.": a combination of cognitive dissonance, placebo effect and therapist charisma. Beyerstein states that NLP is a pseudoscientific fringe therapy, and explains that bogus therapies can be explained by the placebo effect, social pressure, superficial symptomatic rather than core treatment, and overestimating some apparent successes while ignoring, downplaying, or explaining away failures [130]." In Brianscams, Beyerstein states that when the New Age brain manipulators such as NLP are challenged, critics typically encounter anecdotes and user testimonials where there ought to be rigorous pre-and post treatment comparisons (Beyerstein 1990).


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

Tye 1994 Neurolinguistic programming: Magic or myth? Journal of Accelerative Learning and Teaching, 19, 309-342.


Regards HeadleyDown 00:03, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Hi all. Are we assuming that this set of lines will be placed into the article whether there is agreement or not? ATB Camridge 02:21, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
No, I don't see any reason that would be the case. Johntex\talk 08:45, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Ok great! Does anyone have any particular desire to withold these lines from the article? Camridge 08:53, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Looks fine to me. I guess others are busy frantically mulling things over. HeadleyDown 11:59, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Very busy. I have to reread my previous replies to these as I can see they're not addressed. As a quick question - could you explain how cognitive dissonance explains why NLP works - as it's written it sounds nice and scientific but on closer examination it doesn't make much sense. Thanks Greg 13:44, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Cognitive dissonance is the feeling of discomfort you get when you have invested a lot of time and or money into something, and you don't want to admit to others or yourself that it doesn't work. So you become biased towards the things that confirm your belief in its effectiveness, and discard or seek to censor the negative evidence. This explains why people fool themselves into thinking it works. Actually what I've just written there could be more appropriate for the passage above. Just a thought. HeadleyDown 14:18, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't think you've defined Cognitive Dissonance - but you have defined it in terms of how you're using the phrase with respect to NLP - so thanks. Cognitive Dissonance in general is, afaik, the thinking the brain does in order to resolve 2 contradictions. So in your above quote, it places "faith in NLP" vs "evidence against NLP" - and only one can be held. I'm going to ignore the scientific arguments (they belong elsewhere) - but in terms of Cog Dissonance, I really don't see any explanatory value into why a person picks option A vs B, those reasons are a separate phenomenon. Really it seems identical to simply having to make a choice, and in making choice-A discounting the reasons for choice-B. I know the skeptics guide defines it similarly to what you have (though you were clearer) - I just don't get the relevance. Your usage seems almost identical to saying "some people choose their own experience over scientific evidence", but it doesn't explain why.
On a related note - with ANY change work, I want to introduce a 2nd perspective (and 3rd etc) to create, I guess, a cognitive dissonance - to get the brain thinking, processing, and dreaming (whatever) about these differences - to give the person space to develop a new equilibrium that's more effective for them Greg 06:42, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Hello Superkyewl. Welcome. Dissonance is just bad feeling that you don't want. You don't want to pay for therapy/technology that doesn't work. SO you conclude it is working to feel better. NLP sets it up by claiming amazing result. Its scam. HansAntel 09:28, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Actually, dissonance is not a bad feeling. It is a driving force. It can be a bad feeling if the dissonance is one of wondering if you've done the right thing etc. See Cognitive dissonance Greg 12:54, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

So does enyone have any particular objections to the proposed explanation? Or could you provide something you prefer? HeadleyDown 00:44, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

At the moment, "disonnance" as you described it is too difficult to understand. Which explanation are you asking about though? Greg 13:53, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the helpful recommendation, GregA. I put the solution in the article under - scientific analysis. Regards HeadleyDown 14:53, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Semi protection

I have no idea if this page has ever been semi protected before, but I feel like I should explain it. It means that users with accounts older than about 4 days can post. So that's going to cover basically everyone but IP posts and brand new users. We should probably keep it for awhile until things are sorted out a bit better. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 13:07, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Woohookitty. Thats clearer. Regards HeadleyDown 13:33, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Cat. Just to elaborate a bit -- anons can still contribute on the talk page; if someone has a suggestion they're free to make it. But things are still a little too volatile to allow anons to edit the live page at the moment; too little accountability for their actions. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 19:17, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Hello this is interesting. I got a few psychoanal friends who can help out here and I did a big project on Neurolinguistic Programming a few moons ago myself. So if we hang about for a few days we can edit? I know this is a controversial subject. Am I allowed to submit my own dissertation? I think I can throw quite a few new links and references your way.... LemonMnM
Hmmm. That depends. If by "dissertation" you mean PhD thesis/committee reviewed dissertation, then if it is relevant it might be citable as source if it has been published in a scholarly journal and if it supports something being written into the article. If it is just your own ideas that you have created as a result of reading about NLP then the answer would be a definite "no". Please see WP:NOR for why we don't include our own original research. Please see WP:CITE for information about what makes a source notable enough to be cited here as an authority.
As for throwing more links and references our way - I'm not sure we need more references at the moment. What we are trying to do here is to write an encyclopedia article. That means we are trying to write something that is generally accessible to a broad audiance. We are not trying to write a 40 0 page definite work on NLP. Having said all that, I don't want to scare you away. If you have a truly great reference, please tell us about it. Maybe it is better than one we are already using.
Finally, on discussion pages like this one, please sign your posts with ~~~~. This will automatically create a link to your user page. Thanks, Johntex\talk 07:51, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh thanks Johntex. My dissn is just a poxy masters. I know some others that are publishing tho. NLP's a tough one. So vaguely defined in general still I think its worthwhile a go. I think I'll sit back a while and think how to make it more accessible without too much jargon appearing from my "minithesis". LemonMnM LemonMnM 08:02, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi LemonMnM. Your input can be very helpful. The more the merrier also. I believe if you've done some thinking on paper, you'll find this article pretty interesting to research or check. If a view is verifiable then it can be included. So in your thinking, consider any significant views the researchers or NLP practitioners have (not your own views in particular), and please help us verify them. There will be a certain amount of prioritising as the article cannot grow forever. So the most important or significant views come first. If they are from peer-reviewed sources that will help. If you can find understandable ways to explain what NLP authors are really on about, it will also help. The mentors are giving us a good idea of how things can best be written in encyclopedic terms. ATB. Camridge 08:32, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Yes welcome LemonMnM. I'd very much like to see your thesis (abstract and refs would be nice) headleydown@yahoo.com HeadleyDown 13:37, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Hi LemonMnM. Welcome, and I'd be very interested too, whatever you can share?? galexand@ozemail.com.au .Greg 13:12, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dead link

I've removed this dead link from the article; does anyone have a link or reference to whatever this was meant to point to? Enchanter 20:39, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

... and ditto for this dead link Enchanter 20:48, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Observations on sourcing

  • This sentence: NLP is based on New Age principles [7] such as the belief in unlimited potential through access to subconscious engrams 8, where 8 links to: [1], the site of an author of a book called "An ABC of NLP."
This website -- a link to one self-published book by one author of his own interpretation of NLP -- is nowhere near strong enough to support such a broad statement of fact (i.e. that NLP is "based on ... the belief in unlimited potential through access to subconscious engrams.") Beyond it being insufficient to support such a sweeping statement, self-published books are inappropriate as sources except as an author's opinion about themselves. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 21:01, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
In other words, publishing a book doesn't automatically make it includable. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 21:47, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
This has been explained during the workshop in some depth. I will start again. The statement is not comprehensively attributed. The statement is corroborated by Drenth, Devilly, Levelt, and others. So I believe that makes Sinclair an acceptable source. Camridge 02:08, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Don't trouble yourself -- this one's simple. If you have so many other sources that say the same thing, it should be no trouble to use them instead. Since this book is self-published, it isn't appropriate for the article in any fashion. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 02:16, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Hi Katefan0. Here is an adjustment:
NLP is based on New Age beliefs in unlimited potential and the access to subconscious engrams (Levelt 1995; Drenth 2003; Devilly 2005)[2], and body language cues derived from the observation of “therapeutic wizards” [3]. Techniques include behavior change, transforming beliefs, and treatment of traumas through techniques such as reframing [4][5] and "meta-modeling" [6] proposed for exploring the personal limits of belief as expressed in language.
I added the link to institute resources. They are not quoting lines from a self published book. So I guess it is acceptable. ATB Camridge 02:46, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
If you have another source, go ahead and add it to the article. Right now it's flagged as "citation needed." · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 03:22, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Will do Camridge 04:05, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

  • This sentence: The fact that some people perceive NLP to work sometimes can be explained by the placebo effect, social pressure, superficial symptomatic rather than core treatment, and overestimating some apparent successes while ignoring, downplaying, or explaining away failures. as well as this one: In addition, "Ethical standards bodies and other professional associations state that unless a technique, process, drug, or surgical procedure can meet requirements of clinical tests, it is ethically questionable to offer it to the public, especially if money is to change hands."
These two sentences, which contain fairly strong statements, are supported by a reference here. However, this article does not mention NLP in any fashion. It is therefore not adequate as a source. To keep these arguments in the article, editors must find someone who believes that NLP can be explained by the placebo effect etc., as well as that NLP fails to meet ethical standards for sale to the public, else these arguments need to be removed. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 00:20, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
The author believes that NLP is both pseudoscientific and a dubious therapy. It can be further supported by research that is already cited on the article. Camridge 02:08, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
The author makes no mention of NLP in this specific article. If he believes this, use another of his publiations where he does mention NLP specifically to support this assertion, or a different source. But this article doesn't cut it. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 02:16, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Hi. This is handled in the "baby steps" section above. ATB Camridge 02:53, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Great, then it should be no problem for you to source both assertions properly. If they aren't sourced properly, they need to be removed. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 03:12, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Thats easy, its all in detail in the workshop. I'll do the honours. Camridge 04:21, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • This sentence: described by ... the US-based NGO National Council Against Health Fraud as charlatanry and fraudulent is supported by this link [7], a NCAHF newsletter.
This document says nothing about NLP being "charlatanry and fraudulent." Even worse, this isn't a position statement for the NCAHF on NLP; rather, the only reference to NLP therein is a summation of Jack Raso's "Sorting Out Junk Science," which mentions NLP. Including a summary of a debunking of what one author considers junk science is not the same thing as the NCAHF itself having taken this position. It may well be that they have, but this link isn't enough to support such a strong position statement on behalf of NCAHF. Another source needs to be found. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 00:37, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Yes this needs some adjustment. Camridge 02:08, 21 April 2006 (UTC) Here is another version:
NLP is identified as a dubious therapy by [8][9][10] and the US-based NGO National Council Against Health Fraud as and described by experts such as Winkin[11] and Parker (1999) as charlatanry and fraudulent [12] and is promoted in the same mold as Dianetics and Scientology[13][14][15].
This is disingenuous. It is not described by the NCAHF as a dubious therapy. Their newsletter includes a book review for an author that describes it as a dubious therapy. Either find a real statement of position from this group to this effect or the information will be removed. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 03:24, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Here's another version:

NLP is identified as a dubious therapy by [16][17][18] and the Handbook of Cognitive-Behavioral Therapies (Dobson 2001), and by experts such as Winkin[19] and Parker (1999) as charlatanry and fraudulent [20] and is promoted in the same mold as Dianetics and Scientology[21][22][23].

Camridge 04:02, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Camridge. You certainly answered the sourcing observations. I still think this below is a better option. I mean, who cares about sourcing if its correct:
Critics say that NLP promotes pseudoscientific and magical thinking and ethically questionable behavior, that NLP is a cult, and that NLP is ineffective and is promoted using exaggerated claims characteristic of fraud and charlatanry.
It certainly reads better. I believe we should still go for bottom-up though, main body to summary. Regards HeadleyDown 11:52, 21 April 2006 (UTC)


  • This sentence: "...the Engram... is used within NLP to explain how NLP works" has this webpage given as a reference. This is a webpage in French which does not mention engrams, or anything that could reasonably be translated as "engram", at all. Enchanter 01:00, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Engram in French is Engramme. Have another look. Engramme is the "neurological" explanation for neuro in NLP. Its a common New Age usage of neuro concepts. Camridge 02:08, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Ooops, you're right! I missed that. Enchanter 08:05, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
What special expertise does this Web site claim? Does it meet the bar set out by Wikipedia's policies on reliable sources? I am doubtful, but am willing to be convinced. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 02:21, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
A deeper look shows that this Web site is run by a French compay called Aimesey. No idea what that is or whether they claim some special expertise in psychology either. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 02:25, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Here is a description from a second party [24]. Looks like an accurate enough dictionary of psychology to me. Camridge 02:56, 21 April 2006 (UTC) BTW, a lot of these kind of links were requested by the mediator during mediation in order to clarify the point. It was accepted and found to be helpful (it shows clearly that the engram concept is used to explain the neuro part of NLP). It is also more scientifically accurate than many NLP books. Camridge 02:59, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
This is a recursive explanation. The infotheque website simply says dicopsy.com is a resource on psychology put out by something called Aimesey, which tells us nothing more than what the dicopsy.com site itself already says. Additionally, this infotheque website is nothing but links -- that's not enough to validate the dicopsy.com site's information as reliable for our purposes. I notice there are utterly no other links to it anywhere discernible on the web. Dicopsy.com uses no sourcing I can see and has no information about where it derives its expertise. These are rather weak justifications and you will need to come up with more than that to argue that it's a reliable source. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 03:12, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Sure Katefan0. I don't mind removing it, but it will probably reapear in future when another mediator drops by. Most of the sourced info on this article was added at the insistence of objectors who wanted excess sources to back up a fact they didn't like, or at the encouragement of previous mediators. There are plenty more reliable sources to support the view. So I'm flexible. ATB Camridge 03:27, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
That's fine. We can take it right back out -- if it's not reliable now, it won't be reliable later. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 03:32, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

The sentence "Historically, NLP has many pseudoscientific associations such as the explicit and implicit erroneous adherence to Dianetic's subconscious engram concept" is supported by two sources:

  • This source, which has already been discussed above; it is a self-published book and hence not a strong reference. Beyond that, it does not actually support the assertion made, that i.e. that NLP is associated "Dianetic's engram concept"; there is no mention of Dianetics in the article.
  • This source, which is again self published, and which again mentions engrams with no mentions of Dianetics.

Together, these sources give only very weak support for engrams being a term widely used in NLP, and no support at all for it being associated with Dianetics (the word "engram" is used by plenty of people outside Scientology/Dianetics, including in scientific works, although its usage in that context is pretty old-fashioned). They also give no support for the part of the sentence that says "NLP has many pseudoscientific associations". Enchanter 10:57, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Hello Enchanter. I am willing to assume you do not wish to simply remove scientific facts. The refs here were requested by mediators and those determined to remove the view altogether. Would you care to suggest an alternative line or phrasing? Regards HeadleyDown 15:55, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I haven't looked at these references and text Enchanter's talking about, but it doesn't matter who requested the references -- if the references don't support the assertions being made or, worse, are substandard, then they ought to be removed. Please refrain from casting aspersions, Enchanter has been doing good work so far. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 15:59, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Hi Enchanter, I agree, we don't need the Sinclair or the Bell ref. The engram concept is very obvious in NLP (and other refs support this) and the scientology association is supported by the sociological literature. In accordance with your's and Headley's prompting, I'll attribute the views correctly in time. ATB Camridge 04:38, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
I've removed the refs to Sinclair; thought I'd gotten them all, but apparently not. Replaced with fact tags where appropriate. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll
The second reference could perhaps be used for something, but not really the way it's used here. This is one NLP trainer with not very much biographical information speaking about his personal views of engrams. It's not enough to use it to support such a broad-brush statement that "Historically, NLP has many pseudoscientific assoiations ... to Dianetic's subconscious engram concept." Unless I'm missing something about this gentleman's association with NLP (has he been around long enough for his personal writings to be considered a valid historical framework?), this needs to be reworked. Maybe something more along the lines of ... "Some NLP practitioners use the engram concept" and use the link as an example of a discrete practitioner who does. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 16:10, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
  • This reference (in French) is used to support the statement "With its promotion with Tai Chi, Meditation, and Dianetics (Scientology), NLP is in the margins of contemporary obscurantism".

As far as I can see, this source makes no mention of Dianetics or Scientology.

As for the remaining statements, the basis in the paper appears to be a section in which the author observes that advertisements for NLP are to be found in the same section of the classified ads as other therapies such as Tai Chi and meditation, in the "Journal des Psychologues". I don't think that the observation that they are advertised on the same page of this journal provides sufficient support for the statement that they are "promoted together".

The above observation that they are promoted in the same section of the classified ads is given as a reason for the papers statement that, (translating approximately): "on the basis of these examples, it would be easy for me to reject NLP into the margins of contempory obscurantism, without any further scrutiny.". The paper then goes on to say that things are more complicated than that - in the author's view, NLP spreads pseudoscientific views and is sufficiently influential that its views must be countered robustly, to expose the "fraud" of NLP. So, if anything, the paper is saying that NLP is at the centre of contemporary obscurantism rather than the fringes!

The paper certainly appears to be a valid source on a viewpoint critical to NLP, but in this case it does not appear to support the sentence in which it is referenced. Enchanter 21:36, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't support Dianetics or Scientology, as you say - and Headley has verified this (see [[25]]) in his response which says the Dianetics comment refers to different references. And you've just shed some light on that too. Greg 22:45, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
  • The sentence "NLP is sometimes referred to in scientific research reviews as a cult [57][68], and a destructive or amoral pseudoscientific psychocult" is supported by this reference in German. Again, I can't see how this reference is meant to support the statement given; certainly the article is not a "scientific research review" itself, and I can't find the reference to it being a "destructive or amoral psychocult". Enchanter 11:23, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Hi Enchanter. Here is an adjusted version of the first para according to you comments:

NLP is sometimes referred to in scientific research reviews as a cult or akin to a cult or having the status of a cult (Elich and Thompson 1985p625; Eisner 2000p185, Sharpley 1987). Others have described it as a psychocult (Novopashin 2004p8), and in research it is often considered to be used by both mild and aggressive cults [1][2][3][4][5]. The German educational ministry banned the use of NLP in education and stated that it has a close similarity to Scientology [26].

Regards HeadleyDown 14:17, 6 May 2006 (UTC)


Hello Enchanter. The reason things are mixed up is because of deletes and reverts, and because we were condensing a lot of sentences down to be brief (with the help of VoiceofAll). The link is only one that places NLP as a psychocult (kult). We will get around to proper attribution in time. Here's a start; Eisner 2000 says NLP is a cult (p158), as does Elich et al 2005 (page 625). They are reviews of scientists. The link above also places NLP as a psychocult as does Novopashin 2004 (p155) (amoral psychocult). Regards HeadleyDown 12:03, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Proper attribution needs to be done now. If a source is being used to support a point that the source doesn't support, it needs to be removed and replaced with a request for a proper citation. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 12:34, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Enchanter, your german reference does not support the claim at all. I am a native german speaker and have just reviewed. For one, the word Kult (german for cult) appears once in the text, in the introductory paragraph which covers a wider terrain before zeroing in on the main topic. Specifically, this is a quote about other, but like seminars, not NLP specifically. It also makes no reference to other literature. Finally, the source is a catholic quarterly magazine, not exactly what I'd call scientific literature.

Also, this very article contains references to the german NLP organisation DVNLP and how it strives to seperate NLP from the pseudobabble that (mis)uses the term. At the very least, you'll have to find another reference to support your point. --80.171.62.22 21:56, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

  • The assertion "...in research it is often considered to be akin to a cult" is given with this reference. The reference does not support the statement made at all; the only mention of NLP is to state that some cults use NLP methods. Enchanter 09:55, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
  • And again the assertion "...in research it is often considered to be akin to a cult" is given with a reference to "Michael D Langone (Ed). (1993.). Recovery from Cults: Help for Victims of Psychological and Spiritual Abuse. New York, NY: W W Norton & Company, 1993". I think this deserves a closer look - it's definately a useful, relevant source, but is being misleadingly quoted here. The source documents an "drug rehabilitation clinic", using NLP methods and run by people claiming to be NLP practitioners. The group is described as being highly manipulative, run by a charismatic leader, using criminal methods, and dedicated to "creating a new superspecies" - I think we can all agree this is a relevant example of a cult. I think this is an excellent source to show an example of NLP having been adopted and used by a cult. However, at the moment, instead of describing what the source says, the quote in the article is being used to support the assertion that "NLP.... is often considered to be a cult", i.e. failing to make the distinction between NLP as a whole and this particular cult organisation. Enchanter 10:29, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
  • A third reference for the assertion "...in research it is often considered to be akin to a cult" is given as "Singer, Margaret (2003). unknown". I can't find what document this refers to; can anyone provide a title? Enchanter 10:37, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your work Enchanter. Indeed the section needs re-working and all will be correct. Certainly there is a view that NLP is a cult. There is no Singer 2003 as she passed away before that. It sounds like Singer 1999 (cults in our midst). Regards HeadleyDown 10:59, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
Singer 1999 doesn't appear to support the assertion either; it barely mentions NLP at all. Enchanter 11:26, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
I've now removed the ref to Singer 2003 from the article. Enchanter 07:49, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • And the fourth reference for the assertion "...in research it is often considered to be akin to a cult" is given as "Eisner, D. A. (2000). The death of psychotherapy: From Freud to alien abductions., p.158, Westport, CT: Praeger..". I can find nothing to support the assertion in the book, which barely mentions cults at all. Enchanter 10:51, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
  • And finally, the fifth reference for the assertion "...in research it is often considered to be akin to a cult" is given as Sharpley (1987). The sole relevant section from this study appears to be a quote from Elich et.al. (1985), stating "NLP has achieved something akin to a cult status...". I don't think this supports the assertion; saying that something has cult status has a very different meaning from saying that it is a cult. Enchanter 13:20, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
Eisner criticises NLP for being promoted as mystical and magical. He says there is no scientific support for it but it has secrets and a following. I'd say thats a lot of support for the cult label. Regards HeadleyDown 10:59, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
  • The statement "NLP is sometimes referred to in scientific research reviews as a cult" is given with the reference "Singer, Margaret (1995). Cults in Our Midst : The Continuing Fight Against Their Hidden Menace. New York, NY: Jossey Bass". I can find no support for the assertion in the book. Indeed I can find only one brief mention of NLP in the entire book (page 199) which describes workers at companies objecting to being required to undergo training involving NLP, along with a number of other techniques such as yoga and meditation. Enchanter 11:14, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Hunt (2003) is given as a reference to a couple of statements, but I can't find the document that this is referring to. Can anyone provide a title and full reference? Enchanter 12:44, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
There were two Hunts cited in the NLP Workshop, one is "Hunt, Stephen J. (2003) A Sociological Introduction, London: Ashgate p.195 ISBN 0754634094" Hunts staff profile[27] ---=-C-=- 12:49, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks! Enchanter 13:27, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
  • The statement "Sociologists such as Hunt [...] class NLP as a New Age development" is given with Hunt (2003) as a reference. However, this source doesn't appear to mention "New Age" in its discussion of NLP. Enchanter 13:27, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi Enchanter. Hunt mentions healing movements and human potential as a new age phenomenon in his book and in the chapter you mention. Regards. HeadleyDown 14:31, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Hunt (2003) is also given as a reference for the statement "NLP has been called a New Alternative Religion and an alternative version of Scientology". The source does not say that it is an alternative version of Scientology, it says it is an alternative to Scientology. This is a rather different statement (compare "Christianity is an alternative to Scientology" with "Christianity is an alternative version of Scientology"). It does not use the phrase "New Alternative Religion". I suggest a quote more representative of this source would be one like "while not an alternative religious system per se, the programme [NLP] could be seen as simlar to new religions of eastern origin..." Enchanter 13:44, 6 May 2006 (UTC)


Hi Enchanter, and thanks for the pointer. Here is the correct line. It can be placed with clarifications as a quote. eg:

Hunt states that NLP is an "alternative to Scientology", "although like others mentioned below (Insight, Emin) NLP has more of an implied religiosity".

Yes I believe your suggested line is also valid and could be clarifying. Regards HeadleyDown 14:31, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, on second view, the Hunt reference does seem to be classing NLP as a kind of scientology. Within the healing/human potential self-improvement areas there is Scientology, and TM. NLP is placed under the title of scientology. It has no title of its own. This is good evidence that NLP is simply a follow on from scientology. And it also shows that according to Hunt, NLP and Scientology have a close similarity in this category. I will work out how better to phrase the line. Regards HeadleyDown 17:04, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

This sounds rather interpretive. Please avoid interpreting literature. If it says it's like Scientology, that's proper. If you're interpreting it to mean (without explicitly saying) it's like Scientology, that's not okay, it's original research. · Katefan0 (scribble)/poll 17:07, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Of course Katefan. OR is out of the question. As the book shows, the heading of Scientology gives an account of scientology, then shows NLP as an alternative to Scientology. So within self-development healing movements, Hunt lists Scientology and NLP as having a spiritual element. NLP's religiosity is more implied than Scientology. Hunt shows the similarities. Regards HeadleyDown 19:50, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

  • The statement "The German educational ministry banned the use of NLP in education and stated that it has a close similarity to Scientology" is given with this source. According to the source, the institution involved does not actually appear to be "the German educational ministry", but rather the education department of Schleswig-Holstein, a small state in northern Germany. Enchanter 15:38, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks much Enchanter. According to the map, its actually a big state, but I appreciate your specificity. Its very helpful. That reminds me, there are some Chinese texts that say similar things about NLP with Scientology. Regards HeadleyDown 15:44, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm having trouble tracking down this reference: "Hardiman (1994) "NLP background and issues. Industrial relations review and report". Quality & Safety in Health Care No 560 May". According to this link there is no May 1994 issue, and I can't find Hardiman in any of the other issues either. Can anyone point me in the right direction? Thanks, Enchanter 16:08, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
"A search by me on OPAC found "There are no results for Hardiman 1994 in the British OPAC (http://catalogue.bl.uk)]"[28]" Hardiman (1994) and Summers was discussed in January. I did a search on OPAC and could not find either papers. There is a thread in the talk archives on Hardiman/Summers: Talk:Neuro-linguistic_programming/_archive8#Hardiman_.281994.29 ---=-C-=- 05:07, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Hardiman was originally added by Bookmain as "Hardiman (1994) NLP background and issues. Industrial relations review and report No 560" [29]. Two days later, DaveRight added this text, "There is a general view that NLP is dubious and is not to be taken seriously in a business context (Hardiman 1994; Summers 1996)"[30]. Almost a month later, HeadleyDown added some text attribed to Hardiman (1994) [31], 2 days later Camridge added some more [32]. ---=-C-=- 03:23, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
I'll check it out again. Back to you soon. Bookmain 03:58, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
I got it. Hardiman was actually within another book. Lets just ditch it for now, there are plenty others with the view that NLP is unethical. Best not clutter the article up. Bookmain 06:00, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
  • The image with the heading "NLP - the new scientology of achievement" is captioned being from "Trade Motivation Weekly". Does anyone have any background on this publication and how notable it is, and in what context the image was used? (I note that "Trade Motivation Weekly" gets no google hits). Enchanter 21:37, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
I believe that this image Image:Zenmeter.JPG uploaded by "(rev) 2005-09-11 18:27:43 . . DRCoren (Talk) . . 800x600 (100,181 bytes) (This image was taken from an internal trade document. With permission. The article was about NLP an pseudoscience)" (Uploaded by DRCoren added by EBlack) and Scientology of achievement.JPG (uploaded by User:DRCoren and by later by Camridge, added by HeadleyDown) were probably from the same same in-house magazine. It says they were created by the same people or "taken with permission from an old in house magazine about psychology. Now out of publication. I snipped some of the business details off (eg addresses and phone numbers etc) EBlack 10:23, 26 July 2005 (UTC)"[33]. EBlack worked on this article and added this image. ---=-C-=- 00:49, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. It would be helpful to find out more about the background of this in-house magazine, to help evaluate the source and put the image in context. Enchanter 01:39, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
This one's a problem. I've been looking for this one for months. I'd say its unverifiable. There are plenty more verifiable facts we can illustrate in the criticism section. I'll do the honours. Bookmain 03:58, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I can't find Dilts (2000). Can anyone provide a full reference with the title? Thanks, Enchanter 22:08, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
This source is freely available online. It is basically self-published Dilts, Robert B, DeLozier, Judith A (2000). Encyclopedia of Systemic Neuro-Linguistic Programming and NLP New Coding p.75, 383, 729, 938-943, 1003, 1300, 1303. NLP University Press. ---=-C-=- 00:49, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks! Enchanter 01:39, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
  • The statement "The presuppositional beliefs (Bodenhammer 2001.p63) or presuppositions of NLP are sometimes described as an epistemology" is given with this source (Malloy, St Clair, Grinder). The connection between the source and the statement are not at all obvious to me - the source does not mention the word "presupposition" at all. Indeed, the source makes no mention of NLP, although I presume the involvement of John Grinder gives it some sort of link with the subject. Enchanter 02:31, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
I'd ask that further inquiries along these lines be started in a new thread. This one is getting a bit far back for it to be a logical place to check for new messages anymore. · Katefan0 (scribble)/poll 02:34, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Question on Levelt

This is partly based on a babelfish translation from Levelt who is cited by Drenth (2003) in criticising Drs. Jaap Hollander. Is this just sarcasm? There are no references, or basis for this what appears to be a joke in a sceptics magazine. It seems that Levelt's joke got lost in the translation... "What still is more done with neuro? Except the continuing recurrence that NLP concerns representations in the brain and has attention for the interaction between body and psyche, which belongs to the same cybernetic system, I have still only been able to find (in Hollander et al.) a long consideration are possible to find concerning engrammen, 'spatial and temporary patterns of active lord warrants'. Thus we read active engram, cause a collar response of each other activating engrammen. If that runs easily, we marks nothing of it. But if it gets bogged down somewhere (there is no involved-engram) then the last engram in the chain becomes conscious, accompanied by a negative emotion. There activity in the motorial lord cortex, excites then, engages (there are no involved engrams) and then we will cry or sigh. Here a dubious psychological tale is packed in engrammen metaphor which adds nothing and absolutely no predicting value has. It sounds quite scientific of course." Willem Levelt, Skepter 9(3), September 1996 ---=-C-=- 03:08, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Hello Comaze. This has also been explained in detail in the workshop. The actual source is Intermediaire, a published Journal. This was misprepresented by someone who wanted to label it as a skeptic source. The skeptic magazine just copied it onto their site. Levelt is a world renowned psycholinguist and professor and is eminently quotable. ATB Camridge 03:16, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
It is not indexed medline or psychoinfo. Levelt may be citable, but not misrepresented. And not given too much weight. I may just need assistance with the translation. ---=-C-=- 03:19, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Camridge recent change "NLP is based on New Age beliefs in unlimited potential and the access to subconscious engrams (Levelt 1995; Drenth 2003; Devilly 2005)[34] I have checked Levelt (1995) and Drenth (2003) and these authors do not support the attributed text. "34emotions" link is not in english and on first glance does not appear noteworthy. So this statement rests on Devilly. I can get access to Devilly's paper over the weekend. Can someone else provide a direct quote from Devilly that support this statement? And what well-known practitioner basis their version of NLP on engrams - we've discussed this for months and still no solid evidence that connects to any of the main NLP authors - I doubt that Devilly supports this. ---=-C-=- 08:20, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Hello Comaze. Levelt et al talk directly about engrams in NLP. I can seperate the unlimited potential sentence if you like but its not going to make much difference. As Levelt explained, the whole of NLP rests on the engram concept. We have been explaining this for months and it is so obvious. All of the internal sensory concepts of NLP rest on the new age/dianetics engram concept. Its not surprising as Perls and many other new age human potential authors were using the concept throughout their therapies (including Gestalt therapy). Camridge 08:38, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Both Drenth and Levelt are Dutch and there was something lost in the translation. It seems Levelt is criticising Drs. Jaap Hollander, Ph.D. He does NOT say "whole of NLP rests on [Dr. Jaap Hollander's explanation of the] engram concept" See also, Jaap Hollander's reply to Drenth (and Levelt): NLP and Science: Five recommendations for a better relationship. There is no mention of engram. My Levelt's translation is not so clear still on this. ---=-C-=- 09:32, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Hello Comaze. Hollander writes about engrams in NLP. The engram concept is used in NLP throughout every book. It is core to NLP. To be fair, it is a common concept in human potential new age developments and is generally used out of its proper context (its just a theoretical concept). Every time NLP authors talk of internal visual, auditory, or kinesthetic circuits, they are using the engram concept. Hollander does not dispute this. He does place NLP on a par with the scientific method though. He looks like he is presenting a perfect example of pseudoscientific argument. Camridge 09:42, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Levelt and Drenth have criticised Hollander for his ideas about engrams, however the views of a single practitioners are not representative of the entire field. There are 192 (Book, Book Section, Journal Article, Thesis) indexed in medline and psychinfo, to my knowledge, none explain use engram trace or localization of memory to describe how NLP works. Drenth and Levelt are not experts on NLP, none of their articles in NLP have been indexed in medline or psychinfo. You say that Hollander's reputation is not that high. So this is a circular argument. Are you able to produce one reference of wikipedia standard for this claim about engram? You say Devilly supports this assertion, but I seriously doubt it. And based on my translation, Levelt does not support your statements either. ---=-C-=- 10:10, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
No Comaze they critiqued NLP. Hollander doesn't even mention the Levelt. The engram koncept is clear is part of core NLP neuro. HansAntel 10:19, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Your partly right. Hollander's "NLP and Science" is published in "NLP World: Vol 6, 1999" before Drenth (2003) magazine article so it is not a reply. There is still a gap in the argument here, Hollander is not representative of NLP. Also you failed to address the important issues inclduding that Drenth does not provide any evidence for claims about engrams except to cite Levelt who criticises Hollander. You also failed to address the complete lack of evidence in the published psychological or experimental literature for Drenth and Levelt's claims. ---=-C-=- 11:19, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
I made a compromise on the article. Instead of bracketing neural networks, I made the engram linkable to the neural network article. The biological neuronal network and the engram are similar (except of course NLP uses the engram concept in a rather outdated and unfounded way). Regards HeadleyDown 11:45, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
I think it's pretty clear that NLP talks about the brain, and some people have linked NLP topics to engrams, just as others see Neural Networks. I think that "neural network" is a more understandable term myself (neither is mainstream enough though) - but the idea that "the whole of NLP rests on the engram" is farce. The whole of NLP does rely on people having brains, and being able to see things from multiple perspectives, and have conflicting emotions etc... and if Levelt believes the concepts behind Engrams are also behind NLP - then that is his theory for NLP. I note that you didn't say Engrams are behind NLP... but the concepts of Engrams. As such why don't we talk about the concepts themselves rather than other places where the concepts come up.
Anyway - if it all comes to rest on Devilly then lets see what he has to say. Comaze, can you email me a copy of Devilly? I asked many questions in the workshop that weren't answered. Greg 13:10, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Hi GregA. The only reason neural network are given with the engram in the article is because they are vaguely related and they are neuro. The engram concept crops up throughout the human potential new age developments. Drenth and Levelt are refering to the engram concept the way that Sinclair and the Belgian chap does. Its a misconception. The engram is a theoretical necessity, but that doesn't mean we know how it works. NLP authors (and other Human Potential authors) are making wild claims saying they know how they work. NLPers say they work on internal senses. You play a snippit of an experience in your head, and there is some kind of formula you can write to trace it or manipulate it (VAK, AVK, etc) according to NLP authors. This kind of idea is written throughout the NLP books. Its a wild claim. Neural networks are a computing metaphor (they are artificial). The whole of NLP is based on the erroneous human potential engram concept. This has been explained to you before more than once. Regards HeadleyDown 00:13, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
PS Here is another example: [www.mcguire-freedomsroad.com/articles/Unpredictability5.rtf]. HeadleyDown 00:19, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Wow! Thanks Headley. The author there is using the exact Dianetics definition of engram in NLP also. ATB Camridge 04:30, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Get anyone to do anything!

According to the article, "NLP book titles include ... “Get Anyone to Do Anything”". There is a popular book of this title, by David J Lieberman, but it does not appear to have anything to do with NLP - indeed, it is full of references to mainstream psychology journals. Unless there is another book by the same name relating to NLP, this would appear to be here in error. Enchanter 22:46, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

... and expanding on that, the article also claims "NLP book titles include "The Unfair Advantage in Sales" and "The Science and Technology of Getting What You Want"..."

I can find no reference to a book called "the Science and Technology of Getting What You Want" (see for example this google search, which only points back to the Wikipedia article.)

I also can't find "The Unfair Advantage in Sales", although there is a book called "The Unfair Advantage: Sell with NLP" [35], which would of course make an equally valid reference.

Enchanter 00:43, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Enchanter, you are correct. The Science and Tech book is "Nlp: Neuro Linguistic Programming the New Art and Science of Getting What You Want by Harry Alder" Constant deletes have screwed up a lot of lines. ATB Camridge 02:14, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
The main thing we're going to eliminate is cases where there are literally 3-4 citations for once sentence. I have a feeling that all came about during the period of the most fighting over this article, i.e. alot of "I have a source!" "I do too!". Just overkill. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 03:23, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Really it was something that was requested by those wishing to remove facts. There seem to be a lot of academics here who are happy to provide sources. When somebody wanted to remove a fact, it was often demanded on the basis that there were only one or two or three sources to back it up. So editors helpfully searched and provided more. We were'nt competing for how many we could stuff in there. It would be nice to be properly appreciated one day for the hard work applied to saving the more obvious facts from being deleted. ATB Camridge 03:32, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Whatever the reason was, Camridge, we should not have more than 1 or possibly 2 citations for a sentence. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 07:26, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Thanks Camridge, you've been really helpful with today's problem solving and sorting. JP just sent me some new stuff about who thinks NLP is dubious. I know Woohookitty doesn't want it all in the article, but it includes other facts that will be useful. I'll send them over. AliceDeGrey 04:59, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Guys - rather than cut 3 sources down to 1, and then find out that that one was a misquote and have to go back and find the other 2 - can we have an "invisible reference", something hidden in a paragraph. I'm sure I've seen a way of making remarks, and it might allow for a nicely readable article, with some backup too you can see during editing. Your thoughts? Greg 13:02, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
A maximum of 3 would really be nice at least. The footnotes allow for us to get away with a bit more, but 4+ so frequently is a bit on the messy side.Voice-of-AllT|@|ESP 07:13, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm sure nobody has a problem with providing references. And misquotes are not a problem either (never have been). One problem I forsee is the use of numbers instead of names to a reference. The current page (and the workshop) have had the names turned to numbers and you often get a set of 5 numbers on the same quote and they all go to the same ref. That is unacceptable. I cannot say what the intention was, but the conversion has led to a great many references deleted, including page numbers that people took time looking up over the months. It looks to me like a perfect opportunity for some "editors" to screw around with the arrangement and remove refs while backs are turned focusing on facts. HeadleyDown 07:43, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removing un-needed, unused, and duplicate references

This article currently has a tremendous number of references. References are a good thing. I applaud all the editors who have worked on this article for finding references to back up facts included here. However, there really is such a thing as too much of a good thing. Therefore, beginning this week-end, I will be removing some references that seem unessesary to me. Some of these may need some discussion - I will post again here as I actually begin the work. Thanks, Johntex\talk 00:07, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi Johntex, during the workshop I removed all unused references and converted to the standard inline as recommended for feature candidate articles. See the source of "Notes and References" section on the workshop dummy page, the reference list is automatically generated based on what is used in the article, with links back and forth. Is there some way we can merge the changes to "notes and references" format? It shows how many times each reference is used with backlinks to the text sections which is useful for establishing the relative weight given to each reference and POV. Some editors will object because some controversial text (for example, multiple false associations to Dianetics) was moved into the Workshop discussion, and we were unable to reach consensus to import it back in. Can you think of a middle way, where we can maintain the "notes and references" while attempting to reolve the aoutstanding issues. ---=-C-=- 00:36, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
The logical way would be to attribute all sources according to the helpful recommendations of the mentors, and once that is done, then refs can change format or be removed if they are not used. There is a section on Beyerstein that you may want to comment on before it is placed into the article. Camridge 02:11, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
This diff may assist with checking the references [36] Note the way I converted 
<ref name="drenth"/>
and how the reference list with back links is automatically generated with 
<references />
. Only the first occurrance of a references needs to have the full citation details, for example: 
<ref name="drenth">{{cite journal

| author=Drenth, J.D.
| title=Growing anti-intellectualism in Europe; a menace to science
| journal=ALLEA Annual Report | year=2003 | volume=- | pages=- | url=http://www.allea.org/pdf/17.pdf

}}</ref> ---=-C-=- 09:45, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I began converting the references. I'll finish it over the weekend which will assist us check the sources and the facts. ---=-C-=- 02:42, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
HI Comaze - thanks for starting this work. It is a bit tedious, but it should be beneficial. The <ref></ref> style of making the references also has a big advantage in that the reference is self contained in the text. This helps prevent orphaned references because it makes it easier to add/delete the reference while one is adding/deleting the article text. When references are in a different section, it is easy to delete a sentence from the article and forget to go down to the seperate section to delete the referense. It turns out that I need to go help out a friend today in the non-wiki world, but I'll come back as soon as I can. Johntex\talk 18:18, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
FYI, some handy Wikipedian's created a cite tool -- take a look at the thread on the Pump. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 06:30, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
No problem Johntex, any outside assistance would be appreciated. Unfortunately the cite conversion tool that Katefan suggested did not work for this article. I've gone ahead and converted most the citations manually. The backlinks (a,b,c,d,e) will help us establish the number of times a source is used and hence, the relative weight assigned to the various views. This should make fact and references checks possible and eventually, a peer-review. There are a small number of citations still to be converted. ---=-C-=- 02:06, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Source

This is quite a good reference I think, but underutilized. Its language is clear and yet I feel that the article as it stands doesn't capitalize on its plain language to explain the critiques of NLP. Rather, we have choppy things about "therapeutic wizards" that snark but don't quite capture the nature of the criticisms. Anyway, I don't have time to digest it all or make more suggestions besides this one tonight, as I'm off to Baltimore to catch a show. FWIW, just an observation. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 20:51, 21 April 2006 (UTC)


Thanks Oblio and Kate. I'll have a closer look for Sharpley's and the other's more accessible language. Regards HeadleyDown 01:42, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Hi Figleaf and welcome. THanks for the verification. Its very helpful. ATB, Camridge 04:25, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Hiya Katafan. Drenth seems to be spot on. And you're right about his language, its nice and easy on the eye (though strangely foreign also). He mentions the engram (engramme) and other rich fantasy concepts. Well this is useful, and can be even better explained with reference to the other associated new age ideas. Human potential uses this throughout. I suppose if you are gonna be fair, one would mention that other therapies like Dianetics, primal scream, emotional freedom technique and others use this same concept. Chaining engrams is a common misuse of the engram term. NLP's core ideas utilize the engram concept in relation to its main contribution (how to manipulate internal imagery and perception). The original books have tried to avoid sounding theoretical, and though they do propose hypotheses, they shun theory (some say to avoid testing) and try to stick to practice (appealing to the lay reader rather than the scientist). So they're not going to mention engrams when they describe the way your submodalities can be used to make changes in the brain. But thats the concept they are using (the erroneous human potential version of the engram) The pseudoscience bit comes in where NLP proponents claim that your internal senses (or submodalities of those senses) will change the circuits (engrams) of the brain. Of course neuroscientists have never come close to determining how or if this occurs, and the evidence points to far more complex situation and, well basically points to the other direction (its not imagery doing the neuro changing). I notice Beyerstein also explains this kind of thing and mentions engrams and scientology (amongst others) also. So in agreement with other human potential therapies, engrams are the main theoretical concept behind NLP, and I imagine just about every NLP book will show this. Drenth, Beyerstein, and Levelt are making this clear and I see those other NLP refs and links are making explicit use of the engram term also. I'll see if I can get those sentences to fit more clearly into the article. LemonMnM 03:25, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Thanks LemonMnM. I have some literature on New Age/Human pot that can be helpful here also. ATB Camridge 04:25, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Socks thrown in the wash

I've just blocked three four sockpuppets coming from the same IP ranges in Hong Kong and removed their long-winded comments. Listen, whoever you are -- pick one account and use it, that's just fine. But if you keep using sockpuppets, they're going to keep getting blocked. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 12:25, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes. We have a free hand and the ability to get IPs checked through users that have CheckUser rights. So it's kind of pointless to try to use socks. --Woohookitty(meow) 15:47, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Quite so! There's absolutely no need for it. Regards Headleydown@yahoo.com HeadleyDown 00:42, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Just a reminder

Any many changes made need to discussed here first. A succession of smaller changes constitutes a major change. --Woohookitty(meow) 04:44, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Hello Woohookitty. Do many attribution corrections or line corrections consitute a major change? ATB Camridge 04:47, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
I would at least post what you are going to be doing on here first in case someone objects. I wouldn't assume anything with this group. :) --Woohookitty(meow) 04:58, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Ah! I appreciate the wry perspective. I wonder if you include the mentors and mediators as part of the group!:) Headley and I are working towards correcting any lines, and attributing them properly. We've just been sent a ton of new research, so we may be replacing some attributions with something more clear or more solidly verifiable. I'm sure agreement will come in time, but I believe the most effective way to get the article into shape (without constant arguments) is to work with properly attributed facts (as promised after arbitration), then clarifications. Then making openings and overviews representitive. I'm sure nobody believes the current article is a final or stable version. ATB. Camridge 06:13, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Before making changes can you please check it for NPOV. I have not checked all of the recent edits, but there was some POV edits in the mix. A recent change labelled as "correct view" seems to introduce POV language eg. "now it is rarely even" [37] "Even" should be avoided in this case. Also the rest of the change needs to be check - it appears to be incomprehensible to the average reader, and to not conform to the rules of grammar. ---=-C-=- 13:04, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed Change to 2nd Paragraph

(notice: This refers to the 2nd Paragraph as it's on the workshop page right now)

current:

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

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

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

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

--213.191.86.35 13:19, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Your alternative paragraph seems fine - but I'm not sure that it is a replacement for the previous one. We have a large problem (with no solution that I know of) of repeating certain things throughout the article, and I'm sure this stuff has been posted in other places... so the challenge is how to make this whole thing flow better. I also question adding any Dianetics reference it's simply not a part of NLP - though somebody apparently thinks it is so it'll be represented somewhere. Greg 13:59, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NLP Variants

After reading most of the workshop page and some of this, I think this justifies its own discussion:

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

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

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

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


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

</endrant> --213.191.86.35 13:20, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely Greg 14:01, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
I have thought myself for some time that it might be best to start with what the people who created NLP said about it or intended it to mean, and then a separate section for the different ways discrete practitioners have interpreted their publications. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 16:10, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Scientific analysis of NLP

Hi. The Scientific analysis of NLP is quite one sided. I've just added a bit more information to it below (not in article yet), nothing is removed. It is not intended to be "clean" and neat yet, just to add some relevant facts. Does anyone dispute what I've added or changed? Greg 14:04, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Scientific analysis of NLP - expanded

NLP has been empirically tested over many years and many of its models and methods have been found to be largely ineffective [6]. p 175. In relation to current understanding of neurology and perception, NLP is in error (Bertelsen, 1987).

The 1988 US National Committee, a board of 14 prepared scientific experts, reported that NLP says it does not do theory, but that Robert Dilts (a well known NLP trainer) did provide theories for NLP (Druckman & Swets, 1988) . They commented that instead of being grounded in contemporary, scientifically derived neurological theory, his theories for NLP were based on outdated metaphors of brain functioning and were laced with numerous factual errors.

The US National Committee report also commented that almost all research into NLP so far (until 1988) was on one NLP concept - the "Preferred Representation Systems" (PRS), which says that people represent the world via an internal visual, auditory, and/or kinesthetic representation - and that people have a preferred system which is used more commonly and reflected in word choice and eye movements. Reviewing the PRS research, they said that "Individually, and as a group, these 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"[7]. One of the studies directors, Edgar Johnson, stated that "Lots of data shows that NLP doesn't work"[8]. The national committee said that Bandler had told them that the PRS was no longer considered an important component of NLP (though Representation Systems were still a large part of the latest books) - and still note that NLP techniques were unvalidated.

Similarly, Heap (1989) said that the conjecture that a person has a preferred representation system (PRS) which is observed in the choice of words, has been found to be false according to rigorous research reviews, and the assertion that a person has a PRS which can be determined by the direction of eye movements has found even less support [9][10]. NLP has failed to yield convincing evidence for the NLP model, and failed to provide evidence for its effectiveness [9].

Einspruch and Forman (1985) critiqued Sharpley's 1984[11] review of NLP, saying that each of the reviewed studies contained methodological errors and other problems, including misunderstanding NLP's model of representation systems. Sharpley refuted this and provided further experimental evidence which he believed demonstrated that NLP was ineffective and in error in both method and model[5]. The US National Committee review "[7] made similar comments regarding methodological problems with research on NLP's Preferred Representation Systems. They also noted that

Several reviewers in the late 1980s concluded that objective empirical studies [9][12][7] had consistently shown NLP to be ineffective, and reviews or meta-analysis have given NLP a conclusively negative assessment. Bliemeister came to a similar conclusion in 1998 [13][10]. Sharpley and others reiterated the statement that there is no neuro-scientific basis for any of NLP's claims, or any scientific support for its claimed efficacy [5][14][15][6][4].

Efran and Lukens (1990p122) state that the original interest in NLP turned to dissolusionment after the research and now it is rarely even mentioned in psychotherapy [16]. Eisner says that NLP proponents have provided not one iota of scientific support for their claims, and as such NLP is considered inappropriate for thorough clinical studies [4]. Others have done clinical studies of NLP (all NLP models, not just PRS) and all have shown significant improvement for clients undergoing NLP treatment, but they have not demonstrated that NLP methods were specifically responsible. Devilly (2001?), an NLP critic, reviewed NLP research and says that NLP methods are not substantially better than existing psychiatric methods.

Professor Robert Carrol [17], author of the Skeptics Dictionary, states that it is impossible to determine a "correct" NLP model, and that applying one particular model to everyone is over-simplistic and will be no substitute for hard earned expertise and cannot be verified through statistical methods.

Beyerstein says that NLP is a pseudoscientific fringe therapy (Beyerstein 1990 page31), a bogus therapy, and a New Age brain manipulator. He says that bogus therapies can be explained by the placebo effect, social pressure, superficial symptomatic rather than core treatment (1997p20) , and overestimating some apparent successes while ignoring, downplaying, or explaining away failures." Beyerstein states that when critics challenge "New Age brain manipulators" they are typically provided with anecdotes of effectiveness and user testimonials, where there ought to be rigorous pre-and post treatment comparisons (Beyerstein 1990 page33).

[edit] discuss science change

I think delving into the "theory of NLP" may be out of place for this section too. Greg 14:04, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

And what is Carroll's point here - can anyone elaborate on that reference?

Please remember I know the above is written badly - I'm on a "what are we wanting to include" mission, clean up is after. Greg 14:07, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Hello GregA. Your interpretation of the lines is just that: your interpretation. We have tried to keep the lines word for word as much as possible. You have also moved lines out of time. Research moves over time, and you have placed Sharpley 87 before Druckman 84. Sharpley's 87 review has never been falsified. Devilly, Singer, Eisner, Lilienfeld and many others have corroborated Sharpley's finding. And the research by Druckman and Sharpley includes the magical theory of NLP (erroneous), and the findings of non-prs studies. NLP is unable to withstand scientific scrutiny (according to the research). Representational systems are the core of NLP. It is pseudoscientific in theory, practice, and excuse (according to the research). Carroll's point is there is no way of testing models, so they are pseudoscientific. Your presentation of Devilly is completely wrong. The current lines in the scientific analysis may need turning to active voice and adding page numbers, but the research there is consistent, and all views corroborate. There is no evidence whatsoever of any of NLP's methods being supported theoretically, or its claimed efficacy according to the reviewers. We are in the process of correctly attributing the citations. I could go further but we have explained the basics of the scientific method before, and it would be a waste of time doing it again. HeadleyDown 14:37, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
I'll get back with Druckman quotes. My interpretation vs your interpretation huh? BTW, the Meta-model is the core of NLP - check out the original books. Rep systems came later - and more specifically, "Preferred" rep system is very minor, and taught differently to early books. You've seen the outcome-based studies in support of NLP - can you justify why you judge them to be "no evidence" - your opinion of their validity is not relevant. Greg 15:03, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
It is not our job to judge which of the hundreds of studies are good or which are in error. That would be OR (original research). The findings presented are the most verifiable and conclusive, and they corroborate consistently. We have already been through the credentials of Sharpley, Beyerstein, Eisner, Drenth, Levelt, Lilienfeld, Devilly, Singer, Von Bergen and the others. They are all professors or PHD holders in psychology, neuroscience, neurolinguistics or similar. Regards HeadleyDown 15:26, 26 April 2006 (UTC) Furthermore, NLP is considered a pseudoscience by many experts. HeadleyDown 15:27, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Hello GregA. Really it should not be a matter of interpretation. Many sources say that representational systems (the senses or sense learning styles) are the core of NLP, including Dilts, Hall and Bodenhammer, and Sharpley, and it is referred to as a magical theory (due to its origins in the occult/shamanism). The metamodel has also been criticised for being based upon out of date or erroneous conceptualizations of linguistics. That will be clarified also. ATB Camridge 04:32, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
We should have a subsection in the scientific review section on PRS. Direct quotes from Sharpley (1984, 1987) and Einspruch & Forman (1985) would be useful in this section to outline the various arguments. This should not be confused with learning styles. We might be able to have a subsection or paragraph covering the various arguments on the theoretical basis of the meta model (Satir, Perls, and Transformational Syntax). ---=-C-=- 13:03, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Hello Comaze. No original research is needed at all. Einspruck has already been mentioned, and answered by Sharpley and all the others (Singer and so on). The conclusions concern all aspects of both PRS, RS, other aspects of NLP, and most importantly - the mysical and pseudoscientific theory of NLP. Devilly can be added. Again, that will require less than a line. HeadleyDown 13:12, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
I don't follow your argument. You seem to be mixing research, with a mystical/religious viewpoint, and views of anti-cult critics (eg. Singer). This thread and related section in the article should be strictly about the Scientific literature on NLP. There are quite a few areas of the current article where this same error is made, it'll take some time to document. ---=-C-=- 13:35, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Sharpley has been mentioned multiple times, as if he is different people (ie without showing clearly that it's the same author). If it is not our job to judge which studies are in error, how did you decide to ignore any supporting study Camridge. If you dispute their validity then find a review which refers to them to add. Greg 13:39, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Regarding Druckman & Swets/ US National Committee report, it seems we both agree this is a major and important review of all NLP research at that time? Anyway, the info that most studies are rep systems is on page 142 of their report linked here [38]. Simply read the research findings - you'll note they're mainly on rep systems. The whole 5 points are extremely valuable for anyone summarising NLP research pre 1988, I believe it can be neutrally used as a basis for the science section, then later research can be added. Greg 13:48, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Headley, can you comment on which lines are out of time? Also, any comment on what The Skeptics Dictionary guy is talking about
  • Professor Robert Carrol [14], author of the Skeptics Dictionary, states that it is impossible to determine a "correct" NLP model, and that applying one particular model to everyone is over-simplistic and will be no substitute for hard earned expertise and cannot be verified through statistical methods.
Is he saying that NLP can not be tested and that existing studies are overly simplistic? Greg 13:51, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
There are a few observations I'd like to make with this section of the article. I'll comment more fully when I have time. Firstly, Singer is an anti-cult critic, and this commentary should not be confused with research. Craft (2001) and Jane Mathison's papers would be good examples as they review the literature but have been ignored for whatever reason. Lilienfeld et al, present no research on NLP. Lilienfeld does comment on VK/D (the NLP phobia reduction process), criticising it for having little evidence for efficacy except in workshops, by, for example, Charles Figley (Florida State Traumatology). Charles Figley's articles could also be included somewhere if there is room. Atleast, if you want to include Lilienfeld, you need to include Figley. ---=-C-=- 13:59, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
None of these references you refer to cross-refer with the other studies. All of the studies presented are cross-corroborating, and refer to the empirical testing of the intervention. Lilienfeld is mentioned by Devilly and others. Devilly and the others do not mention Figley, Mathison or Craft because those papers are speculative inconclusive. They are nothing to do with the empirical testing of NLP. They are neither here nor there. If they have been discarded by Devilly and the others, then they have been deemed irrelevant or erroneous. We have been through this more than once already. NLP is ineffective/erroneous/pseudoscientific according to the reviewers of all the research that THEY consider relevant. HeadleyDown 14:30, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Headley I think that's the point.. In fact, if your reviewers do not refer to supportive research then it shows a particular bias. You are giving opinion if you disregard them. The context of a paper and extent of its applicability etc should be part of a review of that paper naturally though. I do agree that the quality of a source should be checked as not all sources are good enough - things like newspaper articles are one case in point.
PS could you please reply specifically to my skepdic question, and preferably to my US National Committee link too. Greg 19:53, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
The adjustment is in the article. HeadleyDown 01:47, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
HeadleyDown - this is important. Lilienfeld did not review NLP, they do comment that there is little substantive evidence for VK/D to support its use by Figley et al in workshops. Let's try not to exclude the middle ground here, no expert would naively say that "X is ineffective/erroneous/pseudoscientific". ---=-C-=- 23:55, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Lilienfeld has made an in depth study of NLP. Many experts say NLP is pseudoscientific and in error. eg Drenth is the most accessible paper and as you can see he says it. If you read the background of each "theory" of nlp you would also say it. NLP's main theory is based upon shamanic views of the senses. HeadleyDown 01:47, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
This is misrepresentation. There is no published review or in-depth study of NLP by Lilienfeld. ---=-C-=- 11:07, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Ahh, headley - when I ask you a question it is out of respect for your opinion, not because you are in any way an authority on what gets posted on the main page. Would you answer my question about Carrol saying NLP can not be verified statistically? Deleting the passage I'm questioning doesn't really cut it. Furthermore, the remaining portion of the sentence still could mean several things and has no context provided - please explain ("Professor Robert Carrol states that it is impossible to determine a "correct" NLP model"). Same issues go for any question I ask you. Good night, I'll leave your latest reversion for tonight. Greg 16:22, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
It means what it says. There is no way of knowing how eg Sherlock Holmes thinks or generates strategies. There is no way of knowing if you are using Jesus' method of healing. NLP practitioners are selling methods that cannot be tested properly (scientifically). Other authors have said it more clearly. I will search their papers to clarify that view. HeadleyDown 03:00, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Ok got it now.... It's worded terribly. Currently it says:
  • "Professor Robert Carrol [55] states that it is impossible to determine a "correct" NLP model."
Perhaps we should say
  • "Professor Robert Carrol states that it is impossible to verify if an NLP model of someone's expertise is actually "correct"."
What does anyone think? Greg 12:48, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
You should probably identify the bias of this opinion (sceptics dictionary). We're talking about the psychological model (not NLP). The strongest argument from both side should be presented fairly. ---=-C-=- 11:09, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Other Language Articles

I checked the german (I'm a native german) article on this subject and it appears to be quite excellent. It is neutral, fairly extensive and provides lots of references for most of its claims. Most importantly, it manages to seperate support and criticism into their own sections, with links to both other wikipedia articles and external sources.

I strongly suggest a reading, even if you have to go through bablefish or google translations:

german NLP article

--213.191.86.35 14:38, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks 213, we have tried all that before. It doesn't seem to work for this article. We try not to rely on other Wikipedia articles too much. Reliability and verifiability is important. Regards HeadleyDown 15:01, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately other Wikipedia articles can't be used as sources. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 16:13, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
The German article is well written, well structured and encyclopedic, and I too encourage people to read it with a view to using ideas in it to improve the English language version. It's a fundamental part of Wikipedia's philosophy that the different language versions form part of "one encyclopedia" rather than a set of separate projects, so cross fertilisation of ideas and materials between the language versions is to be encouraged. We should be paying attention to other language versions, as they are a valuable resource of encyclopedic content, and any contradictions between language versions should ideally be addressed. Enchanter 19:50, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Even if the german article can't be used as a source itself, certainly the sources that it references can? --80.171.62.22 21:59, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Absolutely, although ideally we should look for English language sources rather than foreign language sources where possible, as these are more accessible for fact-checking. Indeed, there have been a few cases recently of foreign language sources having been misinterpreted or misquoted in this article. Enchanter 00:49, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Yes accuracy is important, and checking will be helpful. But its also important not to dismiss the non-Angloamerican views. For example, we have just recieved lot of new references from India and China, and though they may be a little tough for some people to check, they do represent a significant view. ATB. Camridge 04:08, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
True, but we need to be careful with non English sources. It's because that with any language, there is no "perfect" translation, so we might end up with disagreement over what the article actually says. --Woohookitty(meow) 00:09, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
A good example is my translation of Levelt in the [[NLP Workshop, it is still not clear what is actually said. It seems that Levelt is using satire to demonstrate how something can sound scientific (engramme), but have no basis in science. Levelt's satire seems to have been lost in the translation, hence Drenth's factual error in connecting this to NLP. Let's not make the same mistakes. If it is a widely held view, a more reputable/reliable source will be available from the hundreds of journal articles indexed by medline/psychinfo. ---=-C-=- 00:54, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
No Comaze, they corroborate, and Hollander writes about engrams, as does Derks and Sinclair and Derks and Goldblatt. The weblinks presented also show this. Anyone who has read some Dianetics will know tha NLP is based on the engram concept. HeadleyDown 01:42, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
You failed to address the questions raised. Hollander does not represent all of NLP - this is a minority view. I'm not going to argue with you in circles. If you are unable to present some solid evidence, I'll remove all of these references. I'll wait 24 hours. ---=-C-=- 16:06, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Some questions

I've just altered some of the changes made recently for neutral wording and attribution.

I've got some other questions: Greg 07:41, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Okay, Bookmain just said
  • "These points are uncontroversial and if you want to add more points I am sure you are welcome. But we have been asked to provide verifiable and properly cited clarifications and sources. Your deletions are going against both Wikipedia policy and against the instructions of the arbitrators. I believe they are what Voiceofall termed as "tedious and unconstructive". If you want to discuss something more controversial, see below. Bookmain 02:22, 3 May 2006 (UTC)"
I think you're approaching this backwards. These are changes that others (Headley/Camridge) made to the article. They are controversial. The Arbitrators findings were that these MUST BE discussed.
There are also some attributions I added (if only saying "Some people believe") - I'll identify those below, again.
I'd like to draw attention to each and every change that Headley/Camridge made, again. I spelt them all out, and if you want to discuss them lets do it. If you don't want to discuss then they don't go into the article. Greg 03:01, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

(Presuppositional beliefs moved to join later presuppositional beliefs comment below)

That link may show the term Engram, but who says it's the Dianetics version? (Headley has said many times that "engram" is used both in Dianetics and psychology, in different ways. ) Greg 07:41, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

No response. I'm keeping the engram link, removing the Dianetic's. I still think the sentence is erroneous but since I haven't asked that question, I'll leave that for now. Greg 10:34, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Still no response. Bookmain, whoever - discussion involves addressing the issues Greg 03:01, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay so I guess I'll just do a couple of changes. Any response to this by anyone, at all?????? Greg 13:59, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

You have neither suggested nor discussed any changes you are trying to make. Camridge 04:38, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Hello GregA. Your changes in the article are against both what is written in the literature and against discussion. Do you have some kind of survey that says "some think the swish pattern NLP"? Also, you changed the Eisner quote to mean something quite different to the point he was making. This is unacceptable. A straight reversion is probably quite justified, but in this situation I am willing to hear about your motivations for making such baffling changes. Camridge 05:48, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

What ARE you talking about Camridge? You say I haven't discussed any changes, and then you reply to some... ? Greg 08:15, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

What is "Some think the swish pattern NLP"... that's really weird. Are you quoting me? What are you talking about? Greg 08:15, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Eisner discuss below, exactly where I wrote it up, eh? Greg 08:15, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Hello GregA. I am talking about the erroneous changes you made without proper discussion. If you waited for proper discussion then they wouldn't need any changes at all. However, it looks like Bookmain has made the appropriate adjustments. Camridge 09:11, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
According to NPOV policy it is not acceptable to state "some people believe". GregA, you have been trying to place many such lines in the article. Please stop. We are trying to make proper atributions. I will make the appropriate changes in the article. Bookmain 07:31, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree. In fact, NPOV wants us to say WHO (what group) says something to make POV clear. So when you DON'T know who said something, would you like to remove it instead? I'm happy to remove anyone where it isn't clear. Do you agree, or would you prefer to right "some people" until we get a better idea? Greg 08:15, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

No GregA. Its easy enough to convert the "some" to a "ref" or a single author. Camridge 09:13, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • "Within NLP, Engrams are proposed to give a patterned response which has been stabilized at the level of unconscious competence [18] "

Can anyone clarify this (what was proposed?) and word it more usefully? (Or is this a strawman for Engrams and hence Dianetics)? What does "within NLP" mean here? Greg 07:41, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Still wondering if anyone can clarify this. Greg 10:34, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

  • such as the therapist and dianetics proponent Fritz Perls

Are we using argument by association? Greg 07:41, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

No responses - removing "and dianetics proponent" since it is certainly, in this context, an argument by association. And it's not followed up. Greg 10:34, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate very much the removal of "and dianetics proponent". I have said this before in the talk of the "Fritz Perls"-article: there is no evidence or plausible indication that Fritz Perls was in anyway involved in dianetics or scientology. If someone claims that he or she should present proofs, sources etc.

Friedhelm, Germany, 2 May 2006

Hi Friedhelm. There's lots of evidence. I'll present it later though. HeadleyDown 11:37, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, this has been discussed at length. And no evidence has been presented to support this association nor its relevance in the article on NLP. You should really replace it with gestalt therapist Fritz Perls. ---=-C-=- 12:08, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I found another, similar characterization of Perls in the chapter "new age": "such as Dianetics promoted by Perls, the human potential theorist"; again: no promotion of dianetics by Fritz Perls (from all my knowledge of Gestat therapy)! I'm really looking forward to seeing evidence, sources etc. - also: Perls was no "human potential theorist", he was through all his life a creative Gestalt therapist, with a background of psychoanalysis, and at the same time he was interested in all kinds of new developments, and he experimented a lot especially to the end of his life, when he spent a lot of time at Esalen. It is annoying to me, how people try to coin him into something that he WAS NOT.

Friedhelm, Germany, 3. May 2006


I want to add some information concerning the question "Perls and Dianetics?". Perls doesn't mention Dianetics or Scientology in any of his publications; that includes his autobiography "In and Out the Garbage Pail" (1969). There is one exception that Alan Nicoll points at in the "Fritz Perls"-wikipedia article discussion: He writes: "I've read most of Perls' books more than once, including his autobiography, Shepard's biogaphy, and other things about Perls and never came across any reference to NLP or Dianetics. Can anyone substantiate these statements for me? Alan Nicoll 15:10, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

At Gestalt.org there's a bibliography that lists Perls' works, and these include an introduction to a book on Dianetics, so, never mind. Alan Nicoll 15:19, September 12, 2005 (UTC)"

I commented there: "The introduction you mention is from 1951, that's a short time after the Perls' had arrived in the USA. It's THE ONLY reference to Dianetics. At the same time there are indications that Hubbard - the other way round - borrowed from Fritz Perls.

see: [39] 'GESTALT Hubbard also seems to have borrowed ideas from Fritz Perls' Gestalt Therapy - though I haven't looked into this in any depth yet.'

Friedhelm, Germany, 1. Oct. 2005"


I guess all this has to be seen in the context of the Perls' emigration to the USA in 1946. During the first years Fritz Perls tried to make as many contacts as possible to get better known. I found two other sources dealing with the question: First the German "Biographisch-Bibliographisches Kirchenlexikon.Band XVI (1999)Spalten 752-771 Autor: Marco Frenschkowski" [40]

The author says about Hubbard (my own, rough translation): "Among his (Hubbards') supporters are numerous authors from the field of science fiction – so besides Campbell especially A. E. Vogt, James Bush, Katherine MacLean, William Bourroughs. Even Aldous Huxley and Fritz Perls (the founder of Gestalt therapy) let themselves be audited by H. (as the dianetic procedure is called). All of them distance themselves from Hubbard later, Blish and Bourroughs in the first place become sharp critics (similar Arthur Jean Cox and Lester del Rey, who has never been a supporter of H.)"

("Zu seinen Anhängern gehören zahlreiche Autoren aus dem Umfeld der Science Fiction - so neben Campbell v. a. A. E. van Vogt, James Bush, Katherine MacLean, Williams Burroughs. Selbst Aldous Huxley und Fritz Perls (der Gründer der Gestalttherapie) lassen such von H. auditieren (wie das dianetische Verfahren heißt). Alle diese distanzieren sich später von H., vor allem Blish und Burroughs werden scharfe Kritiker (ähnlich Arthur Jean Cox und Lester del Rey, die nie Anhänger H.s waren).")

Unfortunately I cannot say what the author's sources are.

Jon Atack writes in "A Piece of blue sky" [41]: "Hubbard cast his net wide. Scientology has attracted people from most social and intellectual backgrounds, from laborers to lawyers, from plumbers to university professors. Frederick L. Schuman, professor of political science at Williams College, was an enthusiastic convert, and publicly defended Dianetics in 1950, though he soon changed his tack and distanced himself. There were psychologists working in the original Foundations; in fact, the New York Foundation was started by psychologist Nancy Rodenburg. Fritz Perls, founder of Gestalt therapy, defended Hubbard's early work (though insisting that it needed scientific validation), and briefly received Dianetic counselling."

Friedhelm, Germany, 5. May 2006

Hello Friedhelm, thanks for your confirmation and research. According to the introduction to Dianetics that you mention, Perls actually practices Dianetics and found it to be quite amazing, including his first experience of conversational hypnosis. He says that he doesn't believe that everybody could do it safely (contradicting Hubbard), and recommended an experienced hand. In Naranjo (in the refs), Perls apparently took a lot of his "returning" (going back to childhood and before the womb) to develop Gestalt therapy, and it also says NLP has adopted such methods. Enactment is also an important aspect of Dianetics, and this has also been adopted by both Gestalt and NLP. Hubbard seems to have been just about the biggest 20th century influence on the New Age/human potential developments. I know he was pretty much schizophrenic and out of control, but then again many of these figures, such as Perls and Bandler have used rather "controversial" attack therapy methods such as threat and fear. It turns out Perls has also induced quite a few people to suicide according to the literature. Erickson seems to have had a similarly controversial output. Interestingly, in the biographical encyclopedia of psychology, neither Perls nor Erickson were mentioned. This is mostly due to their rather limited influence on psychology. There is no evidence of any sort of particular success level of either. On balance of literature, it seems they are a bit charismatic, but generally just quite ordinary when it comes to treating people. This is a characteristic of the human potential movement in general (no evidence of any benefits according to the literature, just followings). Regards HeadleyDown 11:46, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


Sorry, no. I don't want to be misread: HeadleyDown writes: "thanks for your confirmation" - what confirmation? I am confirming that Perls was NO proponent of dianetics, apart from a small episode in 1950 - from which he distanced himself.
HeadleyDown: "Hubbard seems to have been just about the biggest 20th century influence on the New Age/human potential developments." Again, no! Hubbard used the ideas and developments of other people!
And: "such as Perls and Bandler have used rather 'controversial' attack therapy methods such as threat and fear." Not true for Perls, of Bandler I don't know.
Sources, please! Not just assertions.
Friedhelm, Germany, 6 May 2006



  • instead of being grounded in contemporary, scientifically derived neurological theory, NLP is based on outdated metaphors of brain functioning and is laced with numerous factual errors (Druckman and Swets 1988).
  • Critics point of that NLP is based on outdated metaphors of brain functioning and is laced with numerous factual errors [7].

Should we quote this twice? Is this best left in "Scientific analysis" or "pseudoscience"? And I would not class Druckman as a critic at all - though so far we're only quoting the negative things they've said. Greg 07:41, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

How can we attribute this clearly? - at the moment we say it IS CLASSED as that, not that some class it. Also, do those sources say it's in the same mold as EST and Dianetics? Greg 07:41, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

  • "Although NLP has no reliable neuroscience foundation, it is sometimes considered "

Weasle phrase. Greg 07:41, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

No responses. I've kept the comment but rephrased so it's not a weasle phrase. I'll debate the comment elsewhere. Greg 10:34, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Still no responses? And Bookmain, you are saying this has been discussed?

  • NLP and education: Although Winkin says NLP has no reliable neuroscience foundation, it is sometimes considered as part of "accelerated learning" or "brain based learning".<snip>

This was not recently inserted by Headley, it's just a weasel phrase. My replacement was:

  • NLP and education: NLP is sometimes considered as part of "accelerated learning" or "brain based learning"<snip> Critics say that NLP has no reliable neuroscience foundation [21].

That can be modified to say "Winkin says", I'm fine with that. Greg 03:01, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

  • The German educational ministry banned the use of NLP in education due to its close similarity to Scientology [42].

Obviously we're attributing the Germans - but we should say "as they perceive it to be similar to" - we should not be implying it is correct, just saying what they think.

No responses. I've rephrased to "as they perceive it to be"... Greg 10:34, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Someone rephrased the original in the article

  • .... and stated that it has a close similarity to Scientology..."

This is better than what it was. It's still their view. Discussing here would have been more effective and still can be. Your thoughts? Greg 03:01, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Bandler's legal actions have been compared to the vexatious litigation and restriction in freedom of speech of cults such as Scientology [43].

Okay, a blogging website says that Bandler shut them down... and the writer is annoyed (justifiably IMO). He then says it's just like what Scientology does. Does this belong here? Greg 07:41, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

No responses. This is a blog poster upset that his discussion board was shut down by Bandler. Removed the comment Greg 10:34, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Still no responses Bookmain. Please discuss Greg 03:01, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Any comments on this? Greg 13:59, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Removing the comments is unconstructive. Please discuss. Camridge 04:50, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Please discuss? You're joking right? I AM asking for discussion, and you reply "Please discuss?".

This refers to a person annoyed that his discussion site has been closed down, and he then says "it's like scientology" do (or similar). I am asking you to justify why such a personal opinion should be there. Can you? Greg 08:15, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

This view is part of a more widely held view that NLP behaves like Scientology in the use of propaganda, the use of granfalloons to silence critics, the use of political reframes to cover up the misdeeds of developers and practitioners, and the use of vexatious litigation in order to stop other litigation by irate consumers and to stop critical reviews of NLP. We can add the other refs later and more concisely though and maybe even merge it with the cult or pseudoscience sections. Camridge 09:19, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • marketed the original developers as "scientists"

This sentence is used in the context of it not being true - do we classify Grinder, a Professor of Linguistics, as a Scientist? or not? How can we present this? Greg 07:41, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Still not sure about this. Any thoughts? Greg 10:34, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Its a direct quote from Singer. Camridge 04:50, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay, that's fine. So, as a Professor of Linguistics, is Grinder a scientist? Greg 08:15, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Singer is clear in her writing. Grinder has not done any science for decades, and has not done any scientific testing on NLP, even though he (and many others) say NLP is science, and fill it full of psychojargon and neuromyths. Camridge 09:25, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Hello GregA. The changes you have made are wholly erroneous. The article is undergoing proper attribution. You have changed direct quotes to different meanings. Rather than wasting time explaining to some people what is clearly written in the literature, it would be more constructive to revert your changes and continue with the correct attribution effort. Instead of adding "dubious", or changing the meaning of sentences, it would be better for editors to present and accept them as they are written in the literature. ATB Camridge 07:38, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

What would be constructive would be discussing the changes here before posting them. It would also be useful to put any "direct quotes" in quotation marks. Alternatively, posting what someone has said, context etc - so that we can agree on a better way of fairly presenting what he's said, would be useful.

That said - can you comment on any of my changes specifically, or any of my questions above? Greg 07:41, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Hello GregA. The attribution effort is ongoing and it will be done as promised after arbitration. I cannot see a single question you ask above that has not been answered before at least once. Camridge 07:53, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Camridge - giving an answer is not the same as giving a good answer, nor forming consensus. Removing things like weasle phrases are specifically noted in Wikipedia policy, what makes you think it's okay? Greg 08:14, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Another out of context quote:

  • Cosmetic effect claims: Dubious treatments such as hypnotic breast enhancement and penis enlargement often claim to use NLP processes

I have no dispute that some dubious treatments claim to use NLP. We have to ask how that reflects on NLP (in contrast to the dubious treatment which this page has nothing to do with). (Analogy-wise - would a computer article say ''Immoral activities such as child-sex rings often rely on computer networks"?? - and if so in what context?). Greg 14:23, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

No responses. I've added "As they claim to use NLP processes, these are sometimes perceived as being NLP.", and rephrased Eisner's "If such miraculous effects had actually been achieved, then why have they not been properly documented by the people making these claims, and presented to the scientific community?" to "These miraculous effects have not been properly documented by the people making these claims, nor presented to the scientific community." Greg 10:34, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Still no responses to this. I have added clarification that these are techniques which claim to USE NLP processes. I've also refactored Eisner to remove the sarcasm and innuendo.

  • *Cosmetic effect claims: Dubious treatments such as hypnotic breast enhancement and penis enlargement often claim to use NLP processes to produce this effect [44]. As they claim to use NLP processes, these are sometimes perceived as being NLP. Eisner (2000 p150) says that these miraculous effects have not been properly documented by the people making these claims, nor presented to the scientific community. [4]

I'm open to suggestions Bookmain, but the old one was wrong. Greg 03:01, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

How about this one? Greg 13:59, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Such claims have been made throughout NLP literature. Including inducing orgasms as has been presented in the article. NLP practitioners make all kinds of claims. Camridge 04:50, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

You misunderstand again. NLP doesn't claim to do hypnotic breast enhancement. Hypnotic breast enhancements claim to use NLP processes. This paragraph implies a criticism on NLP, rather than a criticism on dubious treatments that claim to use NLP. This must be clearly worded. Greg 08:15, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

NLP is applied to a variety of applications. Its application to therapy is equally dubious to its application to penis enlargement (no evidence for effect). Camridge 09:25, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Page Changes

[edit] Removing change

On the main page I made a series of alterations to paragraphs and changes that had been put up WITHOUT DISCUSSION. I did this in preference to reverting them entirely, which doesn't encourage developing the article.

Camridge just reverted all of those. See here [45] for the differences. I've listed all the alterations I made, below in summary form - if anyone disagrees with my alterations, then lets REMOVE THE CHANGES ENTIRELY, and discuss. Greg 08:14, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Remove power therapies

  • As a healing movement, NLP is involved with other "power therapies" ....

This paragraph was added without discussion. Rather than remove outright, I altered it to say some consider it a healing movement, some consider it a power therapy.Greg 08:14, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

No comments on my change - nor the original insertion which was not discussed so I'll revert it for now, but happy to put something we can agree with in. Greg 10:34, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

It is accurate and has multiple correct citations to support it. HeadleyDown 04:07, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

The whole "overview" section is a crock. It doesn't attempt to overview NLP at all. But to this comment specifically - no NLP book I know of classifies NLP as a power therapy. This is the perspective of your source, and not to be generalised. Greg 12:48, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Someone classifies it as a power therapy. NLP books don't. There may be a viewpoint that they SHOULD (??) and if there was, please supply it. Greg 03:01, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

No, I have not read of anyone saying NLP should be promoted as a power therapy. Of course power is used a lot in NLP ads. Please clarify your objection in more detail. Camridge 04:50, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

"NLP is involved with OTHER power therapies" implies that NLP is a power therapy.
"NLP is involved with power therapies" does not imply this.
"As a healing movement" implies that NLP is a healing movement.
"Some consider NLP a healing movement" implies that it's a POV. I'd prefer to say WHOSE POV it is of course!. Greg 08:15, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Citations can be added. There are plenty in the workshop. Camridge 09:25, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Add them then. Perhaps it should be removed until then. Greg 09:57, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Strike create own realities

  • (you create your own reality)

This was just added. It is a strawman for later 'spiritual' comments. NLP does not presuppose or believe this. Greg 08:14, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

This is not strawman. It is mentioned in the literature. It is verifiable and can be added. Claiming strawman is completely inappropriate in this case. HeadleyDown 16:04, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
You are verifying only that some literature says this - I debate the validity since NLP books don't say this. However, I did not remove this comment, merely added "some consider". You consider this wrong? Greg 22:27, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
According to the most independent literature, NLP follows this concept entirely. HeadleyDown 00:54, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Until we have discussed this change you've made more thoroughly, I'm reverting it. It is, IMO, very misleading. Greg 10:34, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
It is a common term. It is useful and understandable for the reader. It is also supported in the literature. Removal is unhelpful to the reader. HeadleyDown 04:07, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Headley, you and I are different people. We understand things differently. This should theoretically be a bonus - if both you and me agree that something is clear, then it's more likely someone else would agree too. I'm willing to improve things, you can if you want.
I've heard you criticise something similar to the above comment (you create your own reality) - saying "NLP thinks there are multiple realities". That is false. How about
  • (each person experiences reality differently)
What do you think?
You added this little sentence last week - and it was undiscussed and is misleading, I'm reverting (as per below). If you want to suggest something clarifying lets do it. Greg 12:48, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

There is no reference to this comment "(you create your own reality)". I still suggest "(each person experiences reality differently)" Greg 03:01, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

It has been attributed already. Woohookitty said to keep the citations down. Many more can be added though. Camridge 04:50, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Camridge - this comment is misunderstandable. Do you object to my replacement (2 lines above!) and if so for what reasons. Greg 08:15, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I object because it is a short and clear line that simply does not need striking from the article. I can add more citations. Camridge 09:25, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Oooohh surprise :). I object to your line... of course YOU don't object to YOUR line!!!!!!!
I've given my reasons. Please answer my question. Do you object to my line and if so for what reasons. Greg 09:57, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] presuppositional beliefs

  • Presuppositional beliefs

Somebody wants to call "NLP presuppositions" "presuppositional beliefs".

While all NLP trainers will refer to presuppositions, I don't know who says "presuppositional beliefs" (anyone know?). I've reverted it to the common usage - but does someone think we need to elaborate on an alternative viewpoint? Greg 07:41, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

The word "presupposition" has been replaced by "Presuppositional beliefs" in multiple places, without discussion. Some practitioners believe the presuppositions, some don't. See request for discussion in above section (or do it here). I further clarified by writing Although NLP teaches the presuppositions as useful rather than true, some NLP practitioners do believe them - . I'd be happy to say "many NLP practitioners" too. Greg 08:14, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

This is simple. Presupposition is not understandable. Presuppositional belief is far more understandable. You have chosen to use the less understandable version. Readers will benefit from the more clear version (presuppositional belief). HeadleyDown 16:04, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Please address my concern - belief is inaccurate. I agree it's easier to understand, but "belief" is misleading (though some practitioners DO believe the presuppositions). All practitioners use the presupposition concept. You may like your version but lets find one that's accurate (my current concern) AND readable (both our concerns). Greg 22:27, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Hall and Bodenhammer (user manual for the brain) Presuppositional belief. There are many other, including the web. They are being helpful and accurate. There is no valid argument against placing presup belief. In fact you could simply place "belief". HeadleyDown 00:54, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
You are agreeing with what I've said, without addressing the question. Some practitioners believe the presups. Some don't. Of course there are some groups calling it "presuppositional belief" - as it is true for some. "Presupposition" (without the word belief) is true for all, not just some groups. I'm only discussing this with you to attempt to find a better way of representing that, if you don't want to talk about that then please stop repeating the bit we've agreed on and leave discussion to other interested parties. Greg 01:55, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

We have not come to an agreement on you changing "Presupposition" to "Presuppositional belief". I have reverted your change for now. I believe we do need to address this in some way. Greg 10:34, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

There should be a preference for using standard terminology, i.e. "Presupposition", and then explain what it means. Explaining NLP terminology is relevant to the article, and I don't think the nonstandard "presuppositional beliefs" helps much in this case. Enchanter 22:57, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
It is a very bad idea to obscure the article with jargon. A presupposition is a belief. It is more accurate to describe them as presuppositional beliefs. Even in NLP literature, they are described as beliefs. It is certainly more helpful to the reader as presuppositional beliefs. I have added a citation also. HeadleyDown 02:49, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
I will not agree to mislead people because you don't understand presupposition. Let's reopen the presupposition description from months ago. Greg 12:48, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

My point is not which is easier to understand - though that is important. We need to describe NLP and not make it up just because the made up version is easier. That said - SOME people do believe the presuppositions. I believe this needs its own section. Greg 03:01, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

There is no made up version. Editors refer to direct quotes. Please explain in detail why you do not want beliefs in the phrase. Camridge 04:50, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rep systems and magic

  • According to Menon (1997 p27) the 3 main senses used in NLP have a mystical origin and correspond with the vedic occult elements of air/fire (most people), water and earth (VAK).

Highly dubious!! And added without discussion. I left it in but added "the 3 main senses (seeing, hearing, and feeling)...". It's simply a stupid quote though.. "our senses of seeing, hearing, and feeling have a mystical origin"... Bah. Greg 08:14, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

This is perfectly verifiable. Narrowing the views to that of a single style is unacceptable. HeadleyDown 16:04, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Please address my concern. Why is this quote of any important to the page? - I think this quote is stupid and very loosely related to NLP. "NLP's seeing, hearing and feeling correspond to occult elements"? Who cares if it's verifiable... Greg 22:27, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
You may think it stupid, but the verifiable source clearly does not. The more independent sources state that NLP uses magical theories. Menon is explaining this. Dismissing south Asian views is againt wikipedia policy. HeadleyDown 00:54, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
If you think it's a useful link, can you please say why someone saying that "we have an imagination" corresponds to the occult, is useful or clarifying towards NLP. Greg 01:55, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
GregA. I have an occult handbok and it shows that the 5/3 representational systems are from early magic systems. I can send the info to Headley. HansAntel 04:37, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
We have not come to a consensus on your change, so I've reverted it for now but we can discuss of course. It makes no sense to me in this context. Who cares if imagining something is something vedic cults did? Greg 10:34, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand what this is all about. I would have thought that the fact that there are several main senses, i.e. vision, hearing, and feeling etc, is a matter of common sense fact and not of any particular belief system, mystical, scientific, NLP, or whatever. If the claim is simply that NLP talks about the 5 senses and so do adherents of some South Asian occult system, then I would definately regard it as non-notable. If there is a specific link, e.g. that it could be shown that the originators of NLP specifically borrowed from specific occult beliefs, then a mention could be appropriate, provided that it proportionate to the real importance of the link. Enchanter 22:57, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi Enchanter. Many of the scientific papers call NLP's theories magical. That is because they are derived from early occult insights about the senses, balancing the senses, synethesia and so on. There is more to add to this, and it will be clarifying. Regards HeadleyDown 04:07, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
There are some links to spiritual stuff worth having. Keep it to the right place and represent it for what it is. Greg 12:48, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Brain--- Left right

  • Hemispheric differences (brain lateralization) is used to support assumptions in NLP.

Who is it used by? I modified this to clarify - ie some NLP trainers use this. It's not universal and NLP doesn't do theory itself. Greg 22:27, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

This will be properly attributed. We have just received more info on this. HeadleyDown 16:04, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Please address my concern. Who uses hemispheric differences to support assumptions? I said "some trainers use" as that is my understanding. I don't care about attribution that it is used, just clarification of who uses it that way - you've given attribution before. Greg 22:27, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Now this is getting silly. I will attribute the theory to the author. HeadleyDown 00:54, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps you can't understand the question. Of course the author may have said "(some theory) is used to support X". I am asking who (according to the author) uses that theory. This is not about the attribution. This is about what he's claiming. And if he doesn't say WHO uses it, that's useful to know too. Greg 01:55, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Still waiting on who uses brain laterisation to support NLP assumptions. You said you just received more info? I've added "Some trainers" until we can be clear which trainers or practitioners. Attempting to be clear here. Greg 10:34, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

The most independent researchers (Winkin, Sharpley, Eisner, Singer, etc) say that NLP refers to hemispheric specialization. The earliest and latest NLP books also do. Its pretty much all over the place, both implicitly and explicitly. HeadleyDown 04:07, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Grinder's Shamanism

  • Grinder developed NLP rituals from the shamanic teachings of Carlos Castaneda, such as the the NLP double induction process, and perceptual positions, designed to move attention or energy to other realities.

This was a new entry. There is no NLP double induction process though hypnosis teaches a double inductions. NLP doesn't use energy as implied, and there is only one reality in NLP, though we all experience it differently. All I've added here are "dubious" tags. Greg 08:14, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

This is a direct quote. It is verifiable and correct. HeadleyDown 16:04, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
As I've requested - if it's a direct quote please use quotation marks, and tell me the reader where they can look it up That would solve alot of problems. Greg 22:27, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Dilts 2000 as in the article. HeadleyDown 00:54, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Actual quote? wanna be more specific? Page number too? Greg 01:55, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
GregA. Page number are already there. I checked. What is objective of your question?
The objective was the page numbers (which I see now), and what the actual quote is. If you say "it's a direct quote", please use quotation marks. Left for now (I need to find Dilts 2000), though whatever was said needs to be put in context. Greg 10:34, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NLP fails under science scrutiny

  • NLP does not stand up to scientific scrutiny (Von Bergen et al 1997 page 291).

I added "Critics say NLP does not ...". I made similar attributions in the rest of this section. Similar to what I requested comments on earlier (for the scientific analysis section) . Greg

This has been altered to standard. HeadleyDown 16:04, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. Agreed. Greg 22:27, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Prof Beyerstein's views on NLP

  • Beyerstein states that NLP is a pseudoscientific fringe therapy (Beyerstein 1990 page31), and explains that bogus therapies can be explained by the placebo effect, social pressure, superficial symptomatic rather than core treatment (1997p20) , and overestimating some apparent successes while ignoring, downplaying, or explaining away failures." In Brianscams, Beyerstein states that when the New Age brain manipulators such as NLP are challenged, critics typically encounter anecdotes and user testimonials where there ought to be rigorous pre-and post treatment comparisons (Beyerstein 1990 page33).

Another non-consensus addition. I grouped what Beyerstein classed NLP as together. And clearly showed when he was talking about "bogus therapies" or "New Age brain manipulators". Greg 08:14, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Still interested in this. Greg 11:10, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Its all clear now. HeadleyDown 04:07, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
hehehehe. Headley, discussion involves discussing. Weasel phrases such as "when the New Age brain manipulators such as NLP are challenged..." are still weasel phrases. Clearly saying something like: "Beyerstein says NLP is a New Age brain manipulator" removes the weasel. Greg 12:48, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Hello GregA. Its Beyerstein's view. Its perfectly valid and has been presented using proper citation style. HeadleyDown 04:08, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Handbook of Cog Beh Therapy's view on NLP

  • The Handbook of Cognitive-Behavioral Therapies (Dobson 2001 p438) and others classify NLP as a "dubious therapy".

What does "The handbook, and others, classify NLP as..." mean? I changed to: Some others, such as the Handbook of Cognitive-Behavioral Therapies (Dobson 2001 p438), classify NLP as a "dubious therapy".

It means NLP is a dubious therapy. Pure and simple. HeadleyDown 16:04, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Please address my concern. Who does "and others" refer to? Does my replacement make sense? Greg 22:27, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
It is fair to say that NLP is not the only dubious therapy. HeadleyDown 00:54, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Damn :) That's what you meant! "NLP and other therapies are dubious"? That doesn't follow from what's written.
  • The Handbook of Cognitive-Behavioral Therapies (Dobson 2001 p438) and others classify NLP as a "dubious therapy".
so my attempted clarification makes just as little sense as the first.
  • Some others, such as the Handbook of Cognitive-Behavioral Therapies (Dobson 2001 p438), classify NLP as a "dubious therapy".
Now that you've explained it... and it's clear that what's written is different... how about
  • The Handbook of Cognitive-Behavioral Therapies (Dobson 2001 p438), classifies NLP and other therapies as "dubious therapies".
Headley... I think that sounds stupid, but is that what you're saying? If not, please address my question!!!!!! Greg 01:40, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
GregA. Many say it is dubious therapy. We are told not to put all citations in. Do you want us put them all in? HansAntel 04:37, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Please Hans... all I'm asking is what does "others" mean. The sentence as Headley provided does not make sense. "others" is very vague and I'm trying to make sense of it. You are contradicting Headley's last response too. This needs clarification and your sarcastic answer that doesn't attempt to say anything useful, is useless. Greg 08:30, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
I've removed "and others" for now - the rest then still stands. I do not think this is presented clearly still. Greg 10:34, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
I have some good ways of making this clearer. I will add something in good time. HeadleyDown 04:07, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
So please share. I suspect when you say "The handbook and others classify NLP as..." that you have an idea who "and others" is. Come on then... share :) Greg 13:59, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

How fast would you like the other citations? Camridge 04:50, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Swish activities

  • Swish replacement

I've simply put in what was discussed in the workshop, Katefan's version. Reverted Alice's change too... hell it was the only thing we actually made an accepted change to wasn't it? Greg 10:34, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Your version was unclear and vague, and could be used to explain any type of visualization. The NLP version with body language and VAK characteristics is far better and unique to NLP. HeadleyDown 04:07, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Don't put words in my mouth. This is the compromise Katefan came up with. I preferred a different description, as did you - but this was the closest compromise to go through. Do you remember? Greg 12:48, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

A concrete description is necessary. Camridge 03:55, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Fine, fight this one out with Katefan. Greg 13:59, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
There will be no fighting. Katafan helpfully moved us forward when there was no progress in discussion. The line was clarified after Woohookitty's helpful advice in the workshop on how to write more clearly and concretely. This has probably been the most helpful aspect of the workshop. Concrete and clear writing will be presented throughout as that helps the reader to understand what is going on in seminars, books and trainings. Camridge 04:50, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Whatever, I don't care about you dropping Katefan's work. That's your choice. Greg 08:15, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NLP and human potential

Some more questions to discuss:

  • Despite the lack of empirical evidence, NLP adherents continue to believe in its efficacy for personal and spiritual growth, and as such, NLP has been called a New Alternative Religion and an alternative version of Scientology (Hunt 2003 page 195), though its religiosity is more implied and less organized than Scientology.

This is in the new age section. It's a weasle phrase too. In my former change I suggested

  • NLP adherents believe in NLP's efficacy for personal growth, and often for spiritual growth (in whatever way the individual defines "spiritual"). Some say NLP implies religiousity, and some call it a "New Alternative Religion" - Hunt (2003 page 195) says NLP is an alternative version of Scientology, though he says it is less organised.

Are there objections to this change? If so what specifically? Greg 11:10, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes your changes make the meaning change also. You are adding your view of spiritual. You cannot include the term "some say". That is against NPOV policy. Camridge 03:55, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NLP presup beliefs again

Regarding the foundational assumptions

  1. Anyone know who says "Distinct from its formal presuppositions, NLP incorporates a variety of foundational assumptions that precede the presuppositions."'. Is this our opinion?
  2. These seem to belong near Presuppositions, any ideas on how we could move these near each other?

The assumptions seem pretty correct - I'm not sure if they're all foundational though some are. The link between physiology, cognitions, and emotions is key to NLP and is included roughly in the first point (mind-body connection). Actually - the 2 presuppositions actually shown, I would classify as assumptions of NLP (as distinct from a large amount of other presuppositions which aren't assumptions). Greg 11:10, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Prof Singer on NLP

  • NLP assumes that all human behaviour is neurological, and all human behaviour is based on the 5 senses, rather than attitudes, reason, emotions, mind, morals or ego [6].

Does Singer say "rather than...?". NLP doesn't actually say that, but if Singer said that we can put both in. (ie: NLP does say all behaviour involves cognitions, and all cognitions are reprsented in the 5 senses - but that does not discount the rest. For instance emotion is sensed through the body (which is the "kinaesthetic" of the 5 senses), and involves internal-dialogue, and often something imagined. Greg 11:10, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

No this was placed in the article as an explanation, and it is another author's statement. I believe Eisner stated this. I will find the appropriate page number. The explanation is important as it shows how limited NLP theory is. Most psychological theories take into account a lot more than basic sensual channels and engrams. Attidutes, emotion and so on are far more complex than kinesthetics. But of course, the 5 senses of NLP are only a follow on from occult theory. The structure of magic really is just occult theory, and thats why NLP has become so attractive to occult practitioners. Regards HeadleyDown 04:05, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reversions to facts

If anyone would care to discuss these changes individually, rather than just reverting without caring about consensus - please respond. If anyone agrees with my changes, please also respond. Greg 08:14, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Please refer to the archives and to the workshop. All points here have been discussed, and you changed the meaning of many of the lines. Furthermore, the "create your own reality" line is easy to understand compared to the confusing line you placed, and it is also supported in the literature. You made the presuppositional belief term obscure to the reader by calling it presupposition (which is actually a background belief). We are in the process of making the article more clear. Re-interpreting lines or changing the meaning is unhelpful to the reader. Camridge 08:52, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Your response is of no more use than me saying "please see all my previous responses in the workshop". . Furthermore ;-) it was you who changed "presupposition" to "presuppositional belief", I merely reverted it. I do agree that a better description would be useful, though it would be easier to simply allow misunderstanding. You have the opportunity to respond to specific points I've raised - if you have a response please do. The way of wikipedia is to discuss, which you haven't been willing to do. If you have no response to some points let us presume they are accepted and I'll reinstate those reversions etc. Greg 13:31, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Hello GregA. I have just had to reply needlessly to your questioning. The only things being added are clarifications and corrections. HeadleyDown 16:04, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Please take edits you know will be contentious more slowly, or the page will end up protected again. · Katefan0 (scribble)/poll 18:31, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Thanks Kate. Hopefully we can discuss my alterations to Camridge & Headley's changes to get some quality happening. I am particularly concerned that we're not looking at generally what is agreed to, first - instead we're filling up the article with lots of individual viewpoints and it's largely illegible.
Headley, I may not have been clear enough on my concerns for you to understand - if so my apologies. Hopefully we can concentrate on the actual issues for the above now? Greg 22:27, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Answers above yet again. HeadleyDown 00:54, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
I know that this process can get to be very frustrating, but please try to be civil. I know it can be hard. But yes, it's easiest that if you are going to change something non-controversial, then make the change but say on here that you are going to make the change first. If it's controversial, propose it here and then if it has consensus, make the change. --Woohookitty(meow) 05:47, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Sure Woohookitty. I don't mind answering questions several times. But I will state that I am doing so. And I'm sure there is nothing we can do about simple attribution or clarification becoming controversial. We just have to be civil about it long term. Regards HeadleyDown 13:32, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
If you get a chance, Headley, maybe you could assume that if I ask what you think is a question you've answered, perhaps you haven't understood my question. Greg 19:43, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Changes I proposed implemented. Undiscussed changes by others that have not been addressed now reverted. All as above. Discussion is the way to go :) Greg 10:34, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Hello GregA. I have adjusted the article with proper attributions and citations. All of the lines are uncontroversial. They are properly cited and are completely admissable. A promise was made to arbitrators. Proper citations are to be provided and correct and clear explanations are to be given in order for the readers to comprehend the rather obscure language that is common to NLP. Any vague or obscure NLP statements are to be clarified. All of this has been discussed at length, and the lines are as true as possible to the literature. If you wish to delete something, you need to present more than a dislike or spurious objection in order to do so. HeadleyDown 15:17, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Headley, things are not as simple. Perhaps you should address my actual concerns with what you've written. This talk page is for discussions of content, not to send messages saying you're doing the right thing. Besides we are not here to simply reprint every NLP quote in existence. Discuss, then we might find common ground. Greg 15:48, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
These points have been discussed at length. If you wish to discuss them further, please add something new to the discussion. HeadleyDown 15:52, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Telling me "It's all clear now" is not discussion.
You have a history of reverting pages continually. I do not. Each of my changes are minor in nature and designed to show who said something - or reverting something new you've added without discussion.
I'm reverting the page, again - keeping the other minor changes that have been done of course. Use the discussion, tell me why you feel something is wrong and make a better suggestion - or stop editing. Greg 12:48, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Hello GregA. You have offered nothing but an urge to explain the "you create your own reality" line. Your deletions are all unfounded. What's more, you have added what seems to be your own opinion to the theory section. I have carefully looked up information on the theory of NLP and will add it with page numbers. The rest of the information will be reinstated. I see no reason to exclude the views of eminent researchers, and to delete the statements of NLP advocates simply because you object. The status of those researchers was establised in the workshop article and the views are both clarifying and valid. I will reinstate the lines and work on including an explanation for the "create your own reality" line. And I will add more links to show the existence of that phrase in the NLP literature. There is a strong need to tidy the article and clarify the writing. Your deletions are unhelpful. HeadleyDown 13:28, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh I've a good solution to the create your reality line. I'll add it to the article. Camridge 03:43, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Haha.
  1. Saying (in the discussion section) that you've got a good solution is not actually discussing.
  2. You haven't modified the line in question at all. You've added a 2nd version of the same contested line in a different section.
  3. You haven't clarified the meaning of the line at all which would be a bonus for our readers.
  4. "This is often stated as" doesn't indicate who says it in any way. "Often" doesn't really tell us much either - though 'often' there isn't much choice.
  5. You've added another description on limiting our potential. I can read that and agree roughly in what it says, but since you've misrepresented "unlimited potential" in other areas, I see this as another straw man.
Well done. Greg 04:17, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Really GregA, there is nothing to discuss. The line is present all over NLP literature. It is impossible to contest. I'm sure the reader can be a little patient and read further to the map/territory lines. Again the unlimited potential line is all over the NLP literature. It can also be clarified. It is completely unconvincing to object to lines which are present in NLP texts and even in NLP titles. If the lines require qualifying, then they can be explained as has been done. Just because reputable researchers consider NLP to be New Age, that doesn't mean New Age statements of NLPers should be removed just because they are embarrasing or non-promotional. NLP authors make New Age statements because NLP is a New Age development. If you claim straw man all the time, you are going to make editing this article impossible. If a statement or heading in an NLP book states "you create your own reality" then it can be presented in the article. Removing the line only removes clarity. ATB Camridge 04:43, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes this subject has so much confusing jargon and abstract conceptualizations, a good deal of concrete language is absolutely necessary to help the reader understand what is going on. Bookmain 06:33, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Camridge, I appreciate you confirming the "unlimited potential" thing. Please don't presume my motivations. Greg 16:52, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NLP circles

  • Circle of Excellence: Standing in an imaginary magic circle, filling it with symbols and archetypes of choice, in order to banish negativity and enhance positive thinking for use in any NLP situation (Ready 2004p250; Hall 2001p95).

This is a new one since my original reversion of undiscussed. It was also added without discussion.

Ready (2004) is not in the references. Besides that I don't even know if he's supposed to be an NLP source - if he is he's not well known. Circle of Excellence is not taught as "symbols and archetypes", nor "banish negativity". This POV belongs in the cult section. Greg 03:01, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

All the other "Common techniques and practices" are also more recent undiscussed changes - I note that Comaze has opened a discussion on these below, a positive step which I'll leave to that section Greg 03:01, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Ready is a source you have quoted yourself: NLP for Dummies, by Ready. Bookmain 03:30, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Hello GregA. Really there is nothing we can do about NLP being new age. It simply has to be accepted as the view of the more independent sources, and if it looks new age on the article there is also nothing we can do about it. NLP uses ritual throughout seminars, books, videos, and that is how it is going to look on the article. There is so much of the stuff in the literature it is unavoidable. We have to learn to live with it. Camridge 04:00, 3 May 2006 (UTC)


[edit] More criticisms?

As you can see on the main page, I've reverted the contentious stuff, as discussed above. And added (once more) some correct info on who said what. It's all in the above. Greg 16:52, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

GregA. I reverted your deletions. Deleting well researched, verifiable, clear, concrete examples is completely unconstructive. These points are uncontroversial and if you want to add more points I am sure you are welcome. But we have been asked to provide verifiable and properly cited clarifications and sources. Your deletions are going against both Wikipedia policy and against the instructions of the arbitrators. I believe they are what Voiceofall termed as "tedious and unconstructive". If you want to discuss something more controversial, see below. Bookmain 02:22, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I've re-iterated each and every reversion I'd done, above. Note the number that have had no comments made. Feel free to comment, that's what we want. Discussion is what arbitration wants. Greg 03:01, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

GregA. There is nothing to discuss here. These clear and concrete descriptions are placed into the article to clarify and help the reader to understand what is going on. Deleting them is totally unconstructive. Comaze has made some suggestions and they may possibly be useful after they are clarified. Properly sourced and cited facts are completely admissible. You have added unsourced information to the article and we are waiting for you to add a proper source to that information. Nobody is removing your additions simply because they don't like them, or because they don't have complete page numbers yet. Your deletions will only result in more reversions. Previous discussions led to nothing but your refusals to accept properly sourced facts. This article is in the process of proper attribution and your deletions are getting in the way. Bookmain 03:25, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Deleting what?!? Deleting what!?!

Address the individual points! Greg 03:27, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Hello GregA. Please be more constructive. Indeed we have allowed you to make your own statements on the article without proper attribution (yet). We are all being patient here. And well, I don't see any progress in spending months discussing what is already clearly stated in the literature. Deleting concrete descriptions of NLP patterns is completely unacceptable, especially when you propose only vague and jargon filled lines. So many editors and mediators have complained that the article is full of obscure jargon and is not understandable. Concrete writing is essential for showing the reader what happens in seminars, in trainings, in cults etc. So we have already committed to using concrete words and example throughout in order to help the reader. As they are taken from NLP manuals themselves, they are completely acceptable. So please refreain from deleting them, and we can discuss items that are actually worthy of discussion (and maybe one day coming to some sort of agreement). Camridge 03:42, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Deleting what? Are you deliberately not answering? Greg 03:59, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
See below for anwer to "without proper attribution"

GregA. I feel silly having to explain this to you. You have been deleting clear and concrete examples of patterns such as the circle of excellence, and reverting to the most obscure jargonish lines that have caused complaints from mediators, editors and mentors alike. The article is in the process of clarification and it is indeed being well clarified and made more readable. Your deletions are unconstructive in the extreme. The article will benefit from concrete description throughout. Camridge 04:09, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Okay. You've answered one - deleting circle of excellence. Actually, about 6 paragraphs above, I noted that Comaze has opened discussion on "Common techniques and practices" and I'm leaving that for that discussion. And I do think saying the circle of excellent has magical symbols and occult stuff is contentious.
So, any other criticisms? I do not think you should speak for the mentors. I am trying to clarify through discussion and you won't discuss nor allow any contrary opinion. Now how about ignoring this paragraph and responding to the individual changes I've requested discussion on above? Greg 13:25, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Theory

You do have one point about attribution - unrelated to the reversion war but I can't think of anything else and you won't address any of my points.

So to my comment on theory - which you've tried to attribute to someone. Well, it wasn't that kind of comment. (Note that this is separate to the reversions - it exists in both versions).

  • "an NLP practitioner may, after observing a person's behaviours, develop a theory of what a person is doing."

Although it's been left in the article out of context - this is not a quote from anyone. NLP modeling and NLP processes all involve observing what a person is doing until you think you know (consciously or unconsciously) what they are doing, and then testing that, and then modeling/observing some more. I personally find that parallels testing a "theory" - but it's a theory which comes from observation (in contrast to a theory telling you what you are about to observe). My line puts both NLP's statement and the critics response into some perspective.

I'm certainly happy to lose the line (that's not involved in the reversions at all) in order to keep the reversions, and then discuss the line separately.

If you tell me what you protest, we can fix it. Greg 03:59, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

What needs fixing is unconstructive editing. You are being given time to fix things, and your reversions are not giving anyone time to clarify the article. Please be more constructive. Camridge 04:09, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
I am being given time to fix things? You revert everything I change, and ignore everything I discuss. Well done. Greg 13:25, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes you have been given time to do so. Editors here are working hard to add citations and make simple uncontroversial clarifications as was suggested in the workshop. You have asked a lot of questions. In time, they will all be answered as per usual. Camridge 04:55, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

haha. Wow, you're so very generous to allow me so much time, while deleting anything I do. Greg 08:15, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Yes GregA, we should give each other the benefit. Regards HeadleyDown 15:53, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Broken references

Currently, the refs of this article look horribly broken (most are empty). All revisions before [46] are ok, all after that, are broken. Any ideas what happenend? --Ligulem 13:37, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I've started converting and fixing the references. However, I was in the middle of converting some changes were made to the article that introduce some standard citations. I've attempted to correct some of these errors. See the peer-review comments and Philosophy of Mind article for an example of the desired way to use citations for this article. ---=-C-=- 15:48, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
See also, a note from our previous mediator: "We already agreed to footnote the citations...that can therefore be done while protected, as nothing is being deleted/added.Voice-of-AllT|@|ESP 01:36, 23 February 2006 (UTC)" Some recent changes work against this agreement and work against the standards for wikipedia feature article candidates. ---=-C-=- 15:53, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Could some admin please exchange
{{Citenewsauthor
 | surname=Tippet
 | given=Gary
 | title=Inside the cults of mind control
 | date=3 Apr 1994
 | org=Melbourne, Australia: Sunday Age
 | url=http://www.rickross.com/reference/general/general756.html}}
with
{{cite news
 | last=Tippet
 | first=Gary
 | title=Inside the cults of mind control
 | date=3 Apr 1994
 | publisher=Melbourne, Australia: Sunday Age
 | url=http://www.rickross.com/reference/general/general756.html}}
The template "Citenewsauthor" is deprecated and should be replaced with "cite news". Thanks! --Ligulem 17:20, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Done myself. Just noticed that the article is only semi-protected. --Ligulem 09:26, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Maybe you could take a look at the tool at User:Cyde/Ref converter. I haven't yet used that myself, and I do not know whether this tool can help here. Just to make sure you know it. --Ligulem 19:59, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Hello Comaze. Your ref format conversion seems to involve deleting references that are used in the article (eg Bördlein). Was this your intention? Camridge 06:42, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed edit: Common patterns

Proposed common patterns section:

  • Rapport: sensory attention is engaged by matching and pacing the verbal and non-verbal behavioral patterns. Body posture, gestures, breathing rhythm and sensory predicates are matched and paced to affect a change in rapport. It is based on the work of Milton H. Erickson who was able to enter the world of his patients having established non-verbal rapport in order to make effective interventions. [22] [citation needed]
  • Meta model: a set of language patterns (from Virginia Satir, Fritz Perls and Transformational syntax) designed to challenge limits to a person's internal map of the world [23][24]. Effectively the meta-model can be reduced to asking "What specifically", or "How specifically?" [25] to challenge unspecified nouns or verbs. It is claimed that the Meta-model "yields a fuller representation of the client's model - the linguistic Deep Structure from which the client's initial verbal expressions or Surface Structure, were derived" (1975a p.44[23]) by offering challenges directed at distortions, generalizations or deletions in the speaker's language (1975a [23]Ch.3). [23] [citation needed]
  • Milton model: language patterns that are useful in directing another person's line of thinking by being "artfully vague". The principles of the Milton Model basically state that larger chunks (more general use of language) can lead to more rapport, while smaller chunks, (more specific language) is more limiting and has a greater chance of excluding concepts from a person's experience.[26] [citation needed]
  • Representational systems: a model of how humans code experiences using aspects of their different sensory systems, or modalities, primarily visual, auditory, and kinesthetic (touch), and sometimes taste and olfaction (smell). The sensory system being access can be identified by observing sensory predicates or other behavioral cues [citation needed]
  • Submodalities: the subdivisions within any one representation system. For example, in visual: brightness, degree of colour (saturation), size, distance, sharpness, focus, and so on; in auditory: loudness, pitch, tonal range, distance, clarity, timbre, and so on. Ordinarily, you would get these by asking, "This image - is it bright, or dim? Coloured or black and white? How much colour? Is it big or small? Is it near or far? In focus, or out of focus? etc" And, "This sound - is it loud or soft? Is it high pitched or low pitched? Does it have a range? Is it near or far? Is it one point source or spread out? Is it clear or muffled? Is it a pure tone or ... " The interesting discovery is that voluntary change of these on the part of the subject alters the concommitant 'feeling' response, paving the way for a number of change techniques based on deliberately changing internal representations [27] [citation needed]
  • Anchoring: the process by which memory recall, state change or other responses become associated with (anchored to) some stimulus, in such a way that perception of the stimulus (the anchor) leads by reflex to the anchored response occurring. Anchors are capable of being formed and reinforced by repeated stimuli, and thus are analogous to classical conditioning. In classical terms, the anchor effect is probably a mixture of stimulus-response, and expectation (and for deliberately created anchors, possibly the placebo effect) [28] [citation needed]
  • Perceptual positions: often a person in a situation cannot see answers that a person standing outside can. So by moving between different points of view, typically self, other and neutral observer, it is claimed that one can see a problem in new ways, or with less emotional attachment, and thus gather more information and develop new choices of response. For this reason it is accepted that in many situations, multiple descriptions of the situation are better than one.[29] [30] [citation needed]
  • Swish: swaps negative representations for positive alternatives (positive self-image) to affect a behavior change [27][24]
  • Visual / Kinesthetic dissociation: a process that involves two place dissociation in order to separate the kinesthetic synesthesia from a phobic response [28][31][32] [citation needed]
  • Well-formedness_conditions: an outcome one wishes to achieve, that meets certain conditions designed to avoid classic self-defeating intentions. Thus, these are outcomes which are not only wished for, but (in a sense) consistent with forward-thinking action as well, or alternatively have been clearly and well enough defined to be prima facie free of common "muddy thinking". [citation needed]
  • Ecology Check: The relationship between self and others are considered with respect to personal change — for example, the consequences of proposed change on involved parties. [citation needed]
  • Future pace: Resources or proposed changes are bridged or connect to the context in which it will be required. [citation needed]
  • Other commmon processes: negotiation models, therapeutic interventions, high performance state games, ...

regards ---=-C-=- 02:28, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Hello Comaze. I think the ones presented currently on the article are pretty good. They are unique to NLP, they are clear and concrete, there is no redundancy, and we could add more. Your other common processes are not particularly unique to NLP though. I can suggest some more. Regards HeadleyDown 11:40, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
I've attempted to order the list based on what is most common, and linked them to subarticles where avaiable. Well-formed outcomes or goal setting techniques are taught in all NLP practitioners training, no exception. In fact, outcomes are part of every NLP change process. Reframing is also taught in every NLP training. I've carefully chosen this list to reflect what is typically taught in NLP training and most are backed up with verifiable sources. There are also published academic papers which include these processes in their description of NLP - this is probably the best test. ---=-C-=- 12:01, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Well I'm sure there are many criteria for choosing what to place as a common pattern. The ones already presented in the article are fine and seem to be present in the books and audios also. As long as they are kept brief, concrete and understandable, I'm sure we can add more. There is no need to represent lines that are already covered in for example metamodel, milton model etc as its just a waste of space, just give them a name and say they are explained below. I will have another delve through the common books. HeadleyDown 13:48, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Comaze, I think what you've written looks good, I'd still like to compare to what we have of course. There is value in summarising the main patterns of NLP as well as elaborating further on. I think "rep systems" needs more info, and we don't need as much detail of who was originally modeled. Greg 15:13, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Rapport, meta model, milton model, anchoring, submodalities would be by far the most common. Swish is an example of submodality manipulation. Circle of Excellence is an example of anchoring. Matching representational systems would be an example of a rapport exercise. ---=-C-=- 00:23, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
I've made some changes based on Greg/HeadleyDown's feedback. Is this better? ---=-C-=- 02:05, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
I disagree. Its very obscure writing, and its mostly redundant. Camridge 02:46, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback. I'll attempt to make the necessary adjustments to the proposed changes to take your objections into account. Keeping the descriptions general, short and concise while avoiding any obscure psychological jargon is not easy. ---=-C-=- 03:03, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
True, it's difficult. Sorry I haven't suggested something for those rep systems and submodalities descriptions, they could do with some readability. Saying "it's obscure" is worth knowing I guess, but since I'd like a say in the final result, I'll be back with some suggestions, soon, to play with :)

Nope, its incredibly easy. You just take clear and concrete descriptions from the NLP manuals as has been provided already on the article. Just follow the lead. Camridge 05:03, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Headley, is "unique to NLP" important? Almost everything takes bits from somewhere else - and in fact the whole concept of NLP is modeling already existing ways of doing things... you choose to ignore certain parts of NLP I consider crucial (and I'm sure some therapies teach similar things at times). Greg 03:18, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks Greg, HeadleyDown, I've expanded the list, it needs some work. Please give me some feedback. I've added ecology. Added links to other wikipedia documents. ---=-C-=- 09:42, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Hi Comaze. Well your version is probably going to lead the reader to believe that NLP is just about obscure psychobabble. And your milton model, metamodel, and representational systems certainly don't need any explaining in the list. They have already been explained in their own sections. The rest of it is so full of jargon and abstract obscurantism that the reader is going to wonder which planet the section is from. As has been explained in the more independent peer-reviewed literature- NLP says all kinds of sexy things, what goes on is simple rituals and unvalidated prescriptions. It is easy to simply present them in concrete terms just like has been achieved in the present article. Easy to read, and a clear description. Please give the reader an easier time. Camridge 07:03, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Yes, that was my concern also. We're getting somewhere here. I'll make some changes to bring it closer in line with the peer-reviewed psychological and experimental literature, and attempt to strike a balance between psychological terminology and simple terms that anyone could understand. ---=-C-=- 07:25, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Hello Comaze. If you could bring it closer to the kind of language that Woohookitty had recommended, then it would be better and far more readable. I am sure even the mentors here are having to do self-checks over what is readable to readers, and what is babble. (one can easily get too accustomed to a subject and neglect novelty) especially if one learns fast. Putting yourself in the reader's shoes is an important exercise. For example, how would readers think of us right now? Regards HeadleyDown 15:52, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism

The whole thing is just too vague, muddy and abstract. Too many obscurantisms. Unless the reader has already joined the cult of NLP, they will be completely lost. Again, there is too much redundancy. Meta, rep systems, and milton etc are already explained in depth in the article. They are completely redundant in the list. Camridge 10:15, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I think you may have misunderstood me here so I've moved my original question down to a new subheadline. Is there a way that the descriptions or definitions of these various patterns or processes could be written so they are less "vague, muddy or abstract" way. Abstract definitions are probably required for this section. We can go into more depth with typical uses with concrete examples of the common applications. Criticism of the applications, supportive/unsupportive evidence for efficacy, and underlying theory can also be explained in a separate section, please comment below on this matter. ---=-C-=- 13:30, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Yes there are criticisms for many of the patterns and also the presuppositional beliefs. I believe we will add them later though. In the meantime, we have to work on presenting the article in very clear and concrete terms. Camridge 04:57, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Ok, thanks for your feedback. I assume that you are partly answering my question below about how we can represent the criticism of common patterns. I'll find concrete examples for the use of each pattern, and concrete examples of criticism for the common application. Do you have any suggestions the definitions of the various patterns and processes used in NLP? These definitions need to be abstract enough to include the majority of significant views, while concrete examples of the use and criticism of these patterns can be included under an applications section. If you start using examples from the start we'll run the risk of pushing a particular POV. There are plenty of case studies and books written on the use of the common NLP patterns in various areas. ---=-C-=- 05:14, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] How to present criticism of common patterns

How should we represent the criticism for these common patterns? ---=-C-=- 10:15, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

We should present them critically. HeadleyDown 15:46, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I think we should summarize the common applications and include a summary of the various case studies, and experimental research for each application. Would this be acceptable? ---=-C-=- 04:37, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Summary of objections and solutions

Here is a list of the issues raise and solutions to address them. Is this acceptable? ---=-C-=- 05:33, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

HeadleyDown
  • Remove redundancy (Meta model, representational systems, and milton model already covered)
  • common processes are not particularly unique to NLP though
  • kept brief, concrete and understandable / more readable
Camridge,
  • Use the clear and concrete descriptions that have been provided
  • Too much jargon and abstract/obscure psychobabble
  • use more independent peer-reviewed literature as sources
  • The common processes should be describe as simple rituals and unvalidated prescriptions.
  • redundancy (Meta model, Representational systems, and Milton model already covered)
Greg,
  • "rep systems" needs more info
  • less of who was originally modeled
  • rep systems and submodalities descriptions more readable
Comaze (replies)

Camridge and HeadleyDown objections are almost identical, and boil down to readability and avoiding redendancy. I'll present a version that take into account these objections.

  • bring it closer in line with the peer-reviewed psychological and experimental literature,
  • attempt to strike a balance between psychological terminology and simple terms that anyone could understand.
  • find concrete examples for the use of each pattern, and concrete examples of criticism for the common application.
  • use abstract definitions that cover the significant majority views,
  • include a subsection for critical review

---=-C-=- 05:33, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I want to go ahead with this change. Any last minute suggested changes? ---=-C-=- 14:15, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
I have a few suggestions, Comaze. You have just focussed on a dead discussion. Therefore, you need to obtain more opinions on the matter and wait for replies. For example, what exactly do you suggest to add or change? So far it is unclear what your intention is. In addition to that, do you have any literature that says that these are actual patterns?. If so, present the literature (name, date, and page). Also, for each change, you need to present a rationale for why you want to make that change. Please provide this information so that other editors have a chance of making civil, balanced, and reasonable suggestions/objections. HeadleyDown 16:10, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
I've already taken your (Camridge/HeadleyDown) objections into account. I've waited almost a month for comments on this, and taken into account your (Camridge/HeadleyDown) objections by providing page numbers and citations. This edit is based on the core literature, so you'd need to provide counter-examples from the core literature. That does not include minority authors. If you have any specific comment on the content, please do so. I'll wait a day or so, if there are no major objections to the content, then I'll insert the proposed change, "Proposed common patterns section:" ---=-C-=- 00:24, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
No, Comaze. You presented your suggestions a long time ago, those suggestions were not appropriate according to editors, and you have made no satisfactory alterations. For example, the lines you present are vague, and not concrete enough. They waffle too much, and they are full of obscure jargon. So there is a major objection here already. First comply cooperatively with the requests of other editors, present your suggestions more clearly on the talk page, and then wait for responses. There may well be some changes some editors want to make (eg to add the Contact your Inner Sage Pattern) as mentioned elsewhere on this talk page. HeadleyDown 02:21, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Comaze. Clearly there are a lot of objections to your suggestions to restrict the patterns section to the management guru version of NLP. Please make clear and detailed explanations for why you want to make the changes, and provide page numbers and citations to back it up. Your suggestions are unacceptable, and the distraction caused by trying to resurrect a dead discussion is very unconstructive. It has been noted. Bookmain 06:20, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Please let me exactly what you are objecting to so I can make the necessary changes. It is certain more comprehensive than what is currently in the article. ---=-C-=- 00:03, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
I've imported the change. I waited nearly a month for comments for this one. The objections from HeadleyDown and Bookmain were too vague to make any last minute adjustments. If you have any specific changes, please suggest them. Bookmain's requirement for citations and page numbers was already resolved. HeadleyDown suggestions that it is too obscure and that we should add "Contact your Inner Sage Pattern" was sarcastic and really not helpful. ---=-C-=- 00:43, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Comaze. There are many of the objections to your view-restricting suggested change. You made suggestion, said nobody respond (but they did) and then just enforce your change on the article and didn't even say you were deleting lots of original. I notice on other pseudoscience page (Scientology) editors have got banned for doing what you have been doing for months. There is great disagreement on your suggestions. Many reasons have been given to you. You have not responded to them. I will report you myself. HansAntel 03:13, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes Comaze, stop wasting everyone's time. The last months all I've seen from you is refusal to accept critical literature, refusal to discuss, refusal to explain your suggestions, a refusal to make clear the source of changes, and your reframing of other's discussion points to suit a severely restricted management guru version of NLP. Please be cooperative. Bookmain 04:15, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
HansAntel/Bookmain, This stuff I'm suggestion is from the core NLP literature, and I've made sure that it is also supported in third party literature on NLP. I'll make some adjustments to take this into account. If you want to argue that it is not these views are not representative of NLP, then you'll need to present a strong argument that shows counter examples, and ensure that your sources are widely cited. ---=-C-=- 10:59, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Comaze. I made these points:

  • Remove redundancy (Meta model, representational systems, and milton model already covered)
  • common processes are not particularly unique to NLP though
  • kept brief, concrete and understandable / more readable

You have dealt with none of these points. There are other objections. Now deal with each in turn by changing the suggestions, or explaining in sufficient detail your rationale for each point. HeadleyDown 13:10, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I'll make the adjustments over the next few days, I'll address your points...
  • 1) We can probably address the first point by moving and merging the meta model, milton model and rep systems sections to common patterns.
  • 2) I don't follow your logic on this point about uniqueness. The combination and description of these patterns is what makes NLP unique. Anchoring formats are very different to the conditioning. The way well formedness conditions are presented are also unique in NLP. If there are fields which have aspects common to NLP, such as meta model used for requirements analysis, then it could be linked. But you'd need to find reliable sources for this.
  • 3) I'll attempt to rewrite the descriptions keep them brief, and readable. The (concrete) use of these patterns could be covered in the applications.
---=-C-=- 13:53, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] wow

Everyone seems to hate each other here. I'm a Psych student at uni (through a science degree). I study linguistics too (normal linguistics, as a component of an arts degree) I worked for someone who actually used NLP in his line of work (i'd tell you his name and what not but i think thats a little mean... I do some work as an audio engineer in my spare time and he wanted to make spoken CD's)... He explained the process of anchoring much the same as classical conditioning -which seems to me pretty smack bang correct, but hey i'm a kiddy when it comes to this stuff-, he suggested 5 of the sense things, his additions were that the vistibula (sp? its too freaking late here) which in terms of neurology is responsible for balance and what not (i didn't understand the connection) and auditory/digital which is what he said bandler, robbins etc. all are... He also picked on various other things in written language and those seemed, well... Prevalent in every piece of marketing material i've ever seen... :) Not that its necessarily a problem but weird nonetheless. Obviously its all about selling yourself though, regardless of the business. He used the eye cues or whatever, but i'm pretty much convinced those are absolutely garbage myself.

Anyway, back to the point... I can't imagine how something like this can actually be scientifically tested because the skill of the "therapist" seriously has to come into play... But i dare say thats the same with psychologists also. At uni my psych lecturers can't even agree about what psychology studies (hell some don't even agree that there's a mind..)... Which sounds an awful lot like NLP at this point in time.

But hey i'm happy to sit back, let people believe what they want, and i can go on doing the same. Surely thats what keeps people happy... But hey i'm most definately not a neutral viewpoint here. I think it would be pertinant perhaps to create a page saying what fanboys/girls say it is and link all objections to a page saying what haters/critics say it isn't! (eye cues, meta models etc. All sound like they belong here). Maybe clear segmentations of the article after a main page with very VERY minimal information, would be a good way to let people choose what they wish to read. Love you all, Cheers! 211.30.130.183 13:47, 2 May 2006 (UTC)ArcaneX-notamemberofwikipediaeither.

Our goal is to have one article that accurately discusses the major points of view on the subject, without declaring that one view is right or wrong. Johntex\talk 02:32, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Hi 211.30 and welcome. Your views are interesting. We do have some views that state anchoring is not like classical conditioning though. Also the reviews of NLP were all conducted by professionals. Which is why they have been accepted into peer-reviewed journals. I appreciate your input. ATB Camridge 02:40, 3 May 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Stop the reverts

All reverts need to be discussed here just like all edits need to be discussed here. If this behavior continues, the page will be protected again. Thanks. --Woohookitty(meow) 09:42, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Woohookitty. It is settling down a bit now. I believe we actually have something controversial to discuss lower down also. That should stop all the unwarrented fact deletions for a while. Bookmain 10:29, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Be civil please. --Woohookitty(meow) 10:34, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
I've stricken Bookmain's passive-aggressive comments. Please don't do this. It's no more civil than the feces-flinging everyone was engaging in before. · Katefan0 (scribble)/poll 12:44, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Right, I can see how it may be construed as mudslinging. I was trying to be constructive. I'll do my best to refrain (from appearing like a mudslinger). I hope you notice the constructive actions and comments I have made also. Bookmain 07:27, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Is there a difference between not appearing like a mudslinger, and not mudslinging? :) Greg 08:15, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
I've done all I can to list every single reversion to the past fortnight's additions by Camridge & Headley. A couple have been answered. I assume from that, that this answers your request to discuss all reverts, at least from my side? If not please guide how you want this done differently to what I've done. :) Thanks. Greg 13:17, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Humor applications of NLP

Does the note on applications of NLP for humor writing fall under "applications" or "questionable applications"? Hmm... Basilwhite 15:15, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I changed the signed username to the one the person posted as. PLEASE don't use a different name as a sig here. We need accountability. Thanks. --Woohookitty(meow) 08:15, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
I copied the syntax of another comment, fixed the timestamp and left the old username. Duh!!!!! --BasilwhiteBasilwhite 19:27, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
There are common applications of NLP (such as in therapy, coaching, self-development) - sometimes so common that people thing NLP is a therapy etc. Then there are many other places NLP can be applied. At the moment, I don't think we really reflect that difference.
Some of the applications can be considered questionable. To me, questionable implies unethical and similar notions (in contrast to "uncommon"). I would say comedy was uncommon, but not questionable. What do you think? Greg 23:32, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Do you know of any evidential studies that show a positive effect of NLP on humour? I havn't seen any evidence of it here. Camridge 05:01, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Having a separate section for questionable or dubious application implies POV. I think we can merge the two sections into "applications" section. Each can be defined with the various criticisms attached to each application or to an appropriate subsection. Questionable applications could also be balanced with a section of ethical framework for its use. ---=-C-=- 00:05, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Hello Comaze, please explain in detail why you think it implies POV. Camridge 05:01, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Whoever made the humour additions to the article, it was done without any discussion at all. It would be helpful if at least a few reputable citations were presented on the article first. Bookmain 07:40, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I actually removed the additions. We need reputable sources and a how to guide on a website isn't going to work. We really need to work on what we have already. New additions are fine if there is good sourcing behind it. --Woohookitty(meow) 08:21, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks Woohookitty. Thats helpful. I'll have a good trawl through the lit to see if there is anything similar or related though. ATB Camridge 08:53, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Greg Dean is huge. He's an NLP guy and a standup comic with lotsa credits, and applies NLP transformational grammar in his book "Step-by-Step to Standup Comedy." He's not an NLP pusher, he just exploits the models to help gag writers manipulate semantics and beliefs to write jokes. This seems like an "application" of NLP, because Dean credits NLP for the origins of his gag-writing methods. If people asked me how NLP relates to comedy, I'd like to point them to WP instead of telling them that WP didn't think people needed to know it. basilwhite 19:36, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
The thing is, if you guys can agree on sourcing and such, I don't mind new additions, but just throwing something in with a very shaky source is not kosher. --Woohookitty(meow) 08:59, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, Woohookitty, the correct citation and attributions are ongoing, and any additions will be properly sourced. I'm wondering though. Is it fair for editors to continually object or deny that a source is not reputable in order for it to be excluded? I'm still a bit unclear on this point. ATB Camridge 09:05, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
It may be easier to quote the line in question. I'm continually objecting that an angry chat-site editor is being quoted in the NLP article... is it fair for me to continually object or deny that he is reputable and try to exclude him? I mean, it hasn't worked, he gets put back in continually. But I'm a bit unclear on this point too. Greg 10:02, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm also interested in the definition of "discussion", and whether "We've already discussed this, see the workshop pages", or "I've fixed it in the article", or "sources will be coming soon" is considered discussion. Greg 10:02, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
"Discussion" is posting on here "hey, I'm proposing a change. Does anyone object? Any thoughts?" and then say the change. If it's been discussed before, then I'd like to see a link to the discussion. The main thing is to post it here, WAIT a bit and then add it if there isn't objection. --Woohookitty(meow) 10:06, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Sounds like a good idea. It may also be a good idea to keep a map of what's been discussed already. It could save a lot of folk's time. Regards HeadleyDown 15:18, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
So we took the links off because we didn't post a request on the discussion page to post it? If that's the procedure, that's cool, but maybe we should add that requirement to the semi-protected template. Otherwise why bother doing the work of adding to articles if we're keeping the discussion criterion a secret? Basilwhite 15:18, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
A list of things that have been discussed previously might be a good idea. However, to be truly useful, it would probably need to include what the conclusion was. I'm afraid we might get into more arguments over what to include in this sort of summary. What do others think? Johntex\talk 13:24, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Yes I'd echo that. On paper, that sounds like a great idea but there's always the danger of arguments about what to include and what the conclusion was. --Woohookitty(meow) 13:29, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh you mean a kind of group map! No I was thinking more of a realistically biased self determined map of what had gone on before. I know I'm a bit of an anarchist, but I feel that is the only way to get on with everyone here. My suggestion was simply to reduce everyone's mental load. Regards HeadleyDown 15:40, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Maybe we could arrange a skype or netmeeting discussion and build a mind map of the current status of the article. What we can agree on, and some future goals for the article. We may be able to find some common ground to move forward into the future. ---=-C-=- 09:50, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestion for non-bias point of view

I have a suggestion, The main article states, "Scientists, such as...have criticised NLP in scientific research reviews which conclude that its magical theories are scientifically unsupported and it has failed to show its claimed efficacy in controlled studies." No one therapy has withstood the overall effectiveness of scientific scrutiny. Sarason and Sarason state that only combined with psychiatric medication will psychotherapy demonstrate results in controlled studies. Possibly adding this clause can broaden the narrowness of this perspective. For instance, "While most therapies boast great claims, no one has proven overall effectiveness in controlled studies. NLP is no different as scientists, such as...."

In addition, The main article says, "NLP is identified by ... as a dubious therapy and a cult ..described by Winkin as charlatanry and fraudelent and is promoted in the same mold as Dianetcs and Scientology." In Othmer and Othmer, The Clinical Interview Using DSM-IV; they devote three pages out of a tomb of techniques towards one method proposed by NLP, on how to develop rapport. Richard Bandler is credited in the body of the text as well as the main bibliography. Othmer's book is published by the American Psychiatric Press which is the publishing arm of the American Psychiatric Association, whom Othmer is a fellow of. It would suggest that after four editions, that the APA endorses a method developed by NLP. I found criticisms, ethical concerns, cult characteristics, and fraudulent claims, in the body of the main article. How can the APA which endorses an NLP method in interviewing for its tool the DSM-IV be inserted to provide a non-bias viewpoint without leaving its readers believing the APA is unscientific and fraudulent? If this can't be done, then possibly the article wieghs too heavy on one side. 64.165.15.34 18:01, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Can you expand on your point about the APA a little bit more? · Katefan0 (scribble)/poll 00:13, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
Hello Katefan and all. The APA article here may help. [[47]] Due to the dominance of clinical psychology (and the reliance on scientific testing) a huge amount of psychologists have broken with the APA. This is a critism of the APA. The APA is well known for promoting pseudoscientific methods, partly for political and partly for financial reasons. A lot of consumer bodies also worry about the APA saying promotional things about primal scream therapy, attack therapies, NLP, and so on. The APA don't rely on science. The main difference here is not one particular association over all the others, but science over pseudoscience. Thats the clearest measure. Of course if you measure something in controlled studies and it doesn't work, then it has been falsified. Thats the scientific method. Regards HeadleyDown 02:10, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
I think this kind of point raised by Headley is crucial to the NLP article. There are controversies within Psychology, psychotherapy, and even how research can be done (highly vs loosely controlled, how to 'control' for differences in the therapist themselves, etc). NLP falls victim to that same controversy - and it would be unfortunate if the multiple viewpoints weren't shown here by us deciding what's valid, what's scientific, etc when the researchers themselves can't agree. Greg 02:21, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
GregA. The best corroboration of the scientists is in the artikel. This is provided for a long time and there is no recent research that goes against Sharpley and on. Devilly 2005 and others good scientists still corroborate Sharpley. Studies show NLP is false. The scientists keep saying NLP is false. They agree with themselves. Some psychologists are not scientists. Science and pseudoscience is important here. Again if you want us to dismiss all those agreeing scientists and do our original research then you antagonize NLP policy. Science view is NLP is false. "the science has come and gone, and only the belief remains". NLP is alternative new age religion as research of sociology shows clearly. HansAntel 03:09, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
HansAntel's, opinion that "Science view is [that] NLP is false" is somewhat misguided. There's over 200+ academic articles indexed covering different aspects of NLP, some a supportive, others unsupportive, none of which make this bald claim. ---=-C-=- 04:52, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
Really Comaze, NLP has been falsified according to the reviews of NLP. Thats clear from the literature. Are you suggesting that we do original research on 200+ articles and come to a particular conclusion, while removing the conclusions of qualifed reviewers? Camridge 05:22, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
I think that where papers (or classes of research) have been reviewed by respected researchers we should stick to those reviews - we don't want to resummarise research!. If there are 2 POVs on that research, both must be presented.


If you look at NLP's concepts there are several areas that can be (and have been) studied. Rep Systems is significant - and under that falls eye-accessing cues, preferred rep systems, etc. The Meta-model is the most significant model/process and I'm not aware of many studies into that specifically at all. Submodalities. etc. Then there's techniques - which includes 6-step reframes, swish, anchoring, etc.


For concepts or techniques that haven't been included in reviews for whatever reason (including being more recent than the reviews) - then we should simply present what they found. This includes those outcome based studies that you say aren't worthy. Greg 14:28, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Beyerstein

Hello Comaze. The reviews of the studies of NLP show this view. They state that NLP has failed controled empirical studies that test its claims. That is a falsification. NLP's claims have been falsified according to scientific method. NLP has been compared to other non-testable pseudoscientific subjects, except that NLP's claims have actually been tested, in which case it is a relegated form of pseudoscience (which puts it as a core pseudoscience) And this places it with pseudosciences such as phrenology according to Winkin and Beyerstein. I don't know how many times this has been explained to you, but I am happy to explain it again as its such a verifiable point. Regards HeadleyDown 06:42, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Beyerstein is preference for Experimental and Biological Psychology is evident in his scepticism towards all psychotherapies, including complimentary therapies and most of psychology that relies on qualitative research. Beyerstein is a member of various skeptics association. There is a quote from his 1990 book titled, "Brainscams: Neuromythologies of the New Age. International Journal of Mental health" (quoted on workingpsychology.com):

  • "Though it claims neuroscience in its pedigree, NLP's outdated view of the relationship between cognitive style and brain function ultimately boils down to crude analogies. NLP basks in effusive testimonials, but the National Research Council could unearth no hard evidence in its favor, or even a succinct statement of its underlying theory." [48].
  • Beyerstein makes some fundamental errors in his description of NLP which demonstrate he does not have adequate knowledge of the subject to tbe considered an expert on NLP. Beyerstein could probably be included somewhere, but as a minority view and as long as it is characterised as a sceptical POV
  • And Winkin, maybe you can provide a translation for us so we can verify - it is written in French. ---=-C-=- 07:28, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
Hello Comaze. On what grounds are you criticising Beyerstein? Both Beyerstein and Winkin adhere to the scientific view. They are both published in independent peer reviewed journals. They are both professor level academics. They could not be more quotable as experts. They also have a great deal of explanatory power to help the article. They are anti-jargon, and very good at pointing out misconceptions in pseudoscientific thinking. This article will benefit from more of their clarity. HeadleyDown 08:30, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm not criticising Beyerstein or his work, only the way in which this author is misrepresented in the article. Normal wikipedia and scholarly practices need to be followed more closely. Shall I move the relevant text to this page for discussion?---=-C-=- 09:47, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why Not Both Views ?

Moved. i dont know how to properly edit wikis obviously, (im not even logged in). Anyways, Why are people arguing about what gets removed from the article? Why cant both opinions be stated and credited as a 'belif' or 'ideal' or whatever it happens to be. Obviously, if there is a good ammount of people arguing two sides of the same thing, i think it is important to place both opinions on the page. im sure if you look on the year 2000 page you'll find information about the end of the world... unfortunatly that never occored but the belif was important enough to be noted. im not saying anything is BS ether, im just trying to point out, theres no reason to remove things unless you can proove its wrong... and then in that case i'd say that the user is activly vandalizing the page if he continues to add information that is proovable to be wrong

Welcome to the page. I agree totally with you. So will "the other side". There are some bad things in NLP and some good things, on this page I'm becoming polarised as any positive finding or application is automatically removed by the other side.
Please join the page, you've already contributed some good stuff. Create yourself an account so we know it's you posting too, it makes it easier. If you want to ask questions on how to login or get some "special effect" for editing feel free to email me on galexand@ozemail.com.au, and to be neutral with that offer you'll find Headley's email address in the discussion above (headleydown@yahoo.com) if you'd like to email either of us. Greg 02:12, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
(headley, please delete my last line if you wish, I just wouldn't want my offer misunderstood) Greg 02:12, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
Hi and yes your opinion is perfectly valid. There are more than two views though. Some people believe it can do amazing stuff (especially promoters), others don't trust it at all. Then scientists say it doesn't work according to controlled studies etc. I believe they are all represented. As far as incorrect statements go, yes, sometimes people make erroneous representations/changes of scientist's/sociologist's views, and they are corrected by other editors. This is all just part of the validation/correction process. A lot of direct quotes have been placed into the article to stop some editors putting their own "spin" on things. Its an easy way to resolve conflicts. Regards HeadleyDown 02:18, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
bah, spin. Just choosing which person you quote is spin. And your description of "believers, non-believers, and scientists" is a spin too... the experiments show both sides too. Anyway some peole say that if you say something loud enough for long enough people will believe you. :). Lets stick to discussion of points, perhaps. Greg 02:42, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] text move - Overview

I want remove the follow text because it is mostly plagiarised (copy and paste job from another web site); it has incorrect citations and fails to enclose the text with quotation marks.

Text plagiarised
copy and pasted from web site [49]. Borrowed work must be enclosed with quotation marks.
  1. "NLP participants are taught that the human mind can be programmed"
  2. "NLP embraces this Null Hypothesis and the classic New Age concept of "clearing" these blocks "
  3. "While the more traditional therapies concentrate on solving problems by focusing on the reasons "why", Neurolinguistic programming looks at the "hows" to provide a short cut to a solution."
  4. "Like Scientology, rebirthing and other alternative therapies"
Text moved (red quotes added to mark plagiarised text)
""NLP participants are taught that the human mind can be programmed" (plagiarised from Edwards see #1, quotes added), and "like Scientology, rebirthing and other alternative therapies"(plagiarised #4, quotes added, false references to raso/lilienfeld) [33][15] "NLP embraces this Null Hypothesis and the classic New Age concept of 'clearing' these blocks" (plagiarised #2, quotes added, note incorrect references) [6]." "While the more traditional therapies concentrate on solving problems by focusing on the reasons 'why', Neurolinguistic programming looks at the 'hows' to provide a quick fix to a solution" [34][35][36][37] (plagarised #3, quotes added, 1 possibly correct reference to Edwards, fake references to singer96/sharpley/sala99/singer99)"

---=-C-=- 13:42, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Quotation marks are an easy issue to deal with. Text moves are completely unnecessary. The whole article requires this, and it is ongoing. I suggest a more constructive activity will be to focus on the more recent suggestions for addition instead. HeadleyDown 14:36, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
How do we know what is plagiarised, and what text is properly paraphrased and attributed to the original author(s)? This is a significant issue with the current article. We need to remove all plagiarism from the article as soon as possible. I have found other examples copy and pasted directly from other web sites. ---=-C-=- 00:55, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Thats an interesting suggestion Comaze. Surely adding two inverted commas is just as easy as pressing the delete button? Please add any such punctuation to the article to the copy and pastes. I will do the same. Regards HeadleyDown 02:51, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Large chunks of text in the current article have been plagiarised. We must paraphrase and attribute this text to the correct source, or remove it entirely. Not only does raise copyright issues, it goes against the very core of GPL on which wikipedia is based. If you are aware of any other text that has been copy and pasted from copyright works, please make the necessary adjustments. ---=-C-=- 03:36, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
I restored some of the overview that was not lifted was the site named. Please be careful to use quotes and proper attributions. ---=-C-=- 05:13, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
All plagiarism removed, and properly attributed

Edwards (1996p249) states that “While the more traditional therapies concentrate on solving problems by focusing on the reasons "why", Neurolinguistic programming looks at the "hows" to provide a short cut to a solution “, and similar to Scientology and other therapies such as rebirthing,“Participants are taught that life is programmed, unfortunately we have all been mis-programmed by negative input.”

Edwards H 1996. A Skeptic's Guide to the New Age (Australian Skeptics, 1996, 429pp), ISBN 0-646-24502-3

This is helpful for the reader as the opening will best show the subject in its context and in relation to other therapies. It places NLP within the mental model of the reader's likely idea of traditional therapies, and also with other similar therapies. Regards HeadleyDown 07:53, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

That quote and author is not acceptable for the overview. If it was to be included in an appropriate section (possibly a section on New Age, or sceptics POV of NLP) the authors' biases would need to be characterized. Secondly, this book is self-published and does pass minimum scholarly or wikipedia standards for inclusion. ---=-C-=- 09:26, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Hello Comaze. The Australian Skeptic is a journal of scientific skepticism publised by the Australian Skeptics, not Edwards. http://www.skeptics.com.au/about/skeptics/overview.htm

Thus with its scientific bias, it is ideal for the opening, and as mentioned above, it is a good and clear context for the reader to understand the subject.

Regards HeadleyDown 10:03, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

You're partly correct here. "A Skeptic's Guide to the New Age" is not self-published. You may be able to characterize his view as scientific scepticism, along with Robert Carroll (skeptics dictionary), Beyerstein, Levelt and Drenth. None of these authors provide any new research, it is just opinion and commentary. They did not review NLP the supportive and unsupportive psychological or experimental literature available on NLP. We need to be careful not the present their view as if they were correct. Please do not confuse research with sceptics opinion. ---=-C-=- 10:37, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I have a far better idea for what to place in the overview. Forget about Edwards even though he is clear and accurate, I'll get back to you soon. Regards HeadleyDown 10:10, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
As long it is based on the literature published in peer-reviewed journals then that would be fine with me. ---=-C-=- 10:37, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Well, I'd be flexible. Good definitive books and journals will be preferred. There are some reputable websites though and it would be a shame to waste a potentially clarifying resource (though as usual they'd need plenty of vetting and cross checking). HeadleyDown 11:17, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Comaze. The article is in process of getting attribution. Your deletion process is bad. Say you want quotes on some thing and we can added them properly. Please get constructive. HansAntel 12:44, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

No problem, let's get in contact with the editors who inserted this text in the first place. I removed 3 blocks of text [50] which had been plagiarised, the text was not properly enclosed in quotes, and traced the origin of how this text got inserted into the document, I'll contact the individual editors involved and attempt to explain the difference between paraphrasing, and quoting. ---=-C-=- 13:39, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Comaze, your worry of suing for copyright breaking is valid. Scientology have sued Internet companies for the same rationale. They do it to stop companies writing about their scientology pseudoscience frauds, according to those critics. But it is constructive to use quotation, just by adding " ". Undiscussed deleting of large text about eg NLP pseudoscience just for having no quotation marks very unconstructive. They just need quotation marks. I hope you understand how it looks. HansAntel 03:10, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Well Hans, your rationale would be great if we all knew exactly what was a quote and what wasn't. I rephrased a line that had 2 references, and had it reverted by Headley as it was a "direct quote"... I don't even know which of the references it was a quote from! If you know something was a quote then instead of saying so, just put in quote marks or atleast supply the actual quote here (and who said it). Greg 14:28, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Added facts for the article

  • I suggest some facts to add: Firstly the Bandler murder case contains some interesting insights into NLP. After he left the wounded prostitute to bleed to death in 1982 he drowned himself in drugs and alcohol. But there was an important metaphor afterwards. He recounts people leaving him a sea of roses on his lawn after he got off scott free. This he used as avery zen metaphor to help him forget the incident. This can be added.
  • Also, the swish is commonly known as a quick fix. This should be added.
No objections so I added it. HansAntel 03:04, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
  • There is quite a lot about NLP practitioners being unable to understand ethics, and unable to countenance scientific reviews of NLP. This can be expanded. I have all the refs and page numbers.

If someone would like to add more we can get it into the article. Bookmain 02:28, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Sure, I have the refs for those also. ATB Camridge 02:42, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
There are several issues - including the ethics stuff - all through the article which are expressed badly. I dont like Bandler myself, but I suggest that we be very careful about the Bandler accusations, he's a commercial figure and anything he was found innocent of will require very careful wording. Greg 03:25, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
OK we can add it then. Bookmain 03:26, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Well I think we can discuss further. For example, where will the facts go? I suggest the Bandler fact can go within a section on coping (perhaps expanding the new age section to include more healing). The section on NLP practitioners being unable to countenance criticism or scientific reviews can be associated with the piece on granfalloons and cults, but may also be used as an example to clarify the Beyerstein lit on why some still think it works. ATB Camridge 04:15, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Sure, but if there is no discussion here, we can assume it is all acceptable and then place it in the appropriate places in the article. Getting interested in other stuff cannot be used as an excuse for not discussing. And we certainly don't need anyone else's permission before we place verifiable and well sourced facts in the article. Bookmain 10:33, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, if you are thinking of writing what I think you are thinking of writing, then go ahead. As you imply, NPOV policy is pretty much non negotiable. Regards HeadleyDown 15:45, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Hi all. I suggest this for inclusion to the article (in criticisms):
The NLP practitioner, Schütz [51] states that in several countries, NLP has been "labeled in unfavorable political ways (nazilinguistic programming)".
Feel free to discuss. Regards HeadleyDown 08:46, 6 May 2006 (UTC) I'd say this is best placed in the ethics section. HeadleyDown 11:22, 7 May 2006 (UTC)


Hi all. I suggest adding this to the neuro section:

According to Derks (1989p28), the NLP anchors are conditioned stimuli which work by activating engrams in the subconscious.

Derks (1989) Psychotherapie Een Kwestie van Wennen. William James Foundatin ISBN 90-72907-01-9

Hello all. I moved this set of new suggestions in order to encourage agreement on the suggested lines. HeadleyDown 09:44, 7 May 2006 (UTC)


OK guys, we've waited quite a bit and there were no objections, so I'll add these to the article. Bookmain 01:50, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • To clarify the opening with something concrete I suggest this line (to be added to the third para in the opening).

NLP makes use of guided fantasy, visualizations, affirmations, ritual enactments, hypnosis, copying language, body postures, eye movements, and covert influence.

Regards HeadleyDown 02:32, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

That isn't clarifying, it uses broad non-descriptive names that are associated with vague self-development ideas. It's misleading. Greg 14:28, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
It is concrete and something that every reader can understand without any explanation. Placing this line in the opening will help the reader. Those terms appear in NLP books. Citations can be provided. HeadleyDown 16:08, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia talk:WikiProject NLP concepts and methods

I've updated some of the WikiProject articles. I'd appreciate some assistance with this project. Please pop by the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject NLP concepts and methods, and join the project if you wish to participate. ---=-C-=- 11:45, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Of course Comaze. My pleasure. HeadleyDown 12:09, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
I'd like assistance with criticism and references for Bateson's double bind theory. It forms the foundation for many of NLP therpeutic interventions. ---=-C-=- 12:54, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Sure Comaze. Thats easy. Critics say its untestable pseudoscience and junk science. Its also devoid of empathy (according to critics). Just like most of the human potential development (according to researchers). It basically implies that if you are schizophrenic or delusional, it is your choice and your fault for being too simplistic. It ignores basic neurological conditions such as a lack of nicotinamide receptors in the neurons, or physical brain damage. Its part of Scientology's argument against the use of drugs for suffering patients, aging brains and the use of psychoactive analgesics for the treatment of dying cancer sufferers. HeadleyDown 13:27, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi Comaze. Although Headley has given some unreferenced criticisms of "Double bind", I think we need some actual references, and something clearly addressing what is hapening. The current criticisms oversimplify what "Double bind" is, and presume that it's stated as the cause of schizophrenia (in contrast to a cause??). If schizophrenia is said to involve an internal contradiction, I don't see how that makes things "your choice and your fault". Maybe Headley missed something significant in his reference though.

I think generally Headley's criticism can be summarised as "Schizophrenics are found to have certain chemical imbalances, and schizophrenia can also be caused by brain injuries. To say it's just a contradictory belief over simplifies it and discounts the severity of the condition." Greg 09:54, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Hello GregA. No that would be misrepresentative. Placing direct quotes will be fine, with proper attribution. Clinical psychologists are quite negative towards the pseudoscientific double bind theory, and generally wish to point out it's potentially harmful application as prescription. This is all part of the general problem with ill-educated or simply fraudulent practitioners applying daft and dangerous methods. There is plenty of literature on this, and I'm sure editors will oblige by presenting the broad selection of views. With science as a clarifyer, of course. Bookmain 07:40, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure how to reply to this :) I don't see how using actual references which clearly address it would be misrepresentative... and you suggest the same thing as I do in the next line (quotes, attribution). I did summarise your criticism since it had no reference and was vague - perhaps you meant I misrepresent your words? In which case I would have thought you would add something new - you add nothing in your reply. You also pre-judge the double-bind concept by calling it "the pseudoscientifice double bind theory". Can you actually give some quotes or attribution etc? Greg 14:28, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] References

I've been taking a look through many of the sources here, and put a number of detailed observations into the "observations on sources" sections above. In summary, the verifiability of this article remains very poor. There are a number of examples of poor quality sources being used, and of good quality sources being misquoted, selectively quoted, and taken out of context.

I think it is the process that has been used to create the article that has got it into this mess. Namely, someone makes an assertion, someone disputes it, and then someone goes scouring the internet and libraries to find something that even vaguely supports that assertion. This results in a selective, unrepresentative use of the sources. You can support all kinds of assertions if you look hard enough. If you wanted to show that NLP was fully supported by science, or related to communism, you could find sources that appear to back that up if you look hard enough and interpret them broadly. Selectively looking for sources that support a particular assertion is what characterises pseudoscience, poor scholarship and advocacy, and should be strongly discouraged here.

Good scholarship is better achieved by widely researching the subject, selecting the most reliable, representative sources, and then writing the article to reflect what those sources say.

There are at present nearly 100 sources listed in the article, many of which are of very high quality, such as a number of widely cited, peer-reviewed scientific papers. We should be able to write a very good article even based on a small selection (say 20 or 30) of the best of these sources.

I would strongly encourage everyone involved in the article not to go looking for additional references for the article, and instead to concentrate on making sure that the article accurately reflects the sources that are already there. Given the problems we have had in the past on this article, I think any new sources should be shown to be particularly strong before adding them to the article. That is, any new sources added should be shown to meet very high standards of reliability, reputation, relevance, and accessibility for fact-checking, and be balanced by the removal of lower quality sources. Enchanter 14:10, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I completely agree with both Enchanter's assessment and his recommendations. In fact, I will go so far as to make it a requirement. New sources that are not high-quality sources (in the mentors' judgment) should not be added going forward until we sort out the mess of the sources already included. · Katefan0 (scribble)/poll 14:26, 7 May 2006 (UTC)


Hello Enchanter. Firstly I would like to say that your observations have been helpful to the article and its readership as has your sedulous research endevour. However, if you had been around a few months back you would have noticed how much selective editing has been deflected from the article. All manner of unqualified comments and OR have been made, and some editors have even sought to dismiss solid conclusions in favour of nebulous speculation. Also, I would personally encourage any extensive searching for references, in order at least to see what factors exist and to maintain the broadest selection of views. Then we can work on reducing or prioritizing the facts to those more worthy or more valid. Either way, I guess we are working towards the same, or at the very least overlapping, objectives. I have faith in good research, and at at least some faith in the Wikipedia process. Regards HeadleyDown 14:39, 7 May 2006 (UTC) PS. If you have any research, no matter how tenuous, please present it. If it doesn't fit Wikipedia, at least we get to digest and process it. HeadleyDown 14:41, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Headley, I see you criticise Original Research, and then say "we can work on reducing or prioritizing the facts to those more worthy or more valid". Do you see any contradiction? Greg 14:28, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Well keep it balanced. You don't want to be too flippant about refs, but also you don't want the article to look like a crackdown. There have been plently of good clarifications from even unacceptable refs. I reckon its really easy to make mistakes with this article. So many conflicting demands have been made - proper citations, citations within the text, at the end of paragraphs, please provide over 10 refs to back up simple and obviously clear facts, now stop providing them. And people seem to be getting blocked for simply discussing stuff. Also, I'll have to admit I've seen some pretty pissed off words coming from editors who have never got a block for it. Its almost impossible to see whats blockable and whats not. Like I said, its easy to make mistakes here. I'd like to see more editors join from elsewhere. But they seem to be getting deterred from joining though due to conflicting demands. Just my view. Bookmain 03:52, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Yes we're making headway with improving the article. Lets keep it going. Standards are improving. Regards HeadleyDown 11:33, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I'm a bit confused as to why all the references? I thought an encyclopedia was a "dictionary" of ideas, people, and places. If I was young and wanted to know who Washington was, or what Boron is, I could just look up the entry and after reading it get a basic understanding. The more significant the person, place or thing, the more detailed an entry I would expect. Washington would probably be a longer entry than Boron. But would I really expect to find hundreds of references citing if Washington was bad or good? Possibly one or two if I wanted further reading. So why all the fuss about providing a hundred credible articles about NLP? If I was doing a school report on NLP, do I really need to sift through that huge article to get a basic understanding of what it is? Isn't simple better? "This is what it is...x,y,z. Today there still remains much controversy over whether its claims are valid or not" 2 references from both sides. I guess this is more my opinion now than any suggestion, but it just seems that the more references invested, the more someone is really trying hard to make their point. Just my opinion. 64.165.15.34 21:52, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Hello 64.165.15.34. It is all NPOV policies: If some editor cuts a fact, you have to nail it back into the article by showing it is a view from good sources and very fussy quote styles. With article like nlp, you get to do it a lot. Facts still get cut, but not so much. The same is going on inside eg scientology article archive. HansAntel 02:49, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the clarification :)64.165.15.34

Hi 64. Please login and join in more. At the moment, there are some editors who are claiming there's a Wikipedia policy of "if someone said it, it's a fact". This confuses the issue somewhat - since it's only a fact that someone said it, not that what they said is a fact - they may or may not be correct, they may or may not represent a general view or they may be somebody with little knowledge.


You are absolutely right that it would seem simple - present what NLP says, and present how others have reacted to it. Unfortunately, some editors are discounting what NLP books say, in preference to what a psychologists says NLP says. It makes the artical very difficult to understand, especially since many NLP practitioners have come by the article and said they learned nothing like what's being claimed. Ah well.... Greg 14:28, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Expanded and clarified overview

１==Overview==

Experts such as [38][39] characterize NLP as a New Age development with implied religiosity in the healing/self-development field.

Devilly (2005) considers NLP to be classed as an the alphabet or power therapy similar to Thought Field Therapy or Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing, Emotional Freedom Technique and Traumatic Incident Reduction.

Hunt (2003) states “While not an alternative religion per se” NLP can be seen as “similar to new religions of eastern origin that trace themselves back through a progression of gurus, and to esoteric movements claiming the authority of authenticity through their descent from previous movements” Hunt (2003) considers NLP to be “an alternative to Scientology”.

This adds far clearer context to the overview. Regards HeadleyDown 02:29, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

"Experts such as (link link)" isn't adequate. What kinds of experts? What expertise do they claim? Don't use weasel words, mention a discrete critic. Links are necessary to back up assertions but they don't substitute for readable text. · Katefan0 (scribble)/poll 02:38, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Yep, just place their names, dates and page numbers. Simple solution! Bookmain 03:43, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
No bookmain. It's our role to help the reader to understand. Just giving a name doesn't help us show whether it's important in the slightest.Greg 04:15, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Yes I agree GregA. Simply present a line for who considers NLP to be New Age (it'd be too much to present their credentials as there are so many), and present the other (I guess "The sociologist Hunt") line showing all the relevant details. Thats simpler and more clear for the reader. ATB Camridge 04:29, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Alright, here's an alternative:

Professor Hunt, a sociologist, characterizes [38] NLP as a development with implied religiosity in the healing/self-development field and states that NLP is“an alternative to Scientology".

Hunt (2003 p195) states“While not an alternative religion per se” NLP can be seen as “similar to new religions of eastern origin that trace themselves back through a progression of gurus, and to esoteric movements claiming the authority of authenticity through their descent from previous movements"

New Age author, Kelly (1990p25)[39] and Beyerstein (1990p25) characterize NLP as a New Age development.

Devilly, professor of psychology (2005p441) considers NLP to be classed as an alphabet or power therapy similar to Thought Field Therapy or Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing, Emotional Freedom Technique and Traumatic Incident Reduction.

Its more consistent this way. Bookmain 06:12, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Interesting. Since NLP books don't classify NLP this way, it would be best to say what they say, and then the viewpoint from other fields. unfortunately I doubt these people speak for their entire field, though they may be genuinely part of those fields. All we do is list off a group of people's quotes. Very unreadable. Greg 09:45, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Hello GregA. Actually, NLP books do sometimes classify NLP as new age, and the authors certainly use new age notions throughout, and make themselves very appealing to new age bookshops and advertise them there. The lines presented give an independent view of the context of NLP. Thats probably the best overview a reader could get considering the subject. NLP authors try to sound as scientific or as space age as possible, while using out of date ideas. They present the narrowest view possible. I'm sure more can be added though, especially something concrete to show the reader what goes on in NLP. ATB. Camridge 10:10, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Hi Bookmain. Your lines are good and clear. They are ready. HansAntel 02:52, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Sure Hans, its a big improvement on the present lines. I'll put them into the article. Bookmain 03:25, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Note: Devilly doesn't say that NLP is a power therapy - he says that he studied therapies that self-described themselves as power therapies. Can you tell us where it was self-described? Greg 14:28, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] map/territory

Here's the short description of map/territory distinction to replace the other version that I had to remove. I've already inserted it. I was going to have more informatio about the neurological and linguistic transforms that occur after the sensory filters and before first access. Maybe you could offer some feedback to make it more readable.

  • The map is not the territory - The process by which we create of perceptions and repond to the word distort, generalise, delete portions of our experience. These filters occur even before we are first aware of them (for example, a typical human eye will respond to wavelengths from 400 to 700 nm).

---=-C-=- 13:27, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Hello Comaze, your undiscussed changes to the map-territory part of the article are very unclear and unhelpful to the reader. HeadleyDown 16:10, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Check your sources: map/territory in NLP was described in Structure 1 (1975), Patterns 1 & 2 (1976, 1977), Turtles (1986) and Whispering (2001). ---=-C-=- 23:55, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Yes exactly. Its very unclear. It will require clarification. HeadleyDown 12:49, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Possible restructure

The current structure repeats things in several places. The theory section explains modeling briefly to say why NLP doesn't really do what it says - and modeling is far later. The metamodel unnecessarily falls under "Common patterns" as well as "Fundamentals". Applications of NLP have become lost in the mess. Criticism is doubled up under some other sections.

The following movements could take place.

  • "NLP Models" talks about metamodel, TOTE etc, from a theoretical standpoint. This could fall under "NLP Theory" or possibly as a section under "Common NLP patterns"
  • The "Presuppositions" listed seem to me to be very close to "foundational assumptions". Let's make a section on "NLP Principles" which includes both "Presuppositions" and "Foundational Assumptions".
  • The theory section says that NLP claims to do modeling, but modeling isn't described till later. Perhaps we should bring these together.
  • NLP is applied in many new Age settings. The "New Age" section could fit under applicaitons. Or possibly "background".
  • I would say the most common applications of NLP are in therapy, coaching, self-development, and spiritual/new age.
  • The "Common NLP patterns" could be a section on its own. It would combine the Rep Systems info, Meta Model, Milton Model, and OTHERS (others coming from the list currently in "Common NLP patterns/rituals").
  • Representation systems is an umbrella term for a few NLP concepts - including eye accessing cues and verbal predicates - and should be presented that way. ALso BAGEL is an acronym for remembering cues for which rep system is being used - so it should be a subsection of "Representation systems" along with Eye Access cues, Preferred Rep System, etc.
  • The links to developers and external links could both fall under "See also"

I'm not arguing the content at this point - just wanting to put it in an order that's easier for the reader. The top 2 levels of a possible layout:

  1. NLP Principles
    1. Foundational assumptions
    2. Presuppositional beliefs
    3. Modeling and Theory
    4. Background
  2. Common NLP patterns/rituals
    1. Meta Model
    2. Milton Model
    3. Representation Systems
    4. Other patterns
  3. NLP applied to other fields
    1. NLP "Therapy"
    2. Self-development
    3. Spiritual/New Age connections
    4. Other applications
  4. Alternate brands
  5. Criticism
    1. Ethical concerns
  6. Scientific analysis
    1. False claims to science
    2. Pseudoscience
  7. See also
    1. Developers
    2. External links
  8. Notes and references

So you can see where some subsections would fit - this is all the levels:

  1. NLP Principles
    1. Foundational assumptions
    2. Presuppositional beliefs
    3. Modeling and Theory
      • Modeling
      • Theory
        • Meaning of "Neuro"
        • Brain lateralization
        • NLP Models (ToTE etc)
    4. Background
  2. Common NLP patterns/rituals
    1. Meta Model
    2. Milton Model
    3. Representation Systems
      • Eye accessing cues, body cues
      • B.A.G.E.L. Model
    4. Other patterns
  3. NLP applied to other fields
    1. NLP "Therapy"
    2. Self-development
    3. Spiritual/New Age connections
      • Cult characteristics
    4. Other applications (including questionable)
  4. Alternate brands
  5. Criticism
    1. Ethical concerns
  6. Scientific analysis
    1. False claims to science
    2. Pseudoscience
  7. See also
    1. Developers
    2. External links
  8. Notes and references

See [52] (note I didn't indent "2.4 Modeling" enough - it should be 2.3.1)

I've moved sections around in the main article (and reverted) so you can see what I mean (Naturally, the sections will have to be reworded a little to flow better).

So a couple of questions....

  1. Do you think the current structure could be made better?
  2. Do you broadly agree with the above structure?
  3. If not, please explain and suggest a better structure.

Greg 14:43, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Hello GregA. Firstly I do not agree with any part of your suggestion so far. This is a huge amount to discuss. We need to finish the attribution and refs, and discuss the suggested additions to the article before this is discussed. HeadleyDown 16:05, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinion. This is quite independent to referencing etc and there is certainly no end in sight to the additions. Anyway, I'm not changing any text, just moving. The structure of the article is not good at the moment, and I think an agreed new structure would be a great step. I'd really prefer it if you were involved! And others :) Greg 22:56, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Let me suggest a simpler first step. Would people be willing to move the move "Presuppositional Beliefs" to be after "Foundational Assumptions". And then rename "Fundamentals" to "NLP Patterns" (or similar) and move the "Common NLP patterns/rituals" to be part of this section (so we have one section on patterns).

(guys - current suggestion is here: original/change this)
ie: From:
1 Overview
1.1 Foundational assumptions
1.2 Theory
1.2.1 Meaning of "Neuro"
1.2.2 Brain lateralization
1.3 Common NLP patterns/rituals
1.4 Modeling
2 Fundamentals
2.1 Presuppositional beliefs
2.2 B.A.G.E.L. Model
2.3 Eye accessing cues, body cues, and NLP representational systems
2.4 Meta model and Milton model
2.4.1 NLP Models
2.4.2 New Age
2.4.3 Alternate brands

(suggested change)
To:
1 Overview
1.1 Foundational assumptions
2.1 Presuppositional beliefs
1.2 Theory
1.2.1 Meaning of "Neuro"
1.2.2 Brain lateralization
1.4 Modeling
2 NLP Patterns/Rituals
2.2 B.A.G.E.L. Model
2.3 Eye accessing cues, body cues, and NLP representational systems
2.4 Meta model and Milton model
1.3 Other Common NLP patterns/rituals
2.4.1 NLP Models
2.4 New Age
2.4 Alternate brands
(and that's it... simple first step)

Trying to keep this simple - and I imagine there is much debate on any change to science or criticisms, but possibly less here. Greg 23:17, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

1 Overview
1.1 Foundational assumptions
2.1 Presuppositional beliefsmerge with Foundational assumptions
1.2 Theorymerge with Foundational assumptions
1.2.1 Meaning of "Neuro"merge with Foundational assumptions
1.2.2 Brain lateralizationmerge with Foundational assumptions
1.4 Modeling
2 NLP Patterns/Rituals/Techniques
2.2 B.A.G.E.L. Modelreplaced by below
2.3 Eye accessing cues, body cues, and NLP representational systemsRepresentational systems and accessing cues
2.4 Meta model and milton modelmerge into Common patterns
1.3 Other Common NLP techniques/patterns/rituals
2.4.1 NLP Modelsmerge with Common NLP patterns
add: Applications
add: 2.4 New Age
add: 2.4 Therapy
add: List most common applications: sales training, management training, motivation training, etc.
2.4 Alternate brandsCan we drop this section?

---=-C-=- 00:12, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Hello Comaze and GregA. You want to drop things, shift and merge, but you don't give reasoning rationale. You must say why in each example for so much changes. I do not agree with any your suggestions. If you say why you want to change article structure or drop so much, then we know what you are trying to do. HansAntel 00:54, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Would you like to get a third party comment on the most effective way to structure the document? You (HeadleyDown, etc.) could submit your preferred structure and the third party could decide which one is more appropriate. ---=-C-=- 01:15, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Comaze, I believe you need to explain yourself. Give a reason for each of your suggested changes. We cannot discuss if you give no reason why you want to make each of the changes. Bookmain 01:43, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

GregA and Comaze. There is absolutely no need to alter the structure of the article. Camridge 05:44, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Hans, Bookmain - since I brought this up, not comaze, perhaps you could also respond to me. You have both said to give a reason for the suggested changes and I have, perhaps you need to reread my original list of points (simply go to the top of this section, and there they are, all in point form). Camridge - several sections repeat themselves.
The current structure is very hard to follow. I believe that some people would rather have a disjointed message of what NLP is - however that works against all our goals of making the article useful, doesn't it? Greg 08:37, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm working on a much simpler version of the article. Here is the outline:

  1. 1 Assumptions
  2. 2 Modeling
  3. 3 Techniques
  4. 4 Background
  • Splintered
  1. 5 Applications
  2. 6 Perspectives
  • Scientific
  • Sociological
  • Research
  1. 9 Criticism
  2. 10 See also
  3. 11 Notes and references

---=-C-=- 11:21, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay, let me summarise the feedback to the restructure:
  • Headley: " I do not agree with any part of your suggestion so far. This is a huge amount to discuss. " HeadleyDown 16:05, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comaze: Extensive comments including alternatives. Includes merging and moving.
  • HansAntel: "Hello Comaze and GregA. You want to drop things, shift and merge, but you don't give reasoning rationale. You must say why in each example for so much changes. I do not agree with any your suggestions. If you say why you want to change article structure or drop so much, then we know what you are trying to do." HansAntel 00:54, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Camridge: "There is absolutely no need to alter the structure of the article. " Camridge 05:44, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Bookmain (no comment to me) -" Comaze, I believe you need to explain yourself."
Thank you all.
Headley, could you please supply some specific objections.
Comaze - there's some negative feedback to merging from the others- would you be willing to work with simply MOVING things for now without any merging, alteration, addition, or deletion? That can be discussed separately. If so, maybe we can work on a good structure
Hans - I've replied to you already with no further comment from you: I don't want to drop or merge anything, and I do give my "reasoning rationale".
Camridge - I see you don't see a need to restructure - it's fine that you are happy with the structure as is. Do you have any objections to my suggestions, or better ways of answering what I'm wanting to achieve?
Thanks again all. Greg 11:58, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Hello GregA. I object to all of your changes specifically because you have not given clear or convincing reasons why you want to make the changes. Please supply such reasoning or accept the fact that the structure is acceptable. HeadleyDown 12:45, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Copied from above:

  • The "Presuppositions" listed seem to me to be very close to "foundational assumptions".

(ie.. lets move presuppositions to follow foundational assumptions.

  • The "Common NLP patterns" could be a section on its own. It would combine the Rep Systems info, Meta Model, Milton Model, and OTHERS (others coming from the list currently in "Common NLP patterns/rituals").

(ie Lets put all the NLP patterns together in one section)

  • Representation systems is an umbrella term for a few NLP concepts - including eye accessing cues and verbal predicates - and should be presented that way. ALso BAGEL is an acronym for remembering cues for which rep system is being used - so it should be a subsection of "Representation systems" along with Eye Access cues, Preferred Rep System, etc.
  • The links to developers and external links could both fall under "See also"

Does this help? Greg 12:55, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

No a cut and paste is not acceptable. Please explain in detail why you and Comaze want to make these changes. HeadleyDown 18:18, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Bloody hell, I'm addressing your claimed issue and you've shown no indication of having read those points before now. I would think they were pretty easy to understand.

Okay I'll pick "Common NLP Patterns". NLP has patterns/processes/techniques/(whatever you want to call them) which are used to help a person change. These techniques are well known and we show most of them in this article - meta model, milton model, representation systems, 6-step reframe, parts negotiation, swish, neurological levels, SCORE model, reimprinting, personal edit, submodalities, etc. At the moment we have a brief summary as part of "Overview", and then we have more info in "Fundamentals" - I suggest we place these techniques all in one section.

We also have 2 problems with the existing structure in this area - firstly we've argued whether the 2-line summary should show the 2 main NLP models when later those models are described in several paragraphs, and this is solved by my above suggestion simply describing the main 2 models followed by a section on other techniques which has 2-line descriptions of any other processes. The other problem is that the 3 subsections of "metamodel" aren't related to meta-model. These need to find a new home.

Please respond. Greg 22:45, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Hello GregA. I read your suggestion, twice. You havn't explained why you want them all in one section. Plus, 6 step reframe and parts negotiation are not on the article at all. I object to your suggestion see no reason at all for doing what what you suggest. Please explain in more detail and give your reasoning. HeadleyDown 01:59, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think you've actually read my proposed sections, since this is pretty simple once you have. It seems you think I want to merge things. We already have a section for meta model, a section for rep systems, and a section summarising multiple other NLP techniques. I am proposing keeping those sections as they are - but putting them under one major heading instead of spread around. Your average reader, when they want to know about NLP techniques, would benefit from having them in one section. Additionally, many people think NLP is only those techniques... so putting them together is useful for that, while at the same time separating NLP and it's techniques.

Once more... I see you're not objecting based on anything wrong, but merely because you don't see the benefit yourself. If there's no disadvantage, and I see the advantage - can we move forward Greg 03:06, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Well GregA. You are seeing me wrong. Please do not reframe my questions to mean something else. I object to your suggestions because they are wrong and do nothing for the article. There is no benefit whatsoever. You still have not explained in detail why you want to make all the specific changes you want. There is no way you can convince people if you do not give reasons why. Please explain why you want to make these particular changes. HeadleyDown 03:54, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Headley, as I said above - I am only describing one part of the change here first. OF COURSE I haven't explained in detail all of them. Now, you say that simply grouping all the NLP techniques, still in their subsections, into an NLP techniques section " is something you object to "because they are wrong and do nothing for the article". What on earth is WRONG with putting them in one section? You are merely avoiding saying anything. Greg 09:21, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unnecessary restructuring. Use concrete terms from the literature for readability

There is a more pressing matter however. It is very clear that there is no concrete introduction for the reader. The first line is fine, but then it goes into really abstract NLP jargon, then (necessary) theory, and then criticism in the opening. As mentioned above, the opening sorely needs something such as:

NLP methods include the use of guided fantasy, visualizations, affirmations, ritual enactments, hypnosis, altered states of mind, and body language such as posture and eye movements.

This could go straight after the first line in the opening and will properly orientate the reader with a set of concrete activities that go on in NLP methods. This can be expanded in the overview, and concrete terms can be added to the rather woolly jargon of NLP throughout. Camridge 05:44, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

That line is misleading, pure and simple. Rituals? Guided fantasy? If you can not represent NLP for what it is, and THEN show the scientific response - it's a weak article. You should be able to clearly criticise NLP without misrepresenting it, there are many fair criticisms. Greg 08:37, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Body language? That is not NLP. ---=-C-=- 09:18, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Hello Comaze. You state that body language is not NLP! Well what about what the literature actually says [53]. Camridge 09:48, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
The source you provide does not support your claim. ---=-C-=- 10:02, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Well actually, Comaze, Camridge's claim is supported. The article supports the fact that NLP makes use of body language. It is just another one of those undeniable facts. Just a brief glance at the literature says NLP methods use body language. e.g. Principles of NLP Oconnor and McDermot page 10. They say that in NLP they use body language and voice tone. In Sue Knight's NLP at Work she talks of the importance of body language. Its all there in the literature. And there's lots of it. Regards HeadleyDown 11:53, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
The typical way some people attempt to assign meaning to body languge is also criticised by especially Bandler and Grinder. For example, see p.53 of Frogs into Princes (1979). This is a more reputable/reliable source than the sources you/Camridge relied on. Jules is also criticising the typical use of the term body language in the source that Camridge supplied. Do these authors meet wikipedia's minimum standards for sources? ---=-C-=- 13:02, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
These are not scientific responses and they are certainly not critical. They come from NLP texts. NLP involves visualizations, guided fantasy, affirmations, ritual enactments, hypnosis, trance states, and body language. NLP books are full of these activities. It is a correct, accurate, clear, concrete sentence that helps the reader, and it is derived from NLP texts. Camridge 09:41, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Yes I agree these simple terms are going to be very helpful to the reader and they are most certainly undeniably in NLP texts. I'll put them in. If you want, we can also add citations here, but I see no reason to clutter the article up with them. Bookmain 09:44, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Adding Sala et al 1999

I propose adding Sala et al 1999 p41 to the theory section just before the Dilts quote:

---NLP adherants base NLP on neurology, linguistics and neurolinguistics. ----

Bookmain 04:17, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Please provide more details, in particular a full title.
As noted above, we already have 100 or so references listed in the article, and I would want to strong arguments why this source is needed in preference to the existing references. This should include evidence of its relevance, reliability, reputation, and accessibility for fact checking. There should also be evidence that the source provides strong support for whatever assertion it is used to support in the article. Enchanter 07:36, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Hi Enchanter. Actually Sala et al is a great book on mind myths, and will be useful for anyone interested in science and misconceptions. Its recommended for journalists, undergrads, and people in general (its very nicely written). There are two chapters that involve NLP (the occult 1% human potential chapter, and the left/right brain chapter). It was in the article before (though someone snipped it out at some point), and is certainly a choice text. I believe there are others that are way down on the list. I'll put together a set of likely removals soon. Thanks for clearing up the Singer ref in the article. ATB Camridge 08:00, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi again Enchanter. The source is Mind Myths, exploring popular assumptions about the mind and brian. By Sala 1999. Pub- John Wiley and Sons ATB. Camridge 06:28, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Enchanter 18:32, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

OK no objections. I put it in the article. HansAntel 02:47, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Observations on sourcing (continued)

  • At various times various statements have been given in the article with the reference to "Alder H. (1994) The Right Brain Manager: How to Use the Power of Your Mind to Achieve Personal and Professional Success (Piatkus Books)"
This book barely mentions NLP at all, and does not describe itself as a book about NLP. Some ideas in it are clearly borrowed from NLP, but this is mixed in with other ideas and the author's own views. I don't think this is a particularly relevant reference, and would suggest it is removed from the article. Enchanter 19:40, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Hello Enchanter. Alder is an NLP expert and his books have been quoted by scientists as an example of NLP literature. I know NLP lit is a bit obscure, but lets face it, its a pretty obscure fringe development anyway. Bookmain 01:57, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Hmmm. Who says Alder is an NLP expert, if I may ask? Greg 13:01, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Whether or not Alder is an NLP expert is not really the issue with this particular source; the point is that the book does not itself claim to to be about NLP or mention NLP significantly. So it is simply not a particularly relevant source for an article on NLP, whatever the background of the author. I believe Adler has also authored books which do specifically cover NLP, such as "Learn NLP in 21 days". Enchanter 18:12, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
I think you are correct Enchanter. Alder has other book more worthy of the quotes that are in article. EG, NLP, art and science of getting what you want. I'll check it. HansAntel 02:46, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New section (sociological perspectives)

Let's create a section for the various sociology perspectives on NLP

Professor Stephen J Hunt, who writes about Christian perspectives on in sociology, characterizes [22] NLP as a development with implied religiosity in the healing/self-development field and states that NLP is “an alternative to Scientology". Hunt (2003 p195) states “While not an alternative religion per se” NLP can be seen as “similar to new religions of eastern origin that trace themselves back through a progression of gurus, and to esoteric movements claiming the authority of authenticity through their descent from previous movements"

Hunt is an example of the Christian sociological perspectives. We need to check the references including Hunt to see if they passes the minimum standards on wikipedia ---=-C-=- 10:13, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Hunt is a research Dr. of sociology in the UK and a lecturer. That's his title. He's well published. He and other similar independent peer-review published researchers of sociology, history, or anthropology are ideal for giving an overview of NLP. So lets keep him in the overview. Regards HeadleyDown 12:03, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Are we talking about the same person? Stephen J Hunt [54] ? Given that if he has reviewed the literature on NLP, his worked has not been published in a reputable journal, so it really does not give him much weight. Certainly not enough to be included in the overview. Why not stick to source that have been well-cited in the peer-reviewed literature? ---=-C-=- 13:09, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Sorry Comaze. According to his cv, Hunt has published over 100 journal papers and over 50 national and international conference papers on the subject of the Sociology of Religion in the area of New Religious Movements and in the area of Christianity. His book is eminently quotable. HeadleyDown 14:44, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

The claims in the overview are correctly attributed to Hunt, and Hunt is a reputable author. However, the claims in the overview are not given their proper context.

Hunt's book, "Alternative religions: A Sociological Introduction", gives an overview of a broad range of beliefs in the modern world from a religious perspective. The definition of religions and quasi-religion is very broad, ranging from mainstream religions and cults through pseudoscientific beliefs such as astrology and tarot cards, to dieting fads, rock stars and TV shows.

Hunt draws parallels between NLP and religion, for example stating it has an "implied religiousity". However, this should be understood in the context that drawing parallels between various ideas and religion is the whole point of the book. For example, dieting fads are also described as having "implied religiosity". TV shows such as Friends and Star Trek are described as having "become something of a cult, with almost divine status being given to their leading actors".

In this context, the Hunt reference does not appear to directly support the view that the religious aspects of NLP are an important aspect of NLP, and do not provide justification for the prominent placement in the overview. I therefore support moving this material to a separate section of the article on sociological views on NLP, where Hunt's views can be placed in context.

I would suggest one good way of selecting material for the overview would be to assemble a small, representative selection of good quality sources which themselves attempt to give an overview of NLP, including sources both critical of and sympathetic to NLP, and writing an overview based on what those sources say.

Enchanter 21:19, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

On a side note, another sociologist, Dr. David Barrett (PhD in Sociology) tends to agree with Stephen J Hunt.

  • "In this book, for example, Neuro-linguistic Programming is included, but not as a religion; it is described as a technique, or a series of techniques, or a process. It is used by some religions, and NLP as a philoshopy does exhibit some characteristics which are sometimes found in some religions, but overall the balance comes down against it being labelled as a religion" (Barrett p.26) --'c' 00:22, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  • "NLP is an approach rather than an organization; it is used by several different human potential mvements."(Barrett p.431) --'c' 00:22, 8 March 2006 (UTC) Ref: New Believers, David V. Barrett ---=-C-=- 13:37, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I provided a some quotes from from authors in a variety of fields (psychology, sociology, social science, cybernetics): [55]. These sources were more to confirm the influences of NLP and are not necessarily cited in the peer-reviewed research. They appear to be of similiar standard to Hunt. ---=-C-=- 00:04, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Hello Comaze. I suggest Barrett be placed with Hunt within the overview. Barrett is also a clarifying source. There are others we can add also. For example, Winkin also states that NLP is like a religion. Nobody states that NLP is a religion per se. But clearly there is a lot of religiosity and spirituality going on there. Regards HeadleyDown 02:24, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Oh! But there is other views that NLP is a religion (not organized one). They are not sociologists. So sociology section is wrong. Just keep in overview. It helps the reader. HansAntel 03:19, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
I agree Comaze. At least we can place the Barret line in the article. Bookmain 05:35, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Bookmain, the way you have quoted Barrett is misguided. The way you've inserted it pushes a particular POV. Please check that your posts for NPOV before posting. ---=-C-=- 00:40, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] General Comments from an NLP Practitioner and Psy student

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

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

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

Hi Whas. I'll do my best to answer your points. This is interesting and warrents further mention. Theta is associated with trance in NLP. Dilts sells emeters in order to promote the more psychotechnological aspects of this. Camridge 04:41, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Forget about Dilts and the E-meter, he is just one guy; also, I thought there was a question about whether it was simply EEG-type stuff, which is after all what all researchers use to detect brain wave patterns. THE POINT IS that you can find these terms in any DSM-IV TR related textbook when discussing sleep disorders/sleep patterns. Theta waves are related to REM sleep, and since trance/hypnosis is NOT sleep, it might be at best the upper ranges of Theta (full range 3-7cps), so 6-7cps that might be associated with deep trance states; mostly its waves in the 8-12cps "drowsy" range that are thought to comprise trance phenomena.
I would also like to make a general point here about the "healing" term (physical) brought up in the 1st paragraph: Most often these claims refer to phenomena of hypnosis/hypnotherapy that are related to psychosomatic linkages. Discussion of these types of issues should be relegated to the hypnosis/hypnotherapy pages. Clinical hypnosis was allowed by the AMA as a valid treatment modality in 1958, long before B&G picked up on certain concepts from hypnotherapy via Erickson.

--Whas 18:39, 13 May 2006 (UTC)


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

Yes, there is nothing wrong with mentioning clearing mental blocks. Its all quite clear concrete language and useful for the reader. There are books on increasing spiritual developent and wisdom using NLP and the enneagram and these can be mentioned. Camridge 04:41, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Also note that the of importance "body language cues" that are supposedly linked to "New Age believers" are pervasive in the study of psychology and human behavior, e.g. very notably in developmental psychology, where any introductory class will mention the concepts of synchrony, attachment, and social referencing between infant and care-givers, in essence the body-language-based wiring up of the paleo-mammalian portion of the triune brain. The counseling skills textbook we used introduced rapport and mirroring as fundamental skills for any counselor regardless of theoretical orientation. (A note on the APA debate that was started here somewhere: It is extremely funny to hear the APA attacked for being too NLP friendly, when I thought Bandler's wild man behavior toward the APA - at conferences and the like - lead to NLP being progressively shunned by the mainstream therapeutic community; if somebody wants to make a general claim or statement about psychologists or psychotherapy - and many psychiatrists do this BTW - why on the NLP page? Has anyone noticed that the NLP article is already multiple times the length of most psych entries? I wonder how that could happen... )

Oh body language isn't exclusively a New Age thing. I believe thats clear in the article. Camridge 04:41, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
No, it isn't. Due to the poor style of the 3rd paragraph ("NLP is based ON... beliefs IN..., AND body language cues..."; is it "and IN body language" or "and ON body language"??), body language as a concept is linked ambiguously to "New Age". If it isn't exclusively a New Age "thing", and if there are acceptable uses of the term in psychotherapy (which there are, as pointed out above), then the linkage with New Age is arbitrary at best, and derogatory at worst; BTW, the proper term used in NLP is "non-verbal behavior", which includes facial expression, gesture, posture, breathing patterns, as well the more subtle elements such as skin color and skin tonus, which are linked to sympathetic vs. parasympathetic ANS responses; these are all considered to be largely out of awareness/unconscious, e.g. ask yourself how consciously you gesture, etc.)

--Whas 18:39, 13 May 2006 (UTC)


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

Yes I agree. We should stick strictly to what is in the literature. Compromising on matters of fact and stated view is not acceptable. Camridge 04:41, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

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

OK, I may make a criticism section on the cognitive psychology, and the clinical psychology articles. Camridge 04:41, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

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

Thats an interesting observation. Would you say the supported theory of cog therapy is thinner than the unsupported theories of NLP? Camridge 04:41, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Also note that the NLP Meta Model contains many of the same patterns as CT's "cognitive distortion categories" or Adler's "Basic Mistakes", etc.; again, only that it is more systematic about identifying, categorizing, and linking to theoretical constructs.

Sure, I agree. It fits better with the scientific method, empiricism and objective research. Camridge 04:41, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

d) Note also that there are deep philosophical issues in regard to science, scientific verifiability, and measurement (in an age of quantum mechanics and Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle), post-positivism vs. social constructionism (e.g. in the debate over quantitative vs. qualitative research), that are all worthy of debate but do not all have to be dealt with on the NLP page.

Another brief issue I would like to point out is the idea that ANY form of interactive "talk-therapy" regardless of theoretical orientation cannot be tested in a true double-blind study, because the interaction between therapist and client (subject) cannot be free of the therapist's own beliefs about the efficacy of the therapy, and may thus be subject to subliminal "transmission" to the client's state of mind, creating possible "placebo effects" (this idea of possible transmission, however accomplished, is admitted by the research community by the very existence of the double-blind requirement, e.g. in the case of a new drug, the administering doctor or staff is not allowed to know whether they are administering the real treatment or the placebo, whether the subject before them is of the control group or not, etc.; the therapist in our example will have some internal opinion about what she is doing). If your client has any notion or hint that you feel you don't know what you are talking about (e.g. reading from a novel/strange or even placebo treatment script), that you have doubts about what you are doing, the "treatment" will be influenced and likely fail. BTW, NLP could use its pragmatic theory of the unconscious mind to explain the placebo effect, an effect which is otherwise ill understood (reference the Wikipedia page on placebo) yet of course acknowledged by virtue of the double-blind requirement. More later.

NLP has been measured because it's processes are clearly stated and measurable (eg, the 5 minute phobia cure). Camridge 04:41, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

Sure, any views on the occult sides to NLP are being added after discussion. Camridge 04:41, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

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

--Whas 11:55, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Are you saying you want NLP to have its say in full first, and then let science clarify it's pronouncements? I believe that will lead to a very unclear article. ATB Camridge 04:41, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
I have looked at almost every WP psychotherapy page, and not one of them is held in the "rant"/"assassination" style of this NLP page; there are many possible criticisms of Gestalt Therapy, Narrative Therapy, Psychoanalysis, Behavioral Therapy, etc. yet, if they are made note of, they are all held in a civil tone and laid out methodically, i.e. no mix of concepts introduced with criticism in the same paragraph, no subversive language patterns to link to emotionally laden terms, etc. It is simply a shame that under a heading termed "Overview" there is NOTHING BUT two paragraphs of spurious linking of NLP to relgion and Dianetics (by a socialogist no less) and the "New Age".
BTW, since when is it in any style manual - APA or otherwise - to refer to somebody as "Professor soandso"? It is a prestige suggestion that is avoided in research papers for a reason. The standard usage is to simply reference last names in the text. Tellingly, you are not also calling Grinder "Professor" and the like, even though he is a professor of linguistics.

--Whas 18:39, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Hello Whas. I see you are a newbie to Wikipedia. Welcome. Thanks for your opinion. We are working towards clearing up the article at the moment. We need to check out the various views on NLP and attribute them correctly according to NPOV policy. So any assistance will be very helpful. Regarding criticism and non-criticism. Its not conducive for NPOV to be too strict about that, so it is reasonable to see both criticism and non criticism in both areas. Regards HeadleyDown 12:09, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
I agree, I'm working on a rewrite of the entire document that relies entirely on works cited in peer-reviewed psychological and experimental literature. Are you able to assist? It would be useful to have some more experts involved. ---=-C-=- 13:11, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Of course I can, Comaze. HeadleyDown 14:31, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Hello HeadleyDown. So that's it, no debate whatsoever about a single point I have made? I see you are a master of NLP patterns and other assorted techniques of influencing. You are right, I am a newbie to Wikipedia (complex equivalence), good job for catching that and using it as a tool for detracting from anything I said above. Ditto on the "your opinion" (nominalization). Yes, these things are my opinions, and anything else in world is somebody's opinion, "their beliefs and rituals".
"It's not conducive..." and "... it is reasonable" (both are lost performatives); "... to be too strict about that..." (comparative deletion, deleted referential index)
Peer review BTW simply means that there is a GROUP of people holding an opinion. Communism was internally peer reviewed as well... see how nice it is when you direct the tone of "discussion" with emotionally laden terms like "the occult", "new age", or mostly unrelated yet scary sounding terms like "engram", "enneagram", "dianetics", etc.; BTW some of the engram links seem to point to "Neural Networks" right now; also I find it telling that the references to engram are all either non-English, missing, or not from the core NLP literature; the engram concept, by its association with dianetics, is loaded regardless of its theoretical merits as discussed in the Wikipedia Engram (neuropsychology) entry;
it would appear reasonable to propose that any contested technical terms being ascribed to NLP be identified in a core NLP work, not in a work that talks about NLP; Derks & Goldblatt can hardly be classified as a core NLP work; I have noticed with some satisfaction that the link between Virginia Satir and "Enneagram" has been taken out, maybe we could do the same for the other "scare words" as well.


Regarding the Hunt debate above: “While not an alternative religion per se” NLP can be seen as “similar to new religions of eastern origin that trace themselves back through a progression of gurus, and to esoteric movements claiming the authority of authenticity through their descent from previous movements"
a) anything CAN be seen as anything else if you try hard enough
b) "eastern origin" is unrelated and another example of the above mentioned scare tactic; ditto for "new religions"... it so happens that most Eastern religions are actually quite old, HadleyDown of all people, as a self-professed student of Chi Gong, the ancient Chinese practice of a set of "rituals and beliefs" regarding so-called "energy work", should be aware of this;
c) ditto for "gurus"; if you want to hang yourself up on the frequent use of "therapeutc wizards", "magic", and the like in B&G, The Structure of Magic Vol I&II, realize that it is just a metaphor (I never liked the magician metaphor that much); if you read even just the first 30-40 pages of Vol I, you will realize that it is about as far from Eastern thought as you can get; the later styling of Bandler in particular of himself as a guru of the movement has more to do with personality issues than anything inherent in core NLP; note also that you can use the second portion of the Hunt quote to describe the progression of just about any human endeavor: positivism claims its legitimacy from Cartesion Dualism and Newtonian materialism (their "gurus" and their lineage), behaviorism by referring to positivism, behavioral therapy (of which NLP contains many common elements) by referring to behaviorism, EMDR by referring to behavioral therapy, etc.


So Comaze, were you addressing me or did HadleyDown just feel referenced?
--Whas 21:20, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Greetings Whas. I don't believe the researchers in question are using the terms "eastern religion" as a scare tactic. In fact if you are from the east it will be quite a neutral statement. Being of the Chinese culture myself, I understand that some do use pseudoscientific ideas in some approaches to Qigong, though I don't agree at all with them. I would advise against the use of demons, demon states, archetypes, breathing patterns, and the adoption of "ungrounding" beliefs. Those have been found (by Chinese researchers) to be potentially harmful. I don't mind presenting those kind of things clearly in the article though. Regards HeadleyDown 11:46, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Hi again Whas. Yes the engram term is interesting. It is mostly a non anglo-american view. We cannot dismiss it on those grounds according to NPOV policy. Also, there are many scientists that have said NLP proponents behave the same way as Scientologists, and that they are part of the same movement. This includes the use of scientific sounding titles (NLP) that scientists consider fake, the inability to face scientific reviews, the dismissal of scientific method, and so on. Of course they also state that Scientologists and NLPers will try to cover up, whitewash, or immunize their methods from testing, or even censor facts about themselves (Beyerstein, Singer, and others). In relation to your "nlp is not powerful but used in cults?", well we've been through that before also. Some cults employ drinking urine to increase in-group thinking behaviour. NLP is used in cults as a set of concepts and beliefs that reduce resistance (eg the concept that there is no objective reality). In fact the postmodern shared reality idea is very often used to reduce resistance and build group pressure for compliance. But NLP generally falls into the bracket of "daft and dangerous", (Parker) rather than dangerous for any particular inherant power. Again this holds in the seduction and sales setting. Of course it may work, but only as far as anyone can encourage an insecure teen to become someone who learns how to persistently sexually harrass a quarry. Concerning magic, well, again NLP and Scientology are both built on occult notions, especially relating to hypnosis and the 5 senses of the pentagram or the 3 senses of Vedic, Egyptian, and middle eastern magic. Grinder and Bandler both use shamanic methods in their seminars and teachings, as do many others. Anyway, this is mainly a recap of what we has been explained in the archives. Feel free to check it out. Right now its probably more important to work on the additions/clarifications to the article though. Thanks for sharing your views. Camridge 09:31, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
I don't have time to address all your points. But picked on the fact that you are both an NLP practitioner and a psychology student which will assist us in checking the facts and references. I'd prefer to drop most of the low quality sources and I thought a quick test would be to only use those sources cited in the peer-reviewed lit. This would be an objective test. Some from both detractors and those sympathetic to NLP would be dropped, but the core works like Structure I and Frogs would remain would remain. Do you have access to psychinfo or psychlit database? I can certainly provide you with some quotes and summaries. ---=-C-=- 00:13, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Hello Whas. Sorry if I seem dismissive. Your questions are quite many and they have all been dealt with before in the archives several times over. I'm not suggesting you delve through the archives yourself. But please be patient in waiting for answers. Regards HeadleyDown 02:28, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Whas, regarding energy, yes it is just a metaphor, but it considered not to be useful in discussion of thinking and behaviour by atleast one of the co-founders of the field (Grinder & Delozier 1986). Some New Agers, Jung, and Freud assign all sorts of uncritical meaning to energy. Bateson (1973, 1979) also reject its usefulness in this kind of discussion, given its uncritical use. I think you'd agree that if we're going to include some of these New Age ideas about energy, we'd need to include criticism of them. ---=-C-=- 04:33, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Grinder's POV on energy (from archives)
  • "quite intolerant of the fuzzy kind of thinking characteristic of the uncritical importation into discussions of mind of the physical phenomenon of energy" ... "If I specify for you the starting position, velocity, mass, and angle and point of contact of my foot and my dog, Spirit, you will not being able to predict much. " ... "To distinguish this non-conservative interaction - the typical one in living systems - from its counterpart in the physical word, Bateson referred to this as collateral energy." ... "Or again, his brilliant insight that both Darwin and Lamark were correct -- Darwin's evolutionary contracts fit adequately the presently known world of biological forms and Lamark's evolutionary constructs are the drivers in the cultural world of ideas -- is another examples of his steadfast insistence that different patterns are operating in the physical world and the world of mind." (p.xvi Turtles, Grinder & Delozier, 1986)
  • There are neurological limits to our sensory aparatus (that is, we can only sense certain range of frequencies of light, and sound). (Grinder & Bandler 1975; Grinder & Delozier 1986; Grinder & Bostic St Clair 2001) ---=-C-=- 05:33, 5 April 2006 (UTC) ---=-C-=- 04:28, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Yes Comaze. NLP use the energy term much in the same way as Scientology [56]. Camridge 09:14, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Camridge, Your source does not support your assertion. ---=-C-=- 12:10, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Hello Whas. I understand some quotes may accuse. That is their view. All the NLP developers make big claims but never deliver the promise (from the research). I also am qualified in NLP. From a top "school". But I am not suffering from confirmation bias. I find it works not better than just waiting around. But my view is not important for articles. The important one is the view of scientists and others who researched NLP. NPOV policy says they should be read in the article. We make a article according to NPOV policy. Wikipedia prefers scientific method and beliefs reality is not just opinion of a group. Its objective. Sorry. HansAntel 03:17, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Hans - NPOV specifically advocates clearly representing what a group believes, whether or not it is scientifically accepted. It also advocates showing multiple viewpoints if, for instance, there are contradictions in certain scientific viewpoints.

Camridge said:

  • "Are you saying you want NLP to have its say in full first, and then let science clarify it's pronouncements?"Camridge 04:41, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I think that would be incredibly useful. There was once some broad agreement on that (november-ish?).

Let's not presume that science can clarify what an NLP book means when it says something... that would be arrogance. If we can't find a major NLP source to support an assertion, I think that's pretty poor. (Oh, certainly NLP concepts can be scientifically tested - though there are limitations similar to those found with psychotherapeutic experiments).

Whas, welcome :) Thanks for the above post. I'm very interested in your work on how NLP (applied to therapy) compares to psychotherapies. I'm using NLP in this manner myself. I'm particularly interested when 2 theories seem almost identical, to find out if they are identical, or if they share the same pattern, or if there's something that one offers that the other misses. Anyway - that's for personal discussion, feel free to say hello via my talk page. Greg 13:32, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Psychotherapy, coaching are applications of NLP. More generally it is also a model for communications and change; therapy is one example of the applications of those models. The article current pushes "NLP is a form of therapy" giving one POV too much weight. The application of NLP to management training, learning, education are given little weight in the current article. I've mentioned this before, but I think the criticism of specific applications should be contained to those specific areas. ---=-C-=- 02:41, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mess of citations.

There is no need for every sentence to have umpteen citations within it. All it does is make the article a devil to edit and hideous to look at. I'm trying to consolidate them down but it is nightmarish trying without losing important links and maintaining WP:V so there will be a fair bit of to-ing and fro-ing. Just an FYI so people know what's going on. Jefffire 15:01, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your help Jefffire. If you have deleted anything of importance, we can replace it using your consolidation approach. Regards HeadleyDown 02:30, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Yep, well done Jefffire. I'll have a go at attributing according to your style. I quite like it and it looks to be correct. ATB Camridge 04:50, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Mmm, its actually harder work than I though, and I was never much of a programer. Still, I think its worthwhile persisting with. ATB Camridge 06:41, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I found that out too after the first three edits. I think it was probably for the best I took a break. I'll be back later though. Jefffire 09:52, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Jefffire, I hope this is acceptable. I tagged some lines that are disputed. May I suggest you do the same, while you're checking the references. I've found that the references are easier to read if the are separated onto different lines. I'll leave it to you. I just fixed up some messed up references. ---=-C-=- 13:16, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Lord, I hadn't even considered that some of the references might be bad, I was just trying to cut them down and put them in the proper place. That's another thing needing done now! :( Jefffire 20:00, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
What do you think we need to do to prepare this article for another attempt at peer-review? I had a comment from an experiences wikipedian that this would bring in lots of advice from other editors. ---=-C-=- 00:51, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed change (common patterns/rituals)

Text to replace entire section
  • Meta model (NLP): Questions and challenges designed to gather specific information. [23]
  • Representational systems: In this model, human thinking can be reduced to ordered sequences of Visual, Auditory and Kinesthetic representations. Also, a person's choice of words, use of gestures, eye movements and other subtle changes reveal information about people organise their thinking [28]
  • Milton model Artfully vague language that is considered to be the inverse of the meta model [40]
  • Anchoring: Resourceful states from the past are recalled and a bridge is created for those resource to be available in future contexts [28]
  • Perceptual positions: A situation is considered from different points of view or different descriptions are created of the same event. Typically a situation is considered from the perspective of self, other and a neutral observer [29] [30].
  • Logical levels / logical types: Ordering information into different by type. [30].
  • Visual / kinesthetic dissociation: A process to reduce the negative feeling associated to a memory [28][41]
  • Rapport: Mirroring or matching somebody's verbal (for example, sensory predicates) and non-verbal behavior (gestures, movements, eye movements) in an attempt to gain their willing unconscious attention [22]
  • Submodalities: Deliberately changing the size, brightness, movement of internal images in an attempt to alter the impact of those images [27] [42]
Reason for change

This is just a clean-up. It remove alot of the POV about chakras, etc. And removes specific examples of patterns eg. Swish is an example of Submodalities change work, so I remove the swish. All items have been linked to their subpages. Also, removed circles of excellecne and replaced with anchoring which is gain, more general. ---=-C-=- 03:11, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Hello Comaze. Your suggestions are unacceptable and go against NPOV policy. Firstly you are narrowing the view by wanting to remove chakras. You would be restricting the section to a particular narrow view of NLP. You have also made the writing less concrete and more confusing to the reader. It is unacceptable. Restricting the view to a single sanitised version is wrong and against NPOV policy. This anti-NPOV activity (restricting the viewpoints to Anglo-american or to sanitized NLP) is unconstructive. I have some more Indian and occult views on NLP and they will be added. They represent the broader view and will be a useful set of concrete terms to help the reader. HeadleyDown 04:00, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
HeadleyDown, You appear to be pushing a narror POV while claiming NPOV. I don't follow your argument. ---=-C-=- 04:07, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Removing views on chakras is narrowing the view. It also removes a concrete explanation or example of the body/mind interaction in NLP. I wish to keep the views open and broad. HeadleyDown 04:12, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
I've made the change so you can compare it, see the diffs. Notice that it removes POV, by making it more general. ---=-C-=- 04:14, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
I disagree entirely, Comaze. I would prefer it if you gave us a chance to disagree on the talk page before imposing your undiscussed changes on the article. Now the section is in serious need of clarity. You have removed a great deal of clarifying comments, and narrowed the views to the more vague. Readers will not understand what it is about. It will just have to be clarified in other ways. HeadleyDown 09:44, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Undiscussed disputed tags

Hello Comaze. You have been adding disputed tags without discussing. There are 26 of them on the article. I believe in each case there is no grounds for a dispute because all of the facts are in the literature. A reader will see the disputed tags, then go to the discussion and see that there is nothing to dispute - the facts are in the literature. Also, most of these facts are not even being discussed in the discussion. So adding a disputed tag is wrong. Please remove them all and start again by discussing the points that are being ignored, and by requesting for disputed tags to be placed only if there is a dispute that involves a line that is not written in the literature. HeadleyDown 04:12, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

The tags are there so we can discuss them. These have been disputed many times and have not been resolved. The disputes are mostly around POV pushing. If you support the disputes lines, then feel free to move them to the discussion so that that we can move forward on this. These will need to be addressed before we can submit for another peer review. Also, we should be looking at removing alot of the poor quality sources and insigificant view that you seem to be supporting. ---=-C-=- 04:20, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Would you prefer that the disputed assertions be move here for discussion. I don't think that this will work based on its failure in the past. Do you think that this will work moving forward? ---=-C-=- 04:44, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

No Comaze. Of course your suggestion to move over 26 points to the talk page will lead to nothing but disruption, and will severely retard the substantial progress that is being made at the moment. What I believe you can do, however, is actually dispute a few points at a time on the talk page. Any point that is not being disputed for a day or so will simply be a non-disputed point. Editors have reasonably answered your objections for many months, and I believe it will be helpful and reasonable to close disputes when there is no dispute running. The article is not a soapbox, and just because views are objectionable to some, that does not mean that every other sentence can be labeled dubious or disputed. If there is a dispute, then discuss. And I believe it would be cooperative if dispute discussions were limited to a few at a time. Regards. HeadleyDown 09:31, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Ahem. It is the job of the mentors to make the rules here. Just the fact that Comaze disputes the facts makes them disputed. I suggest that Comaze start with a few and say why he disputes them and we'll go from there. Imposing time limits isn't the way to go here. --Woohookitty(meow) 09:36, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Sure Woohookitty. I believe that is reasonable. Just the same, keeping so many dispute tags on the article all the time really does detract from the article. Regards HeadleyDown 09:38, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Thought of another way, deficiencies in the article that require dispute tags detract from the article much more. · Katefan0 (scribble)/poll 21:11, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Yes I see it that way also, Kate. I have no problem with disputes, and I know they can imporve an article. However, there are disputed tags that really have no useful place in the article. For example, the whole criticisms section in the opening has a disputed tag. There are a great many direct quotes in the article that have disputed tags. and eg. The Handbook of Cognitive-Behavioral Therapies [69] and others classify NLP as a "dubious therapy". (disputed — see talk page). It is clear that there is a view that NLP is dubious. I see no reason to legitimately dispute this. I would say that there is always a threat of abusing dubious tags when there are so many. Regards HeadleyDown 01:38, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Responses to responses to issues raised by Whas

Camridge writes: "Concerning magic, well, again NLP and Scientology are both built on occult notions, especially relating to hypnosis and the 5 senses of the pentagram or the 3 senses of Vedic, Egyptian, and middle eastern magic. Grinder and Bandler both use shamanic methods in their seminars and teachings, as do many others. Anyway, this is mainly a recap of what we has been explained in the archives. Feel free to check it out. Right now its probably more important to work on the additions/clarifications to the article though. Thanks for sharing your views. Camridge 09:31, 12 May 2006 (UTC)"

I say hogwash. If you have problems with hypnotic trance phenomena in particular, and mind-body connection in general, direct your criticism at the hypnosis/hypnotherapy pages; maybe also at the pages for somatoform disorders (a diagnosable DSM-IV TR category), psychosomatic illness, biopsychosocial model, immune system, etc. pages if you have the guts, and I don't think you do (From the immune system page: "Stress/Depression - Research shows that psychological stress can greatly increase your susceptibility to colds and other viral diseases, namely through an increase in serum corticosteroid levels").

As for the 5 senses, I direct your attention to the WP page on senses where it states: "There is no firm agreement among neurologists as to exactly how many senses there are, because of differing definitions of a sense. In general, one can say that a "sense" is a faculty by which outside stimuli are perceived. School children are routinely taught that there are five senses (sight, hearing, touch, smell, taste; a classification first devised by Aristotle)...", no mystery connection to "Vedic, Egyptian, and middle eastern magic" required. NLP does for the purposes of pragmatics group the sense perceptions into a 5-tuple of visual, auditory, kinesthetic, olfactory and gustatory. If sometimes reference to only the triple of V, A, K is made, that is for purposes of pragmatics as well, because the O and G are generally not as relevant for psychotherapy. Similarly, for simplification the somatic senses (at least tactition, thermoception, nociception, equilibrioception, and proprioception) are all subsumed into the "kinesthetic" modality. If you want to stir things up at the sense page be my guest...


Camridge writes: "In relation to your "nlp is not powerful but used in cults?", well we've been through that before also. Some cults employ drinking urine to increase in-group thinking behaviour. NLP is used in cults as a set of concepts and beliefs that reduce resistance (eg the concept that there is no objective reality). In fact the postmodern shared reality idea is very often used to reduce resistance and build group pressure for compliance. But NLP generally falls into the bracket of "daft and dangerous", (Parker) rather than dangerous for any particular inherant power. Again this holds in the seduction and sales setting. Of course it may work, but only as far as anyone can encourage an insecure teen to become someone who learns how to persistently sexually harrass a quarry."

First off, you misquote me - "nlp is not powerful but used in cults?", when what I wrote was "The very claim of "dangerous uses" BTW is antithetical to the claim that it is completely ineffectual. Which is it?" I don't know if you're going to do this or not, but DO NOT MISQUOTE ME AGAIN.

Your spurious reference to urine drinking isn't derogatory, you are not aware that you are not sinking to extreme lows of debating culture with your comments. Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle and most of quantum physics prove that there is no objective, observer-independent reality, it exists only in individual minds such as your own. How would you not know if the so-called naive positivism you believe in weren't true?

Your Parker "quote" ("daft and dangerous") appears nowhere on the WP NLP page, so I cannot ascertain its worthlessness precisely, however the mere usage of a derogatory, ad hominem term would disqualify someone from civilized discussion. Are you unsure whether you are draping yourself in the mantle of science and enacting a hysterical witch-hunt or whether you are merely conducting yourself similar to the Spanish inquisition?

Camridge writes: "Hi again Whas. Yes the engram term is interesting. It is mostly a non anglo-american view. We cannot dismiss it on those grounds according to NPOV policy. Also, there are many scientists that have said NLP proponents behave the same way as Scientologists, and that they are part of the same movement."

Phantastic that you don't manipulate the discussion at your convenience to include anything you see fit. Neutral Point-of-view policy is right on, for we can dismiss it on the grounds of being based on non-neutral, unsystematic attack pieces. E.g. I have done myself the disservice of actually reading the Drenth piece, as well as scanning the Levelt (referenced by Drenth) article in Dutch, and the impression one gets is that neither have a clear idea of what they are complaining about. Drenth's piece in particular is especially dubiuous, as he and Schroots are the almost exclusive contributors to the "annual report" for ALLEA, the purportedly "All European Academies" organization that they happen to also preside over.

He writes: "NLP was presented by Bandler and Grindler in their Frogs into Princes (1979), and elaborated for instance in Adler’s The New Art and Science of Getting What You Want (1994). The 'edifice' is grounded on a few truisms: emotions and motivations affect the body ('neuro'), people often mean something different from what they say ('linguistic'), and setting a goal and believing in it helps achieving this goal ('programming')."

Wow. Just about none of these assertions is factual:

1) B&G started NLP with "Structure of Magic Vols 1&2" in 1975; "Frogs into Princes" deals mostly with the eye accessing cues, argueably one of the most disputed portions of NLP (even though I have personally seen a lot of evidence that eye accessing patterns are real, yet I am not going to bring in "original research"). To equate NLP with F.t.P. is plain wrong.

2) The second work referenced is a completely random selection out of the historical progression of NLP techniques, one has to wonder whether it was merely selected for potentially negative associations made with the title.

3) The "Neuro" portion of NLP refers simply to a pragmatic neural network/computation model of the mind, similar to the one proposed by Cognitive Psychology. From the WP Cog Psy page: "... It explicitly acknowledges the existence of internal mental states (such as beliefs, desires and motivations) unlike behaviorist psychology. ... The cognitive approach was brought to prominence by Donald Broadbent's book Perception and Communication in 1958. Since that time, the dominant paradigm in the area has been the information processing model of cognition that Broadbent put forward. This is a way of thinking and reasoning about mental processes, envisaging them like software running on the computer that is the brain. Theories commonly refer to forms of input, representation, computation or processing, and outputs."

If you dislike the pragmatism of this approach (i.e. the fact that theories are formed absent exact understanding of all neurochemical brain processes), compare that behaviorism, the poster child of hard science approaches to psychology, simply says that it will hold the mind/brain as a "black box" and only be concerned with input/output phenomena, so by its standards Cog Psy is just "crazy" for making all of its assertions about the mind. That's why Skinner basically equated humans to the pigeons in his laboratory.

4) "people often mean something different from what they say ('linguistic')" is a complete oversimplification if not downright misattribution of the "deep structure/surface structure" model borrowed from transformational grammar in "Structure of Magic Vols 1&2". If you have not read chapter 2 of that book, you'll find it well worth your time reading those 17 pages so that you actually become QUALIFIED to make statements about the meta model. Then Camridge and HadleyDown would also see that they are CONSTANTLY using NLP meta model patterns to influence this discussion, albeit in unecological ways. I am not suggesting that they are bad people, just confused and confusing. I will post a list of the meta model patterns and their correlates in Cognitive Therapy "cognitive distortions" next.

Also note that the debate over Chomsky's transformational grammar (which the current NLP page flippantly dismisses as "the abandoned theoretical concepts of Chomsky's transformational grammar") is a) by no means settled, if you bothered to check on the WP linguistics pages (e.g. Psycholinguistics, Theories section), and b) does not really pertain to whether NLP could use the rules of transformational grammar for the purposes of its psychotherapeutic models, as therapists and clients could care less whether the base rules for language production originate more genetically or more socially conditioned.

5) Ditto for "setting a goal and believing in it helps achieving this goal ('programming')"; this misattribution is so egregious and shows such poor understanding of the information processing model of cognition that it alone disqualifies the author from making any further statements about NLP. Fortunately, he can rely for input on his buddy Levelt, who feeds him more knee-jerk negativism about NLP from his supposedly elevated neurolinguistics position. Levelts piece is FREE of any references of it's own, and does not even come close to being a proper research article, it's more of an op-ed piece for his local newspaper at best.

--Whas 00:10, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

As promised, the Milton Model patterns, the first 12 of which correspond to the equivalently named Meta Model violations, which can be handled with/recovered with the appropriate Meta Model responses. Pattern examples are provided courtesy of Camridge, HadleyDown, and HansAntel:

MILTON MODEL

DISTORTIONS ---------------------------------------------------------------------

MIND READ: Claiming to know the thoughts or feelings of another without specifying the process by which you came to know the information. Ex: "I am sure even the mentors here are having to do self-checks over what is readable to readers..."; and my all-time favorite from HadleyDown: "The rest of it is so full of jargon and abstract obscurantism that the reader is going to wonder which planet the section is from." (BTW, is there concrete obscurantism?)

LOST PERFORMATIVE: Value judgments (which may include an unspecified comparison) where the performer of the value judgment is left out. Ex: "Science and pseudoscience is important here."; "Thats the clearest measure" (the lost performative is predictably the most employed by our three NLP heroes; as you can see, most often there are comparative deletions woven right into the pattern as well)

CAUSE & EFFECT: Where it is implied that one thing causes another. (Including attribution of cause outside of self.) Implied Causatives include: Forms: the verb to make; If... then...; As you... then you...; Because...; Example: "If you could bring it closer to the kind of language that Woohookitty had recommended, then it would be better and far more readable." (also note lost performative, comparative deletion, presupposition of existence by adverb/adjective... wow.)

COMPLEX EQUIVALENCE: Where two things are equated - as in their meanings being equivalent. Forms: That means...; ... is ...; Example: "Also the reviews of NLP were all conducted by professionals. Which is why they have been accepted into peer-reviewed journals." (note the wonderful additional patterns woven into this, universal quantifier, simple deletion - "by professionals", etc.

PRESUPPOSITION: The linguistic equivalent of assumptions. Ex: oh where to start... "The more independent sources state that NLP uses magical theories." (presupposes that there are independent sources; presupposes that there are magical theories). A special case that appears in these "discussions" en masse is the presupposition of existence by adverb/adjective: "... a huge amount of psychologists have broken with the APA" (the "huge" adjective presupposes that there is an amount in the first place); "This is perfectly verifiable." (just as when a defendant says: "I am totally innocent."); "Its very obscure writing, and its mostly redundant." ("very" presupposes that it is obscure in the first place)

GENERALIZATIONS --------------------------------------------------------

UNIVERSAL QUANTIFIER: A set of words which has: a) a universal generalization and b) no referential index. Example: "There is no evidence of any sort of particular success level of either."

MODAL OPERATOR: Words that imply possibility or necessity, which often form our rules in life. Ex: "I'm sure we can add more. There is no need to represent lines that are already covered..." (the second is a modal operator of necessity - "to need to" hidden cleverly in another nominalization - see next one below)

DELETIONS ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

NOMINALIZATION: Process words (including verbs), which have been frozen in time by making them into nouns. Ex: "Well your VERSION is probably going to lead the reader to believe that NLP is just about obscure PSYCHOBABBLE."

UNSPECIFIED VERB: Where an adjective or adverb modifier does not specify the verb. Ex: "Just follow the lead."

SIMPLE DELETION: Phrase portions do not pick out a specific item in the listeners/readers experience. Example: "I'll be back with some suggestions, soon..."

LACK OF REFERENTIAL INDEX: A phrase, which does not pick out a specific portion of the listener's experience. Ex: "... what goes on is simple rituals and unvalidated prescriptions"

COMPARATIVE DELETION (Unspecified Comparison): Where a comparison is made and it is not specified as to what or whom it was made. Ex: "And it's more clear for the user that way."

All, please feel free to add to this fabulous collection. It turns out that our trio cannot help but use NLP patterns in every sentence, they truly are masters of these techniques. That's how come they have been able to hijack the Wikipedia process so effectively to their own ends. I am not suggesting that they are doing this consciously, but apparently the NLP trainings that HadleyDown and HansAntel claim to have partaken of (see their respective user pages) were more effective than first believed. :)

HadleyDown, I wonder if you are clever enough to analyze your own writings with the meta/Milton model. Don't do it unless you are ready to show some real analysis.

--Whas 05:06, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

HansAntel wrote: "GregA. I have an occult handbo[o]k and it shows that the 5/3 representational systems are from early magic systems. I can send the info to Headley. HansAntel 04:37, 29 April 2006 (UTC)"

HansAntel. Why does the info have to get filtered through HeadleyDown first? More importantly, WHY do you have an occult handbook?

You're probably not committed enough to just explain how your occult handbook explains how on earth NLP came up with the five senses. --Whas 05:30, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Hello Whas. I understand your point of view (I believe) and I know it is quite common for NLP adherants to analyse people using the metamodel. I suggest it is inappropriate here though. It may help if you take a closer look at the NPOV policies in general. Forgive me if you already have, but I believe that maybe you have misinterpreted them or some of them. If a view is supported in the literature it is qualifiable for the article. Your objections are against the views of other experts. I hope you understand that just because you disagree it doesn't mean the view can be removed from the article. I know as an NLP supporter you may not wish to see those views in the article, but we are writing an encyclopedia article. I know also that the article needs improving. Other editors (from all sides) do communicate with me through email, partly to understand what is going on, partly to pass on factual research, and partly to seek or verify research, and sometimes to make more personal "complaints". You may also contact me by email if you so wish. Regards HeadleyDown 06:21, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A question for participants

The second paragraph reads, in part: It is described by the original developers as "therapeutic magic" and "the study of the structure of subjective experience" [1][2]. Can someone please explain to me what this adds to the article? When I read this, as a layperson, it creates more questions than it answers, and I'm not sure what purpose it's serving in the article. · Katefan0 (scribble)/poll 21:15, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes I have also been thinking about this. In short, they don't add much. They definitely need mentioning in the article, but such a line (especially subjective experience) is very confusing. They are both used to describe NLP, but I think they could be placed into other sections. The study of the structure is basically how you can change one's subjective view on things (eg persuasion, hypnosis etc). Its mixed in with very postmodern beliefs that objectivity is impossible. I'd say it could go into the overview with a clarifying sentence or two that explain it is not about objective experience and shuns scientific objectivity. Its a hard one to explain. Some explain it simply as a wild claim (being THE study, and neurologists have never even got close to knowing the (if any) structure of experience). Others characterize it simply as a deliberately confusing obscurantism. I'll see what I can do about suggesting a more clear or concrete line in the overview. Regards HeadleyDown 01:48, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
As a layperson reading that, I would not know what is meant by "original developers", "therapeutic magic" or "the study of the structure of subjective experience". I'd like to replace that sentence with: "Neuro-linguistic Programming was originally based on the work of leading psychotherapists of the early 70s, Fritz Perls (Gestalt therapy), Virginia Satir (Family therapy), Milton H. Erickson (hypnotherapy). It was based on the premise the seemingly magical abilities have a structure that can be modeled, and learnt by anyone. The common patterns indentified in these therapists and the methods used to learn the structure of what they were doing became the foundation for a model about communication and change. ---=-C-=- 01:49, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Hello Comaze. I'd say that is still unclear, and quite biased. It is more appropriate for the history or overview section. NLP has things added to it after Perls, Satir and Erickson. The single line that Kate suggested can be removed from the opening, though the rest of the para is fine (Neuro, linguistic, and programming mean .....). This line may be useful though - "It was based on the premise the seemingly magical abilities have a structure that can be modeled, and learnt by anyone.". Regards HeadleyDown 02:07, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Kate, I tend to agree that it doesn't add much as it stands. However, "the study of the structure of subjective experience" is something that is quite a common definition. I'm impressed with Comaze's explication of that line above... it seems like a great description he's given (possibly some minor changes, but still very good). And it already answers Headley's criticism that more things were added later - as it says they became the foundation... (ie... more was added later). Greg 10:28, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Anything that's clearer would be preferable. Actually it looks better now, except I still trip up on "therapeutic wizards." What does that mean, exactly? Does that mean people teaching NLP or people having positive behavior that is to be modeled? If you want to use the language the creators used that's fine, but it needs some context for it not to be confusing. When I read "therapeutic wizards," I think of level 8 druids with a Massage of Healing spell. · Katefan0 (scribble)/poll 13:00, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
And it can also be a very POV statement either way. --Woohookitty(meow) 13:20, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Here are some quotes from primary sources (these are the co-founders books so they are POV but it gives you some idea of what they meant by wizards - the divergent people, the exceptional individuals, the top communicators that Bandler and Grinder wanted to model and teach to others):
  • "Then we began to pay attention to what really divergent people who were "wizards" actually do. When you watch and listen to Virginia Satir and Milton Erickson do therapy, they apparently could not be more different. At least I couldn't figure out a way that they could appear more different."(p.8 Bandler & Grinder, Frogs into Princes 1979).
  • "It is not our purpose in this book to deny the magical quality of the therapeutic wizards whom we have experienced, but rather to show that magic, like other complex human activities, has structure and, given the resources, is, therefore, learnable. This book is one resource for a sorcerer's apprentice. This book, itself, like the magic it describes, has a structure."(p.179, Bandler & Grinder, 1975a)[23]
  • In addition to modeling the behavior of "wizards" such as Milton Erickson, Grinder and Bandler have added their own wide array of effective communication skills to the body of knowledge that they teach others. (p.6, Connnirae Andreas's Forward to Bandler & Grinder, Trance-formations, 1981)
---=-C-=- 13:34, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
So then it's the latter. Some context would probably be useful to explain what this means, in simple terms. (It could be something as simple as ... "therapeutic wizards," or people whose exceptional behaviors may be modeled by those seeking to reproduce those behaviors. Or something like that. · Katefan0 (scribble)/poll 14:32, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Yes this sounds reasonable. There is quite a bit more to add on the subject of NLP, esotericism, and occult. I'll see how brief I can make it. Regards HeadleyDown 17:22, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Hello. I think the "study of structure" could be move down to overview for a proper explaination. HansAntel 02:17, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Drenth clarification

Hello all. Further to Kate's suggestion to use Drenth's clear writing, I suggest this to add to the section on ethics.

Drenth 2003 explains that NLP is driven by economic motives and "manipulation of credulity" of clients, and explains that "often pseudoscientific practices are motivated by loathsome pursuit of gain". Drenth clarifies this with reference to the well known "financial exploitation of the victims of scientology, avantar and similar movements".

Regards HeadleyDown 06:36, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Given that Drenth's article contains so many factual inaccuracies. I question whether this source is appropriate. In this case you should go for a publication in a peer-reviewed journal. Drenth's article appears in an annual report that the authors presides over. It is mainly Drenth's opinion and the criticism is mostly of Jaap Hollander, not the published NLP literature, relevant policy:

  • "Reputable publications include peer-reviewed journals, books published by a known academic publishing house or university press, and divisions of a general publisher which have a good reputation for scholarly publications."
  • "For non-academic subjects, it is impossible to pin down a clear definition of "reputable". In general, most of us have a good intuition about the meaning of the word. A magazine or press release self-published by a very extreme political or religious group would often not be regarded as "reputable".

---=-C-=- 12:55, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

You are right, HadleyDown, we should speak more about Drenth's simplistic writing, as I had started to do above. Let's look at a few other obvious facts that can be seen from his article and the "Annual Report" of his own organization, that is falsely named "All European Academies" (ALLEA). I direct your attention to page two of the referenced .pdf file, where we read the following:

"ALLEA - is the Federation of 48 Academies of Arts and Sciences in 38 European countries ALLEA - advises her member academies, acts as a platform for her members and offers advises in the fields of science and science policy ALLEA - strongly supports ethic ways of dealing with science, science policy and public policy in general."

Note that if ALLEA is indeed having 48 members in 38 "European" countries, that clearly implies by way of simple math that in most countries it had at the time the annual report was written only about 1.2 academies per country. Given that large countries such as Germany, France, Britain, etc. have dozens of universities each, it is misleading and questionable to pretend to speak for all of them.

More importantly than that, there are several spelling errors inthe next two bullet points that do call into serious question the authors' command of the English language ("offers advises" and "supports ethic ways") and possibly their command of other issues as well.

Much more importantly than these however valid preambles, Drenth's actual portion of his piece that references NLP (pages 69-71), has a number of severe methodological flaws (in addition to the attribution errors already discussed above) that disqualify it from being considered a research paper. Note that there are two types of valid research papers: 1) Research studies that include the rationale for the research based on a literature review, the methodology of the study, its data, and the findings/conclusions. 2) A Meta-review of large amounts of research extant on a given subject for comparative analysis and detection of possible trends in the data, etc. Given that Drenth's piece cleary does not fall into the former category, it would have to reach qualifications for the latter. It clearly fails to do so:

The section on NLP contains exactly five (5) references, two of which are to the NLP works itself (B&G - Frogs into Princes; Adler - see my comments above as to the random selection of the Adler book), one to one of Drenth's own writings, one to an informal op-ed piece by Levelt (itself with zero (0) references), and one to a book from 1963 (Kouwer) about Rohrschach, etc. that falls clearly before the beginning of NLP development. So in all he cites a mere two (2) sources on discussion of why NLP is supposedly not a good thing, one of which is himself. That hardly qualifies as a meta-research review, in fact it doesn't qualify as anything. This is NOT a peer-reviewed journal after all, just a self-promotion outlet for the organization that Drenth himself presides over. This isn't research, it's one man's opinion piece.

For the reasons stated (lack of references, etc.), I propose that the Drenth article has no place on the NLP page. Critical research papers are all welcome in the Criticisms section(s), however they should be held to the standard of research papers and not consist of op-ed material. For the same reasons, the Levelt op-ed piece should also be disqualified.

--Whas 00:15, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

More on Drenth:

To understand how irrepairably biased and thin Drenth's piece really is, one has but to look at the beggining of the section that contains the ill-informed rant about NLP (p.68 bottom): "In the therapeutic garden a host of pseudo-scientific horsefeathers can be found, ranging from hypnosis to healing by prayer, from reincarnation therapy to scientology, and from neuro-emotional integration to homeopathy. Again, time does not permit us to give a full and critical account of all these therapeutic approaches. Moreover, since time and again new therapeutic movements come to the fore, it is difficult to keep full record of these developments."

Tellingly, he uses the by now much familiar, spurious association with scientology and religion as a device to unprofessionally undermine anything he wishes. "Time does not permit us to give a full and critical account...", but, he says by implication, he can have a good go at an unsupported smear campaign. Oh, and the poor man finds that "it is difficult to keep full record of these developments."

I have previously made a few comments on issues surrounding hypnosis, and since Drenth sees it fit to randomly smear that discipline as well, I feel it useful to explain how his treatment of the subject is not only unscientific and violates important principles of science, it also prevents progress in the field.

In the next paragraph he writes: "But in our analysis we have to be careful. Unlike diagnosis, prediction of human performance or behaviour, and assessment, therapy is not a (applied) scientific activity. Criterion for therapeutic activity is effectiveness, not verity; at stake is not whether it is true, but whether it works." So far, I couldn't agree more, and neither could the original developers of NLP, who started from such a premise.

Now however, he betrays his biases in the very next few sentences: "We all know that credibleness of the therapist and faith being put in the therapist are equally or sometimes more important than the quality of the treatment or the medicine as such. We also know that placebos work if brought with cogency and that spiritual healing or a magic word of an overbearing guru may cure even somatic diseases." If he were a true scientist, he would take this data of the phenomena before him (placebo, faith healing, hypnosis, etc.), and ask: Is there something underlying these phenomena that connects them? Where can I look to find out more? What research should I devise? Yet, regrettably, he comes to no such conclusions and instead launches into the by now familiar rant on NLP. Why? Evendently he's just not willing to look that hard, he's got a science club to look after that pays his salary (remember "Time does not permit us..."). And he is more concerned with another thing that he betrays at the opening of the article: "Until a not too distant past, science, as it was fashioned in the seventeenth century, enjoyed an almost matter-of-course reverence." So it is reverence that he apparently craves, more so then to really find out e.g. if a working theory of the unconscious mind as that proposed by Bandler & Grinder could serve as a model to explain the above phenomena of placebo, therapeutic relationship, etc. How truly sad and tragic that out of his own failure to just be accepting of the data (the empirical phenomena) before him and not to massage and censor to his own ends, he prevents possible progress in the field of psychology.

--Whas 00:27, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Hello Whas. Sorry this has been dealt with before. Drenth is a professor of psychology in the organizational psychology line, and his research involves the study of pseudoscientific developments. He is also corroborated by Levelt, a member of the Max Plank Institute for psycholinguistics and also a professor. Their views corroborate with others in the article. They are fine for the article. Extremely reliable. HeadleyDown 01:57, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

This is unacceptable. They are very far from fine. They violate NPOV. If Drenth has written a scholarly paper on the subject, then reference that. The current one cited is unacceptable for the reasons stated above. It is an opinion piece in his own "Annual Report", absolutely NOT a peer-reviewed journal. The same is true for the Levelt article, which is held in a conversational style, makes no references, and was published in a Weekly Newsmag. In other words, an op-ed piece.
I am appealing to the mentors to settle this issue once and for all: If the policy allows just any opinion piece to be introduced as a reference, then there is NO end in sight. Then this entire process is pointless. HeadleyDown or anybody else can just highjack the flawed page indefinitely. I am all for including a sizable criticism section, even mentioning some of the criticism (with tact and adequate STYLE) in the article opening section, even though this does not appear to be the general practice on most WP pages, or the psy pages in particular. However, there needs to be a way to present the NLP material in a coherent fashion, and THEN let the critics lace into what was said to their hearts content. Else the function of WP as an Encyclopedia is completely lost. The current editing of the overlong, disorganized, and flawed page is a pointless activity that wastes everybodies time (even HadleyDown's, though he seems to have ample amounts of it), and from the looks of the history of it, apparently has for a long time as well.
Please state unambiguously whether a reference that is itself not a scholarly paper should be allowed in, given that this is a contested page (other than the original works being the subject of the article). Thank you. --Whas 03:28, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Hi Whas. Ok, its clear you are an NLP practitioner, as you have made that plain. Of course you don't like the scientific view to be added to the article because that doesn't suit your view. NLP is mainly promoted through written word, but pushing anecdotes, ignoring scientific reviews or immunising themselves against them, and by using obscure jargon to seem like science. But Wikipedia is not a place for promotion. Drenth is a perfectly published source. He agrees with prof Levelt, another amazingly well published scientist. They add a lot to the article. Drenth clearly shows the ethical side of why NLP is being pushed, and Levelt gives clear views on why NLP is illegitimately hijacking the neuro, linguistic (and other scientific) reputable developments in order to promote pseudoscience (for financial gain). They both make very clear indications that they have studied the background of NLP in depth, Levelt citing from both psycholinguistic publications and NLP publications. Drenth does the same. They are both shining light on NLP. They help the reader understand NLP. They can be stated straight. No conclusions will be made, and the readers will be allowed to make up their own minds. That is the Wikipedia way. Bookmain 04:33, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
More to add: OK, if those as "reputable" as NLP authors can get to say nlp is "the study of the structure of subjective experience" or is based on neurology, Chomsky, or whatever, then currently practicing scientists such as Drenth and Levelt should be allowed their say also. Again, the Wikipedia way. Bookmain 04:39, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Hi Bookmain. Yes, I am an NLP practitioner, and unlike yourself I have stated my bias on my user page from the very beginning. No mystery here. It would be interesting to know where you are coming from (other than merely naive positivism). I welcome any research paper or research review of sufficient quality into the debate. Your reference to "the scientific view" is an attempt to influence (using an NLP pattern of nominalization BTW), there is no such thing in the real world. There are just authors, researchers, experimenters, etc. conducting their respective work based on philosophical principles such as positivism, social constructionism, etc. and others reviewing their work and so forth. If either Drenth or Levelt have authored research papers or research reviews pertaining to NLP that were published in peer-reviewed journals, then please reference those. The two articles now referenced do not meet that standard.
I would actually heartily welcome a solid research paper by a critical voice that's publicly available without fee, that way one could get a better overview of issues than from this opinion piece patchwork. "No conclusions will be made", that is rich... Please refrain from draping yourself in "the Wikipedia way". In regard to your second posting, the difference is that the article is the NLP article, and that the developers of NLP created a theory the presentation of which is the point of an encyclopedia article. A proper critic needs to bring up SPECIFIC issues with the theory without engaging in cavalier mudslinging a la Drenth and Levelt, and those points are worthy of discussion (e.g. some researchers apparent inability to reproduce the eye accessing cues, etc.). All else needs to be brought up if at all in a proper neutral style. --Whas 06:16, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Hello Whas. So this means you are against Katefan0's suggestion to add Drenth's clarifications to the article. The specific issues that Drenth and Levelt bring up are quite relevant. They both cover the theoretical constructs of NLP, and give their scientific views on the nature of NLP. Drenth is particularly clarifying because he makes a very readable yet scientifically oriented criticism of NLP proponent's anti-science stance. "We are talking about another kind of reality" etc. This is postmodern or new age anti-science view. I accept it myself and see no problem with anyone holding that view. However, some don't like it at all because it is open for use in the manipulation of clients. How do we explain this more clearly? Well, look on your common NLP book. Non existent maladies are suddenly created. Create the life you were meant to have! What is this? A normal life is not good enough? Learn the excellence that is your birthright! So you are not normal because you are not excellent or excellent enough? These are common among NLP books. Ok, to be fair they are the announcements of the New Age, or Human Potential industries, but that is the criticism. Personally, I think if anyone reads such lines, they should consider them just ads. However that is just my view. Lets move forward and represent the views relevant to the article. Regards HeadleyDown 12:25, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Do not presume to speak for me. Scholarly articles are always preferable; if a critical viewpoint can be illuminated using scholarly articles, that will be preferable. Similarly, if a positive viewpoint can be illuminated using scholarly articles, that will be preferable. In fact, if I'm not mistaken, I think this was one of the suggestions that came out of the arbcom case. Of course if no scholarly articles are available that illuminate a significacnt point of view, other sources can be considered. · Katefan0 (scribble)/poll 13:04, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Greetings Katafan0 and I am happy to see your input, especially now. I don't presume your speech, but I will say what I think about your comments. They are perfectly constructive (so far), though it has taken me some time to fully realise this. Recently I have seen a lot of remarks and actions that personify the "spirit of wikipedia" (hope that doesn't sound too much like I think it is a US cult}. Similar to Alice, I am encouraged to be inclusive to all and sundry, regardless of creed, colour, or IP number ... using the anarchically compiled Wikipedia set of recommendations, as much as I am able to. Regards included. HeadleyDown 14:36, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Well I couldn't find any clearer explanation than Prof Drenth. Lets move forward and include his published paper's contribution. Regards HeadleyDown 03:35, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Yes this looks resolved also. Drenth is in a peer review publication. I will have a go to move it forward. HansAntel 03:13, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dispute 1: distortion, generalisation and deletion line

Hello. OK I have some disputes to discuss. Here is the first: The meta model involves the identification of the abandoned theoretical concepts of Chomsky's transformational grammar [3][25]. These are distortions, generalizations, and deletions. However, in contrast with Chomsky's abandoned theory and with linguistics theory, distortions, generalizations and deletions are considered by Bandler and Grinder [3] to be universally applicable to every language , and are applied directly as a prescription from untested theory to empirically untested application [5]. (disputed — see talk page)

I would like to know why this has a disputed tag. Can anyone explain this? HeadleyDown 10:12, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

To put it in context, I inserted the entire paragraph and move the dispute tag to the end of the paragraph. ---=-C-=- 10:58, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
To put it reasonably, we need to discuss this. So where is the dispute? HeadleyDown 11:33, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Here is my alternative (Comaze)
Relevent wikipedia policy
  • "Prefer credible third-party peer-reviewed English-language sources." [WP:CITE]
  • "It introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source"
  • "Editors often make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article in order to advance position C. However, this would be an example of a new synthesis of published material serving to advance a position, and as such it would constitute original research. "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published this argument in relation to the topic of the article."[Wikipedia:No_original_research]
  • ""No original research" does not mean that experts on a specific topic cannot contribute to Wikipedia. On the contrary, Wikipedia welcomes experts. We assume, however, that someone is an expert not only because of their personal and direct knowledge of a topic, but also because of their knowledge of published sources on a topic. This policy prohibits expert editors from drawing on their personal and direct knowledge if such knowledge is unverifiable."[Wikipedia:No_original_research]
Notes
  • My suggestion does need to be simplified
  • I don't think we need to make bald statements about the "long abandoned" Generative Semantics (Whispering, Grinder & Bostic St Clair, p.105), or get into detail about Transformation grammar (TG), Cognitive grammars, I-Language / E-Language. The link to Transformation grammar is probably enough here. ---=-C-=- 11:57, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
See my comments in the "Responses..." section regarding the issue of transformational grammar and how it isn't abandoned at all.

--Whas 01:09, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

  • I doubt Grinder would make such a wild claim as this "Grinder [3] to be universally applicable to every language , and are applied directly as a prescription from untested theory to empirically untested application [5]."

---=-C-=- 12:19, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

In BnG 1975 both books, they class their deletion, distortion etc as universals. In Dilts et al 1980 they do the same. This is why they claim that NLP is content free and can apply to anything and everything from phobia cure to enlightenment. Linguistics theory does not place those as universals at all. The page numbers etc can be provided. Regards HeadleyDown 13:26, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Hadley down, you really need to brush up on style, "class" is typically a noun, the best verb to use woul be "classify"
Evidence: structure of magic 1 Bandler and Grinder 1975: Page 41: “These are the three features which are common to all human modeling processes: Deletion, Distortion, and Generalization. These are the universal processes of human modeling - the way that people create any representation of their experience". Regards HeadleyDown 13:42, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
HadleyDown. I just checked in my copy of S.o.M. on page 41, and there is no such quote on it. I found SIMILAR quotes on some other pages quite a bit further up. Since you may have a different edition, please provide the Chapter number and Section and Subsection headings so that I may find this quote. Thanks. --Whas 01:09, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Now we're getting somewhere. Structure is one of the most highest cited works in NLP, and I agree with what you have quoted is a fundamental concept in NLP. Is there a third party source for this? However, I don't think that this is accurately paraphrased in the current article, this is partly the reason for the dispute tag. Also, is there a third party source for this? There is still an issue with Levelt given that it is in a foreign language, of low quality and therefore not verifiable. ---=-C-=- 13:54, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I think there is a reference or several doing the rounds that fits that description. Levelt is probably the most quotable expert on psycholinguistics with anything at all to say about the fringe therapy of NLP though. Dismissing such a reference goes agaist NPOV policy. I have some Chinese references I could add to that. Regards HeadleyDown 14:42, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
  • "Prefer credible third-party peer-reviewed English-language sources." WP:CITE ---=-C-=- 23:33, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Bandler and Grinder is page 44 in my book and quote is the same one as Headleys quote. No other ref needed. HansAntel 06:57, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks much Hans. Its 44 in my book also. My mistake. The quote is the same as you mention. HeadleyDown 12:12, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, I suggest adding it in then. I'll place it myself. AliceDeGrey 04:25, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dispute 2: Many scientists have criticised...

Many scientists have criticised NLP in scientific research reviews which conclude that its claims are scientifically unsupported and it has failed to show its claimed efficacy in controlled studies [11][12][13]. Several reviews have characterized NLP as pseudoscientific and mass-marketed psychobabble[14][15][6]. NLP is identified by many scientists as charlatanry and fraudulent [16][17][18] as a dubious therapy and a cult [19][20] described by Winkin [21] and is promoted in the same mold as Dianetics and Scientology[13][15][11]. Beyerstein [22], Lilienfeld [13], and Eisner [20] report that there is much concern about government and business organizations being duped into adopting NLP and other non-supported therapies due to lack of scientific awareness. (disputed — see talk page)

Why is the whole criticism section of the opening disputed? Can anyone explain? HeadleyDown 10:14, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Relevant wikipedia policy
  • "Editors often make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article in order to advance position C. However, this would be an example of a new synthesis of published material serving to advance a position, and as such it would constitute original research. "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published this argument in relation to the topic of the article."Wikipedia:No_original_research
  • "Reputable publications include peer-reviewed journals, books published by a known academic publishing house or university press, and divisions of a general publisher which have a good reputation for scholarly publications."
  • "By insisting that only facts, assertions, theories, ideas, claims, opinions, and arguments that have already been published by a reputable publisher may be published in Wikipedia, the no-original-research and verifiability policies reinforce one another. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth" Wikipedia:No_original_research
  • "The prohibition against original research limits the possibility of an editor presenting his or her own point of view in an article. Moreover, by reinforcing the importance of including verifiable research produced by others, this policy promotes the inclusion of multiple points of view in an article. Consequently, this policy reinforces our neutral point of view policy."Wikipedia:NPOV
  • "In many cases, there are multiple established views of any given topic. In such cases, no single position, no matter how well researched, is authoritative. It is not the responsibility of any one editor to research all points of view. But when incorporating research into an article, it is important that editors situate the research; that is, provide contextual information about the point of view, indicating how prevalent the position is, and whether it is held by a majority or minority." Wikipedia:NPOV

---=-C-=- 12:31, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

In this case there is no "therefore" statement. These authors simply say the same thing and that is how they are characterized. There is no synthesis whatsoever. This is also part of the opening. This policy should not be applied to the opening because it is supposed to be a reasonable summary. The only thing I see in possible need of changing is the term "Many scientists" that could be made more specific. That is an easy thing to change. So where is the dispute? As far as I see, there is no case to answer. HeadleyDown 13:07, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Instead of "therefore" the author has naively use "and" ... "in order to advance position C" ---=-C-=- 00:06, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
"The only way to demonstrate that you are not doing original research is to cite reliable sources which provide information that is directly related to the topic of the article, and to adhere to what those sources say."[Wikipedia:No_original_research]. Lilienfeld is related to VK/D (not NLP as a whole) so citing Lilienfeld here is off the mark, making it WP:OR. ---=-C-=- 13:26, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Lilienfeld, in several publications, has said that NLP is dubious, unsupported, and New Age. He says it is potentially harmful. He gives scathing criticism about NLP in his book (Science and Pseudoscience in Psychotherapy). He places it with other pseudoscientific subjects such as rebirthing, Scientology and others. Direct quotes can be provided HeadleyDown 14:47, 14 May 2006 (UTC) Oh by the way, this little exercise seems to be going against the general recommendation to keep refs to a minimum. Comaze, are you trying to make us provide lots of sources to back up facts that have already had lots of sources to back them up, and since been reduced? If so, I believe this activity is unconstructive. Regards HeadleyDown 14:51, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm not convinced that your sources pass minimum academic standards. A direct quote would be a step forward, if you note, "that no single position, no matter how well researched, is authoritative. It is not the responsibility of any one editor to research all points of view. But when incorporating research into an article, it is important that editors situate the research; that is, provide contextual information about the point of view, indicating how prevalent the position is, and whether it is held by a majority or minority." Wikipedia:NPOV" ---=-C-=- 23:44, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Well the references are all good and I am not going to waste everyone's time by adding in all the others that corroborate the views in the opening. There are many. The views have been satisfactorilly sourced several times over. I think some things can be done about improving wording though. HeadleyDown 02:02, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
I will try this one. Please make me corrected if it is too norse. HansAntel 05:10, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes it looks better Hans. AliceDeGrey 04:23, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dispute 3: Sala says...

Sala [31] NLP says that adherants base NLP on neurology, linguistics and neurolinguistics. (disputed — see talk page)

Why is there a disputed tag here, when its not even disputed on the discussion page? HeadleyDown 10:16, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

You are correct Headley. Its inappropriate and there is no legitimate dispute. I'll remove it. Bookmain 03:58, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Remove dispute tags that show no dispute or that show a particular POV

I removed dispute tags in the article that showed no legitimate dispute. Those tags pushed a particular POV throughout the article. Some remain and will be removed if the disputes are illegitimate. Writing a single side of the story on a dispute tag is an illegitimate use of tags. All sides should be represented. Otherwise tags will be used simply as an illegitimate means to push a particular POV. Dispute tags should only apply to a current dispute, and should represent both sides. That is only fair. Otherwise they should be removed. Bookmain 04:22, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

You are throwing the "illegitimate" term around very loosely, Bookmain, as far as I am concerned just about EVERYTHING in this rant of an article is disputed. So you can undo the tags that Comaze (mostly) placed simply to highlight many of the particular areas, it doesn't matter, this is still ALL DISPUTED.
I have been looking at the references especially, and I find the following:
There are many claims made linking NLP to a wide variety of negative and derogatory terms, many of them spuriously so, as they do not even bother to cite a workable reference. Just one example, I just did a search on Google and Google Scholar for Menon 1997 (reference #53), which comes up with thousands of unrelated articles. The minimum requirement should be identifiability of the claimed source. Public availability is better. Absent that, there is no basis for the claim made in the article, and the claim should be removed at least until someone can provide a proper reference. Simple really. There might still be reasons as to why a reference should be excluded (e.g. if it is merely an opinion piece such as the Drenth and Levelt pieces). A good example of a valid reference is
Sharpley C.F. (1987). "Research Findings on Neuro-linguistic Programming: Non supportive Data or an Untestable Theory". Communication and Cognition Journal of Counseling Psychology, 1987 Vol. 34, No. 1: 103-107,105.
or from books such as
Heap, M. (1988). Neuro-linguistic programming, In M. Heap (Ed.) Hypnosis: Current Clinical, Experimental and Forensic Practices. London: Croom Helm, pp 268-280.
I have 0 problems with valid quotes from critical research studies or research analyses (plus of course the original works that are the subject of the article). I'll summarize their criticism myself if necessary, even if I don't subscribe to what they are saying. But all else should get taken out due to the contested nature of this article. Opinion pieces by sociologists, religious representatives, etc. etc. have no place here. --Whas 04:54, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi Whas. There is a significant view that NLP is a New Age or quasi-religious, quasi-spiritual cult, or sect. Many other editors have mentioned this in discussion and it is clear in the article. This really needs explaining. So if you restrict references to Bandler and Grinder, that view will not be clarified at all. Also, it is against NPOV policy to push Anglo-American views at the expense of non AngloAmerican views. Menon is verifiable. Really even Amazon has Menon listed. Hunt and similar are not opinion pieces. They are research pieces. They show NLP in its context, and do it with a good deal of balance. They are all valid. Restricting NLP to the "scientific sounding" NLP practitioner version is unacceptable. It breaks with NPOV policy on inclusiveness. All relevant views should be represented. The more New Age/occult/eastern views are significant in the light of both scientific and sociological research, and they certainly deserve mention in the article. The lovely thing about Wikipedia is its inclusiveness while holding science as a light to shine on matters of confusion. The whole world cannot be published in a peer-reviewed journal. What Wikipedia is up to is including all relevant views. Menon, and other non Anglo views are really worth a mention. What has been added to the art. is really helpful for the reader to get what everyone is on about. Chiao AliceDeGrey 07:40, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi AliceDeGrey. I can accept the opinion that that POV is significant, and it can be included in the article, AS LONG AS THERE IS A CLEAR, IDENTIFIABLE reference given. Menon 1997 is completely unidentifiable. You may know who he/she is, but I don't, and all it takes is to identify the source in the standard format, Lastname, First&Middle Initial, Year, TITLE, that is all I was asking. If you have the title of the Menon writing, please provide it. (I hope that your reference to the "non-anglo views" is not meant to imply that it is unfair to demand a source title from non-anglo sources.)
Then there is the question as to whether a reference is legitimate in terms of it being from a reputable source (peer-reviewed journal, etc.) and meets minimum criteria for a research paper or research review. An example of a source that does NOT meet those criteria is the Tippet NEWSPAPER ARTICLE on cults, which makes a number of assertions yet provides ZERO references, etc. (I have provided examples of legitimate sources CRITICAL OF NLP above). Now, in my reading of the NPOV, the Tippet article (and other similar opinion pieces such as the Drenth and Levelt references provided) should be out. Please note that I am NOT saying that there couldn't be other texts by these same authors that meet the criteria, just that the ones cited do NOT.
However, so far I have not seen any guidance from the mentors on this question, so I am beginning to suspect that they will be allowed in. If they were though, I must insist that the STYLE of the sections referencing them makes it clear that this is from opinion pieces in non-peer-reviewed publications, etc.
Minimally, I suggest that phrases such as "Levelt claims that..." or "Drenth is of the opinion..." or "Tippet charges/accuses", etc. be used, instead of formulations that make it appear as if those opinions were facts. I would even be willing to use such formulations for statements by NLP developers where they make sense, e.g. "NLP claims that human beings unconsciously move their eyes in certain set directions for specific mental activities, and calls this 'eye accessing cues'" and the like, even though this would make the article somewhat more cumbersome to read, and just about none of the other psychotherapy articles follow this style regardless of the degree of doubt cast on the specific theory. (Note also that the way to criticise the statement should be held something like: "Researchers have failed to find statistical evidence for this claim in controlled studies..." and NOT: "Scientists say that eye accessing cues are hocus-pocus and that NLP is just wrong")
The one area where the "claims" formulation is not necessary is the area of some NLP models, because a model by definition does not claim to be true, only to be an abstraction that may be useful for certain purposes (compare that Newtonian physics, even though now falsified and superseded by General Relativity, still serves as a useful model/approximation). After a model is explained, then we can apply the "claims" phrase again as in, "The developers of NLP claim that the Meta Model has universal applicability for...", etc. "Neurolinguists dispute this assertion on the grounds that..."
So, anybody willing to work in an equitable manner as outlined? I do believe that the NLP Meta Model is a very useful MODEL as to how language shapes our perceptions; the language behaviors being displayed in this discussion are full of patterns identified by NLP, ironically especially by those that claim that NLP doesn't work. Each formulation is meant to evoke a particular notion in the reader, no matter what you call it. All that I ask is that the anti-NLP folks acknowledge what they are doing in this regard. Then we can work out an article that has a balance of explanation of what NLP developers say it is, and what critics say it is instead from their point of view, or why they believe it doesn't work or is "dangerous" (BTW, as a theory, NLP cannot itself be dangerous, only its uses by unethical individuals; nobody claims that nuclear physics is in itself a dangerous theory, even though it has allowed for uses that could be considered dangerous, i.e. the atomic bomb, etc.). And the STYLE of the article will be vastly improved.
--Whas 06:02, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Whas, you are new, so I'm going to explain this, but just once. :) We have a 0 incivility policy in place here. I would suggest not writing in capitals unless it is absolutely necessary. Otherwise, it is the Internet version of screaming. It could be construed to be incivil. Tone down the aggression a bit as well. Read WP:CIVIL for some guidance. Any incivility from this point forward could lead to blocks. Thanks. --Woohookitty(meow) 09:16, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Hi Woohookitty. I apologize if the capitalizations offend anyone's sensibilities, they were meant as emphasis. Is using boldface for emphasis OK? Otherwise, I thought I was extending an offer for compromise in regard to the editing... I will admit that I am frustrated that none of the sustantive issues are actually being discussed. I have invested more time than I should have in attempting to engage the anti-NLPers in a productive argument, yet there is nothing forthcoming from their end. Always the same retort to "Drenth and Develt say its so, and their publications are perfectly fine and valid, and anything they say we can just put in verbatim", etc. None of the substantive issues I raise in regard to their writings failing to meet the criteria for acceptable sources as laid out in NPOV are being addressed. And neither you nor any of the other mentors have given much guidance on this issue, i.e. in the form of whether or not the Drenth piece can used or not, and if so, how its claims should be qualified in the article. In the next paragraph I am going to one more time point out the issues:
Bookmain writes: "They both make very clear indications that they have studied the background of NLP in depth, Levelt citing from both psycholinguistic publications and NLP publications. Drenth does the same. They are both shining light on NLP. They help the reader understand NLP. They can be stated straight.[...] Bookmain 04:33, 15 May 2006 (UTC)" ---- Really? I looked over the Levelt article again, and it contains not one reference to anything but NLP publications. Two philosophers/psychologists are quoted, one is Wundt, and the other Hume, yet neither of these two are psycholinguists. There is no reference to even one psycholinguistics publication as far as I can tell. There are no references given at the end of the opinion piece. Why? Because it was published in a newspaper, not in a peer reviewed journal. There was no critical review by other scientists. I have already laid out further up the lack of references in Drenth's piece, as well as the fact that it is "published" in his own "science clubs" mouthpiece, not a peer-reviewed journal. Why? Because it fails to meet the requirements for such publication. His only real reference is the Levelt opinion piece (his section on NLP contains exactly 5 references, two of which are to the NLP works itself (B&G; Adler), one to one of Drenth's own writings, one to Levelt, and one to a book from 1963 by Kouwer about Rohrschach, etc.). So we have one man's opinion based almost entirely on one other man's opinion. If this should be allowed in at all, then it needs to have exactly that kind of qualification, so that the reader is not deceived about the source (e.g. "Levelt, in an op-ed piece for a Dutch newspaper, claims that NLP..."). But really I don't see why they should be allowed in given NPOV: "Reputable publications include peer-reviewed journals, books published by a known academic publishing house or university press, and divisions of a general publisher which have a good reputation for scholarly publications." --Whas 16:07, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Hello Whas. Both Drenth and Levelt make very strong indications of solid research into NLP. Levelt talks of in-depth literature review, and cites Derks amongst others, and yes Derks is a book about NLP. Intermediair is a major publication in the Netherlands and its subject matter covers science and technology. The publication and article in question is also included in the annual report of the Max Plank Institute of Psycholinguistics of the same year. Trying to label the papers as newspaper articles really isn't going to make any difference. The two corroborating authors are eminently quotable, and removal of their views would simply be a restriction to Anglo-American view. I believe the attempted removal of these eminent scientific views would be unconstructive. They are both highly respected experts in the area of psychology and psycholinguistics, and published in reputable journals. They both fit NPOV recommendations for inclusion as reputable and verifiable sources. And indeed, as mentioned before, if NLP authors can say what they think NLP is good for, then both these expert's view can be shown. Regards HeadleyDown 17:17, 16 May 2006 (UTC)


Hello Whas. I'm sure you have understood that Wikipedia is quite different from most newsgroup communication, and this article in particular is really hot on civility. Woohookitty's explanation to you is also a good reminder for myself and others. I noticed your writing style is quite emphatic. One solution for you would be to use bullet points instead of capitals (use an asterisk). Most people use them here at some time or other, and they seem civil and help with reading. Regarding civility, it took me a long time to get used to it, and I have to even now use MSword and a re-check before I post. So have a really good look at the civility article. At least, I find it very easy to slip into sloppy banter. The article is useful. Regards HeadleyDown 10:19, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Very good advice, Headley. --Woohookitty(meow) 10:21, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Instead of capitals you can use '' to add emphasis. ---=-C-=- 10:29, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Enough

It is perfectly ok for users to put dispute tags in places where they dispute facts. It is not ok for others to label the disputes as "illegitimate". That isn't how this works. How this works is that if someone puts the label on, they need to justify it. They deserve to be given time to justify it. Just removing the tags is improper. "They make the article look ugly" does not hold water. The article looks ugly with or without the tags. That's our whole point here: to make the article fit Wikipedia style and sourcing standards. Bookmain, it is not your job to decide what is illegitimate and what isn't. That kind of thing is ruled by consensus. I wish you guys would make more of an attempt to work together. Instead, I'm still seeing people stay on their side of the fence and make little or no attempt to try to compromise or to try to work together. If someone puts a disputed tag up, the proper thing to do is to ask "what do you dispute and why". The improper thing is to just to remove the tags. That's what increases hostility and leads to edit wars. So. Stop. Listen. And try to work together. Think about the betterment of the article over your own views. That's the Wikipedia way. Try to follow it. --Woohookitty(meow) 06:11, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I reverted all of bookmain's removal of dispute tags. If this is tried again, the user will be blocked. We're not going to tolerate anything that is going to lead to a revert war or an edit war and this certainly would. --Woohookitty(meow) 06:27, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dispute tags

To the anti-NLP side, remember, you guys can put disputed tags up as well. Use the same general format that Comaze used, i.e. put the tag up and then in the text itself, use the <!-- to start your reasons for the tag and --> to end the reasons. Now, this is not an invitation to overdo this. We don't want to see everyone put 30 disputed tags up. The idea of the tags is to say "hey, I dispute such-and-such" so that then you guys can discuss things. It's not to be disruptive. It's not to prove a point. --Woohookitty(meow) 07:07, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Thankyou for reverts and everything Woohookitty. It is all good. And thanks for level headed mediating as usual. HansAntel 06:59, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Btw, when I say "disputed tags", I am referring to the {{dubious}} tag. Sorry if I wasn't clear. --Woohookitty(meow) 05:55, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comaze

We'd like to keep the dispute tags to 4-5 per user. So Comaze, could you remove several of your tags for now and then you can add back when we've covered your first few? If we have too many tags at once, we're going to have chaos. --Woohookitty(meow) 06:54, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

No problem. I'll reduce it to about 2-3 main ones within the next few hours. ---=-C-=- 07:20, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Splendid. I'll add a few myself. HeadleyDown 12:08, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
I'll focus on the most important ones first. I'll see if I can reduce the number some more ---=-C-=- 14:35, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
That works. Just don't want it overdone. --Woohookitty(meow) 15:19, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reduce warring (cool idea)

Well this is all very encouraging Woohookitty. You are completely fine on this point. I will make some posts on the article concerning disputes. And I'll be reasonable about it too. Reversion warring has been very bad here in the past and I am glad you're doing the job of fairly preventing such things. I'd also like to reiterate your recommendation to suggest something to change or delete here first, then if there is no dispute go ahead after a few days on the article. This again will reduce warring. I know Whas (welcome by the way) is a new editor, and he should be severely forgiven for any out of line moves he has made against that helpful recommendation. Lets keep the snatch and grab to a minimum or not at all. AliceDeGrey 07:32, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] text moved (Salerno)

text moved

Since the mid 1990s NLP has become more widespread, and following the example of Richard Bandler (who attempted legal action to claim the bulk of the field as his own personal intellectual and commercial property because he could not resolve the dispute through the use of NLP [43]. The dispute between Bandler and Grinder over trademarks and copyright was resolved in court of California in 2000 who deemed NLP a generic term [24] [43].

reason for move

<sniped> ---=-C-=- 14:27, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Hello Comaze. Semiliterate is a term used to describe people, not text. When you use the term are you refering to the editor or the author? Regards HeadleyDown 14:18, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the correction. I prefer to discuss the text, not the authors. The prose needs some work, and then it could be reinserted, don't you think? ---=-C-=- 14:27, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Good, I move to have it stricken from the article. If anyone wants to resurrect it in the next few minutes, then prepare your argument, place it on the discussion page, and wait to see if somebody doesn't want it before placing it in the article. If they object, then you have to argue first of course! Regards HeadleyDown 14:43, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
I don't understand. Don't you want it rewritten? ---=-C-=- 15:01, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
No its fine by me to ditch it. If someone wants to reintroduce it, they can just suggest it on the discussion like anyone else. Perhaps others have a different idea though. HeadleyDown 16:42, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
I understand, and I think it is not necessary to have it rewritten. Like Headley I know it is fine by me to remove it out also. HansAntel 05:08, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Bandler and Grinder have resolved their disputes, and released each other of intellectual property claims, clearing the way for future development of the discipline of NLP should probably be included[24]. ---=-C-=- 10:34, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Sure Comaze. Lets hang about for some more responses, and if there are no changes or objections, I am fine about having it replace the present lines. HeadleyDown 10:39, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

That is an easy change. I can do it. HansAntel 03:04, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Missing references section

Hello guys. This is funny, the references are gone somewhere. I don't know how it is to put them back. I will have a search on history for them HansAntel 05:16, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Alice DeGrey accidentally commented out the references. Need to be *very* careful with commenting out. Just moving a bracket can remove alot of material. --Woohookitty(meow) 05:39, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Oooops! Sorry about that. I'll have to double check next time. AliceDeGrey 04:21, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Right. Looks like a tricky problem. I hope it doesn't deter folk from editing. I guess newbies can just use any old attribution technique (name, page, date etc), and the oldies such as myself can make it consistent with the link method. HeadleyDown 10:42, 16 May 2006 (UTC)


Yes I will be careful. HansAntel 03:17, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NLP Emeters

There is an interesting view (and quite neutral) by D.V. Barrett on the career ladder and emeters of NLP. This shows the more business oriented NLP in an appropriate light. He states "Like many alternative religions, particularly the Estoeric movements, there is a career ladder within NLP. Many people find the introductory seminar interesting and thirst for more. Practitioner training is the place to go next."

Then he gives a brief list of the NLP training steps to the ladder.

He also says they sell a biofeedback GSR meter which is "cheaper and perhaps more effective than the Scientology E-meter".

Sorry, the ref is "The New Believers: A Survey of Sects, Cults and Alternative Religions" 2001 Barret,D pages 238 and 239

This is pretty concrete information and will also help the reader find a familiar "structure" to NLP. I suggest that it be briefly placed in the therapy or healing section. Regards. HeadleyDown 02:39, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[The book you refer to can be search and previewed on google print, but the quote could not be found. Also, the pages cited (pp.238-239) are not related to NLP. Could someone else confirm this? ---=-C-=- 05:42, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, my mistake. Here is the ref: Sects, cults, and alternative religions : a world survey and sourcebook / David V. Barrett. Publisher: London : Blandford , 1998. Same pages.

Oh, btw, Google print is extremely unreliable. Its easier to simply go to the library to read the book. Regards HeadleyDown 10:29, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok, good, I suggest the career ladder be added to the applications section, and the GSR meter info be placed in the therapy section. Bookmain 03:29, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Hi Bookmain. 1st I'd like to thank you for your work on this page. 2ndly I'd like to point out that I believe the particualr point about GSR Devices and E-meters is be pushing beyond the bounds of the NPOV policy. While Mr. Dilts may be selling Biofeedback GSR Devices, he may be one of the very few if not only one doing so within the NLP community. None of the main pieces of the body of literature by Bandler, Grinder, Cameron-Bandler, DeLozier, Stephen Gilligan and even Dilts himself contain any mention of or instruction in the use of GSR meters. You will find no standard NLP practitioner and master practioner instruction manuals which contain any mention of using GSR devices. Mr. Dilts is in the negligable minority of NLP trainers involved in the business and promotion of these devices. The NPOV policy states that "views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views. To give undue weight to a significant-minority view, or to include a tiny-minority view, might be misleading..." And clearly, I think this the case in this situation. It would be akin to adding to the Dentistry Wiki that some dentists (like my own) sell magnets to cure back pain, or adding to the Heavy Metal Wiki that 'some metal bands are Hare Krishnas'. It's simply irrelevant and unnecesarily colors the entry. Unless others can provide evidence that the practice of using GSR devices is common and widely used, I suggest that this be left out of the entry in accordance to NPOV policy. Thanks again. Doc_pato 12:59, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Feature Article: a beacon of light

Here is an example of an excellent article that has recently reached feature article status, Philosophy of mind. It might serve as a beacon of light — far off in the distance — guiding us to a common destination. We could all learn a great deal from the style and the way the differents points of view are presented. ---=-C-=- 08:04, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Well it could be a light at the end of the tunnel, but it may also be someone with a torch and a load of irellevant work to sift through. Lets stick with literature relavant to NLP. Regards HeadleyDown 10:32, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Actually Comaze, that isn't a bad article to look towards. It's similar to this one in some ways, including it's heavy sourcing nd different points of view. --Woohookitty(meow) 11:11, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Well, it seems odd to me. Its a pseudoscience, but there is no view on the article saying it is a pseudoscience. Seems more than a little one sided to me. I may start work on that article myself. Regards HeadleyDown 12:46, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
"Pseudoscience" is typically one of those pejorative labels we avoid since it invariably ends up intractably disputed. There are those who disagree with the label about pretty much every pseudoscience known to man. And after all, we don't say "Adolf Hitler, a tyrannial dictator" -- we simply show it to be so with our examples; people can draw that conclusion themselves if they so choose. Same for Philosophy of mind. And same for NLP. · Katefan0 (scribble)/poll 04:08, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Yes Kate. Wikipedia should not conclude that NLP or the Phil of Mind is pseudoscience. That can only be added as a view of a scientist or similarly reputable source. Adolf is an interesting case. I believe he was interested in lots of pseudoscientific subjects such as phrenology and eugenics. I'll have a scout around the related sites to make sure the articles don't indicate that wikipedia states anything in particular is pseudocience. AliceDeGrey 04:20, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Well I take the middle ground here. I reckon that all significant views be included, but I do feel that comparing NLP to Hitler is a little beyond the pale. Pseudoscientists are somtimes of the good intention variety, and they are also not particularly into genocide. As NPOV says, with regards to pseudoscience, it needs to be clarified, and that involves stating who views it as a pseudoscientific subject, and explaining that classification (its not always criticism) and letting the reader make up their minds. I completely agree with Kate on this point though; showing NLP to be a pseudoscience using examples is crucial. I reckon the major improvements to this article have been in the use of clearer and concrete language. Obscurantisms are always a problem as they are so misleading and vague. Stating things in concrete terms is helpful. The philosophy of mind article could also do with more solid terms and phrases. Bookmain 06:45, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. Maybe I misread someone's comment, but how can something that does not purport to conform to the scientific method and not claim any of the validity of science be a pseudoscience? That science can inform or direct the ideas in the Philosophy of mind does not make it scientific, nor make any kind of claim of valid science. Isn't the 'pseudoscience' label exclusively targetted at areas that at least claim to be science? Tez 11:48, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Hello Tez. Good question, and always worth asking. Nobody has to declare science before something is a pseudoscience. In fact, someone can state it is not a science, and it still be thought of as a pseudoscience. The main criteria for inclusion here, is that it is a reliable view of an expert that something is a pseudoscience. It helps if the expert's explanation is given also. Regards HeadleyDown 12:03, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Well, accoriding to pseudoscience, being portrayed as a science is in fact a necessary condition. Granted, given NPOV, all you would need is an expert's opinion. But if a spokesperson of the National Academy of Science said cooking was a pseudoscience, they would in fact be wrong. Claiming that philosophy of mind is pseudoscientific is similarly wrong, which is probably why it isn't in the article. Tez 09:04, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Well, its just a matter of research then. Regards HeadleyDown 12:24, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Improving all the time

Hi guys. I believe the article has become a lot more readable. The opening is far clearer with that nice concrete line in the first para, and it flows a bit better than before. Some things still need work such as the study of structure of subjective.... No doubt the citations will continue to be cleaned up. If we can continue to work with the - discuss first, then change - method, then we may find world peace at least on this article. Good stuff! AliceDeGrey 04:32, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you. I hope that this debate will end in a good manner! --Siva1979Talk to me 04:35, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Thank you Siva1979. Enjoy the current footy:) (World Cup). Bookmain 06:37, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
I disagree completely, the first paragraph is tendentious in the extreme. I looked around, hardly a single article starts with "... is a set of... rituals and beliefs", even articles on religion do not start this way. I propose to change the first paragraph to "NLP is a system of pragmatic models of communication and associated techniques first proposed by Richard Bandler and John Grinder in 1975. While orginally intended for psychotherapeutic uses, it has been applied to ..." --Whas 17:10, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Hello Whas. The line in the article is clear. Models is not clear. Literature of NLP and of independent researchers says rituals and beliefs. They agree with each other. Beliefs and rituals is easy to understand for the reader, and the following after sentence clears it even more. Sorry, but we cannot in any way present the "sexy" version of what is advertised from promotion books. The article is far far better than before also. Before it was all very muddy and fuzzy with nice big words but not meaning anything. Now we got the words from all the best sources and now its easier for the reader. HansAntel 01:59, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Only concern I have with your idea, Whas, is that we have to keep things readable. I'm not sure if John Q Public would know what pragmatic model meant. We need to rewrite that into language that John Q Public would understand. Heck, I'm not even sure if I know what pragmatic model means. Either explain it or link it. --Woohookitty(meow) 02:20, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
I concur regarding Whas's observation. Perhaps this may have been addressed, but the primary problem is with the word 'ritual'. 'Ritual' tends to have religious or spiritual conotations. In fact, Merriam-Webster defines the noun 'ritual' as "1 : the established form for a ceremony; specifically : the order of words prescribed for a religious ceremony". While there are certain NLP trainer's who use the concept of ritual in a metaphoric manner, as well a few scientists who make the assertion that NLP can be considered pseudo-religious, the vast bulk of NLP training and materials available are not of a religious nature. This can cause confusion with John Q. Public who may, given the nature of the word 'ritual', conjure inaccurate images of candles, insense or headless chickens, none of which make up the standard NLP training or seminar. While a situation like this would surely be beneficial for those who's purpose is not to clarify what the vast majority of the proponents of NLP claim the system to be, but rather paint the picture of NLP as a 'bogus psuedo-science'; it does NOT serve the purpose of creating a clear and balanced portrait. Certainly, I can see 'Pragamatic Model' obfuscating understanding as well. Perhaps a more neutral ,"Neuro-linguistic programming (NLP) is a set of techniques, postulates and beliefs presented primarily as an approach to psychotherapy, healing, communication and personal development.", would serve to be less objectionable to the rational and restrained. Doc_pato 011:30, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Hello Doc_pato. I believe in the encyclopedic context, the reader will be a lot more open minded than you indicate. Ritual has a range of meanings that you have left out. Psychologically it means a set of actions, sociologically it means a set of actions common to a particular group of people (NLPers in this case), and it does have a spiritual meaning also. These are all consistent with NLP's characteristics. As mentioned above, both NLP literature refers to its methods as rituals, and the independent literature that examines NLP also uses that term. Considering it is concerned very much with healing, rituals is idea and paints exactly the right picture, and indicates exactly the correct description of its methods. In the context of the line on visualizations, affirmations etc, it is very appropriate. Considering it is so close to the terms "psychotherapy", "visualizations", "hypnosis", and so on, I believe the reader will be suitably informed and will not exclusively consider NLP to be a bogus pseudoscience. The terms used in all literature are used in that first line, and the reader is left with all options in order to make up their own mind. Regards HeadleyDown 04:25, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
Hi HeadlyDown. Yes, I agree. I only cited the 1st/primary defintion of 'ritual', which is a word that does have a wide range of meanings, precisely as you suggested. In fact, it's probably word with too wide a range of meanings. If our goal is to clarify and make things less ambiguous, it really doesn't seem necesary to use the word when a) others seem to keep objecting to it, and b)the defintion "Neuro-linguistic programming (NLP) is a set of techniques, postulates and beliefs presented primarily as an approach to psychotherapy, healing, communication and personal development.", covers it, does it not? Yes, it's possible John Q Public might think of rituals in the non-religious sense, but when this is the most common use of the word, why leave room for misinterpretation, when perhaps one of the largest classes of NLP trainings these days (Business, Communication and Persuasion) doesn't really concern itself with the ideas of healing or 'rituals', and another definition is adequate? What is your concern if the word is left out in the 1st sentence? Doc_pato 06:30, 20 May 2006 (UTC)


Hello again Doc_pato. Thanks for your considered reply. My (and our) main concern is with NPOV, specifically regarding the consideration of the primacy of science. Pseudoscience is all well and good as far as it sometimes benefits folk, according to some perceptual measures. But science is there to clarify pseudoscience. Many claims have been made (according to the more independent research on NLP). The result is, there is no effect according to scientific method. So ritual is the only remaining construct. NLP covers the whole array of ritual's meanings. So there is no misinterpretation on the part of the reader. They always have it right. If they think that NLP involves rituals in the psychological sense, they are correct, if in the sociological sense, they are correct, and in the sense that NLP is akin to a religion, cult or new alternative religion, again they are correct. The human potential industry and self development are one with business, communication and persuason, as are a lot of other so called pseudosciences. Its just one of those subjects. As with a lot of relatively new phenomena, NLP is being better contextualized all the time in indepentent research. That is happening here also. Thank you Doc_pato, for your clear argument, and your well defined point of view. Regards HeadleyDown 12:25, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for clarifying your concern with the word 'ritual' and it's relation to NPOV. This is exactly my concern as well. Our primary disagreement appears to be with your third assertion, "If they think... that NLP is akin to a religion, cult or new alternative religion, again they are correct." While their are a few "experts" who would lump NLP into the realms of religion, cult or new alternative religion, you would be hardpressed to find many of the proponents of NLP to do the same. This makes this particular assertion, a disputed one. Therefore, including the word unnecessarily in the introductory definition with they idea that if John Q. Public "is correct' if he comes away with the idea that set of actions common to NLP practioners (which you would like to call 'rituals') are of a religious or psuedo-religious nature... is a clear indication of bias on behalf of those few "experts" who assert this particular point of few. While I am wholeheartedly in agreement that the particular viewpoint held by these "experts" should be presented within the entry, to color the very definition of NLP with their disputed assertion, would seem to violate the spirit of NPOV, which clearly states that "it is important... to assert facts about competing opinions, and to do so without implying that any one of the opinions is correct." Use of the word "ritual" in the core definition of NLP, noteably reflects your implication that ""If they think... that NLP is akin to a religion, cult or new alternative religion, again they are correct." Again, I suggest the use of "Neuro-linguistic programming (NLP) is a set of techniques, postulates and beliefs presented primarily as an approach to psychotherapy, healing, communication and personal development." A minor change which does not include the aforementioned NPOV violation. Doc_pato 12:20, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
Doc has a point. I don't see a problem with his modififed opening sentence. A sentence that is a summation of NLP's critics can directly follow. · Katefan0 (scribble) 15:28, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
Ok, Kate. I see how this can work. Rituals are explained in NLP books such as the Encyclopedia of NLP. It is included in a similar way to visualization, affirmations etc, so I believe it may be more appropriate for that following line. I will see what can be done about a critic's line. Regards HeadleyDown 19:34, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
Hello again: Here is the suggested change:
Neuro-linguistic programming (NLP) is a set of techniques and beliefs that adherents use primarily as an approach to psychotherapy, healing, communication and personal development. Critics say that NLP is pseudoscientific and is promoted using fake jargon and exaggerated claims characteristic of fraud and charlatanry.
NLP methods include the use of visualization, affirmations, guided fantasy, ritual, trance states, hypnosis, and specific body language such as posture and eye movements.

Regards HeadleyDown 03:22, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Hello Headley. It looks good. The link of the trance states is not working, so I remove it. The ritual side is important so it must go somewhere, and be included thoughout. I think it is probable some scientist will put the ritual back into the first line near technique sometime. There is no evidence NLP works and the new age part is obvious. But this version is by me, fine. HansAntel 02:36, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Sure, thats reasonable. I'll make these changes. Bookmain 05:42, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Hello Headley. I think your use of 'ritual' in the 3rd sentence is much better, as it does describe a possible method within NLP rather than the core definition of what NLP is. Well done. I propose however to keep the basic sentence approved by Katefan0, "'Neuro-linguistic programming'(NLP) is a set of techniques, postulates and beliefs that adherents use primarily as an approach to psychotherapy, healing, communication and personal development." I think the word 'postulates', as approved by Katefan0, is useful because NLP asserts various ideas without requiring proof, as if that proof is self-evident. And yet it asserts these ideas are not an absolute truths to be believed, but merely as an operational basis for which other techniques and practices are based upon. As noted later in the entry, NLP practioners are asked to act "as if" certain ideas are true, in order to use NLP. The word 'postulates' covers such ideas such as VAK, Meta-Programs, and MINTT which are less 'beliefs' or 'techniques' than operating presupositions. Doc_Pato 21:42, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi Doc_Pato. The word "postulates" makes it quite hard to understand for the reader though. I believe the word may be useful later in the article, when it has a chance of being clearly explained. Regards HeadleyDown 02:12, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi Headley. That's an interesting opinion. In what way to you think the previously approved word "postulates' makes it quite hard for a reader, particularly when it will be explained later on? Thanks. Doc_Pato 00:07, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Well, it is used in an odd way by NLP. It is synonymous with hypotheses. I see nothing wrong with hypotheses, yet even that would be better explained later. Plus, scientists do not see them as hypotheses. They are stated theories or magical theories according to the literature. So its a complicated one. I believe it could be briefly mentioned in the overview, and in the pseudoscience sections. Regards HeadleyDown 03:21, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
I agree. It will be better explained later and I'm glad you see nothing wrong with the idea of hypothesis. I think the word is much more accurate than that of 'Theory' which implies a greater range of evidence and greater likelihood of truth. NLP does not cite evidence, nor does NLP even generally claim their postulates are true. They are simply assumptions made for a practical ground for taking action. Perhaps the best way to include this, would be to simply keep it the way Katefan0 approved, "'Neuro-linguistic programming'(NLP) is a set of techniques, postulates and beliefs that adherents use primarily as an approach to psychotherapy, healing, communication and personal development", and later we can add #link to postulates linking it to where the concept is explained in detail. Doc_Pato 04:47, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Well this is the problem again. A reader will think that a person making postulates will believe that those postulates are true. So its complicated and misleading on its own. So we need to explain how NLP has re-defined the term postulate or hypothesis. Its probably best introduced and explained later. Regards HeadleyDown 07:11, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Well, given the definition of postulate (1. a hypothesis advanced as an essential presupposition, condition, or premise of a train of reasoning), I'm simply going to have to disagree with the idea a user would derrive that and NLPer necesarily believes his posulates to be true. I respectfully disagree that it's overly complex or misleading, or even 're-defined', and I'd kindly ask that one of the Mentors include the word as approved by Katefan0 before being excluded by Bookmain, perhaps with a link to the wiki definition. Doc_Pato 17:47, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Additional Criticism

In regards toKatefan0's proposal that we are to create "a sentence that is a summation of NLP's critics" to directly follow the NLP definition, there are many different criticisms of NLP from various sources outside of the Scientific Community as well. For example some in the Christian community believe NLP is 'evil' due to it's New Age connections. One author goes on to call NLP "a masterpiece of satanic deception" (P.4 'YOU ARE GROWING SLEE-PY, SLEEPY' T.Ross, Harvestime Books Jan 1991). To properly create a summation of ALL critics, I believe these concerns should be placed in the critics statement as follows:

'Neuro-linguistic programming'(NLP) is a set of techniques, postulates and beliefs that adherents use primarily as an approach to psychotherapy, healing, communication and personal development. Critics not only say that NLP is pseudoscientific and is promoted using fake jargon with exaggerated claims characteristic of fraud and charlatanry but also claim NLP is "a masterpiece of satanic deception". Doc_Pato 05:00, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Hi Doc. Yes that last line has a really nice ring to it:) But I wonder how reliable or includable it is in the opening. What is the context of that line in the source? Also, there are some more pieces to add later on NLP and the occult. Your line may well be more appropriate placed with those (probably within the pseudoscience, New Age, or the cult section later) Regards HeadleyDown 07:06, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Actually Headley, I suspect the entire critics statement would probably be more appropriately placed in the Criticism section, however if we want to give a summation of critics statements at the begining, a Religious Point of View of criticism should not be excluded in that summation, and then perhaps we can upon within an occult or psuedoscience section.

As far as the context, the book states:

"In the early 1970's Dr. Richard Bandler and Dr.John Grinder through a careful study of acknowledged masters of communication and change such as Drs. Milton Erickson, Virginia Satir, Gregory Bateson, and Fritz Perls, discovered what made these individuals so effective and in the process developed the field of Neuro-Linguistic Programming. . . .
Shortly After:
"Unless you can see that Satan is the mastermind who has devised this science, it will not be so easy a matter as you suppose to separate from it, root and branch. The whole philosophy of this science is a masterpiece of satanic deception. For your soul's sake, cut loose from everything of this order." And later still: "This science may appear to you to be very valuable; but to you and to others it is a fallacy prepared by Satan."
Perhaps to make the sentence more wieldly it can be: 'Critics not only say that NLP is pseudoscientific and is promoted using fake jargon and exaggerated claims but also claim NLP is "a masterpiece of satanic deception". Or Perhaps "Criticism of NLP ranges from that it is pseudoscientific, promoted using fake jargon and exaggerated claims to charges NLP is "a fallacy prepared by Satan". Doc_Pato 17:10, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My plan...

I'm sure you've all noticed the state the article is in, especially the references. Frankly I can't stand it any longer. I am offering to go through the entire article and sources and sort the whole thing out. I would keep most of the structure and content, but it would still be a major undertakeing. Basicly I'd like to check that there are no fundemental objections that would lead to the work getting reverted instantly. I'll probably begin in under a day's time if there are no objections. Opinions? Jefffire 03:54, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

On the surface, your idea sounds wonderful. The problem is that this is a highly contentious issue and I am not sure if others are going to accept your offer. This article has had many many mediator-types and most of them have left in disgust, to be honest with you. That's at least partially why the mentors were brought in. So good luck. :) --Woohookitty(meow) 04:48, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Hi Jefffire. Yes your plan is helpful. I will help out as much as my schedule allows. But how about we divide the task, or choose to do a section each here first (the sheer scale of the task has been de-motivating and I never liked the silly link numbers in the first place, but if thats the format we should make it consistent). Stick to the section until it is pretty much done, and then elect another section and do the rest. I believe that way we can keep it manageable, and allow for correcting each other (or adding the actual ref name and year page no etc) on various things. I find the NLP Therapy section is still a bit of a mess and its been bugging me, so I suggest that I have a go on that over the next few days. Just citations and correcting the quotes etc. If we stick to getting the citations in order (programming these tricky ref links to work) then at least that is the appearance sorted out. If there is a problem with quotes or wording or anything really contentious, we could make suggestions and better sort that out cooperatively later. So, sort of divide and conquer, and keep it at a stately pace so we have time to correct each other. Just my suggestion. Regards HeadleyDown 06:58, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Thank goodness people are willing to help! I've got a lot of time on my hands so I will take everything down to Scientific Analysis. I recommend that people make writen notes on each claim needing sourced, and on what each reference provides. Good luck everone. Jefffire 12:20, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Sure Jefffire. Here are some starting points. The first line is slightly off. The Singer line actually goes: On the questions of “does NLP work?” and “is NLP effective?” Singer cited the NRC research committee who stated that there was no evidence of its claimed effectiveness. [6].
Also, the Druckman 1988 should be:
Druckman,D., and Swets, J,A. (1988) Enhancing human performance: Issues, theories, and techniques ISBN 0309037875
I'll fetch the page no's and add them on. Regards HeadleyDown 13:03, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I'll make the Singer adjustment. Bookmain 03:06, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Remember that you must take edits slowly. In the past even a one-word change has touched off reams of discussion. · Katefan0 (scribble) 13:25, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
I understand your concerns but I think that drastic measures are needed to save the article. Jefffire 13:36, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Do you know the situation involving this article? I'm not sure you do. We have 4 mentors (including myself) that have been appointed to teach the editors of this article how we do things here. Here is the arbitration case. Read it if you have not. This is the only article on the site with mentors. That's how bad things got here. So no, we cannot do "drastic measures". If we do, it will bring chaos, trust me. So take things slowly. Please. If things get out of hand (again), we will end this experiment very quickly. So take it slowly. This isn't a "typical" Wikipedia article. --Woohookitty(meow) 13:47, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Sure Drastic is the wrong way. But a good plan would be to 1.At least sort out the refs. 2. Make sure the quotes are ok. I believe that will and should take time. Jefffire's motivation is helpful towards that end. I don't mind slowing it down even now. But the direction is sound. Regards HeadleyDown 14:26, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

What on Earth is going on with this article? Jefffire 14:32, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
You name it. Sockpuppetry, meat puppetry, loads of attacking from entrenched positions. Positive changes are welcome, but please remember to take it slowly. Storming through the article changing everything all at once is not going to go over well. · Katefan0 (scribble) 14:34, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Blimey yeah, I just read through the arbcom report. I'll do this one section at a time, and if that is too much one paragraph at a time. Failing that, one sentence at a time. Jefffire 14:38, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
OK. Just think of it this way, Jefffire. We have about 7 MB of talk on this page and the workshop page. That's 7 MB. :) --Woohookitty(meow) 14:39, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Hi Jefffire. I'll also help out where I can. This article is pretty much like the Scientology/Dianetics articles. Just about every clarifying point gets denied, regardless of whether it is in the literature or not. Eye accessing cues is denied, cult, new age, Scientology similarity, engrams, power therapies, pseudoscience, negative overall scientific review. They are all denied and there is a tooth and nail fight to get them all removed. Clarity is something to fight for here. Luckilly, right now we have reasonable mentors. Bookmain 02:52, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Hello again. I noticed the Sala ref is off. Its actually Corbalis in Sala's edited book. I'll do the changes. Bookmain 02:55, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Just letting you all know I'm not leaving in disgust. I'm moveing a few refs into numerical order to get a feel for the article (the first time took me about 10 minutes). I'll be leaving for a week on saturday but afterwards I'll be back to help. Jefffire 22:25, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the ideas all the same. I'll try to do something during the week (amongst all the discussion). Have a good break. HeadleyDown 01:19, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Undue Weight and the Engram Issue

Regarding the Engram Issue, as my User Page indicates I've had the fortune and sometimes misfortune of attaining multiple NLP trainings. I've a vertible library of books from the principal founders of NLP and several Practioner training manuals. I've had my head sniffing about the NLP community for over 10 years. In all the materials I possess regarding NLP, in all my trainings and in all my discussion groups..., not once has the word 'engram' been taught, defined or even discussed. It's simply not a part of mainstream NLP. Judging from the very few mentions provided here, it's barely even a puddle. It use, is obviously an attempt to further support the weak case of NLP to Dianetics, yet has no merit of its own.

Out of curiosity of where exactly the source of this misconception is, I've taken the liberty of writing the authors of the one self-published book. Both of their emails can be found HERE:

Hello Gentleman,
I recently acquired a copy of your book 'An ABC of NLP'.
Great work!
In your book you talk about the concept of the 'Engram'.
Having attended various NLP trainings Practitioner, Master Practitioner
and beyond, as well has having a pretty extensive library of materials
by the founders, I can't seem to find any information on Engrams, nor
was the concept mentioned in any of my training manuals.
Is it a concept you borrowed outside of NLP? Or can you direct me to an
NLP resource which explains the concept in more detail.
Thanks in advance for your time!
Regards.
[Doc_Pato]

Mr. Sinclair replied not providing an NLP source for the concept of the Engram, but instead, Wikipedia.:

Joe Sinclair [Author of 'An ABC to NLP']:
Thank you for your kind words.
Indeed, Engram is a concept that originated outside NLP...
For more information on the Engram, as well as links to further study, I
refer you to the wonderful online encyclopaedia resource: Wikipedia. The
following link will take you directly to the entry, and you will note that
one of the three definitions, indeed, refers to its application in NLP.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engram

Mr. Bray replied:

It's not NLP at all, but when An ABC of NLP went to
press a number of people were writing about the Engram
and NLP.

You may feel free to write these gentleman yourselves to verifiy these statements.

The point here is according to Wiki NPOV Policy "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject..." "None of this is to say that tiny-minority views cannot receive as much attention as we can give them on pages specifically devoted to them. Wikipedia is not paper. But even on such pages, though a view may be spelled out in great detail, it should not be represented as the truth.

From Jimbo Wales, paraphrased from this post from September 2003 on the mailing list:
  • If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
This has not been done in the case of the Engram. The Engram idea can't be sourced with even one of the big names of NLP like Bandler, Grinder, Dilts, Delozier, LaValle or any of ther other names mentioned on the entry page. It can't be found in any commonly accepted reference texts. And even were we to accept 'An ABC of NLP' their authors have clarified "The Engram is not NLP at all".
  • If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
If you'd like, name the adherents of the Engram idea.. but given that they are so few I'd suggest using the following guideline:
  • If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it's true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not.
"In other words, views held only by a tiny minority of people should not be represented as though they are significant minority views, and perhaps should not be represented at all."

The policy is crystal clear here. Let criticism of NLP be factual and reliably sourced, not via weakly substantiated associations to parallel ideologies. Doc_Pato 04:40 23 May UTC

Hello Doc. ABC of NLP has already been written off the article as a self published source. But there is a lot more literature than you think on the subject. A whole book was written on this by Derks 1989, Hollander is a big name in NLP in Europe (he's in the Encyclopedia of NLP), and Drenth and Levelt are very big names in psychology and psycholinguistics. The engram is commonly used, both implicitly and explicitly. NLP theorists use it. There are plenty of web links for NLP engrams, especially in European websites, and some Chinese. Other NLP theorists have other theories, and those are to be included also within the neuro section. Some use the senses-brain or neural networks idea (Dilts talks of Hebbian engrams and anchoring), and some use the engram term (mostly European). Its both a significant and clarifying view. Of course most NLPers don't like to talk of theory at all. But Wikipedia places science highly, and out of the theorists, the engram concept is significant and clarifying. There is actually more to add on the engram concept. This is also going to be balanced with other theories of neuro in NLP. HeadleyDown 01:19, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Hi Doc_pato. Sorry, this has all been argued before. There is no mainstream NLP. It is a fringe practice and similar to other new age therapies, there are only small granfalloons and they don't have a unifying body or adhere to scientific research. The engram term is significant, it is corroborated by scientists and NLPers, and it is one way of explaining neuro in NLP. There are others. Instead of trying to remove the significan and corroborated view, it would be more constructive to add related but different views to it. I will help you out by looking for other views on the neuro in NLP. Bookmain 03:06, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Doc, I know it's an amazing amount of material, but I'd suggest reading through at least the last 3-4 months of discussions here and on the workshop page. Otherwise, the problem is that this isn't a new discussion, so alot of the points you bring up have been covered many times before. So. They are valid points as are the points that Headley and bookmain brought up. But the mentors really want to avoid discussing old subjects if possible. Otherwise, we get into a never ending loop. We've been there many many many times. And I hope like heck we don't do it again. It's frustrating for everyone, including the mentors. --Woohookitty(meow) 03:11, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

My apologies for dredging this up again. Before I continue on this matter, perhaps we can look towards resolving the subject so it won't be brought up again next month by someone else. And so, I'd like to ask Headleydown and Bookmain: Why is it you think this subject keeps getting debated? What is it you think those more familiar with NLP are trying to achieve or are concerned about that causes them to dispute the engram idea? Doc_Pato 04:19, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

No problem, doc_pato. The main goal of the mentors is to teach. New people coming into this debate come into it with a distinct disadvantage and we recognize that. It took the mentors themselves awhile before we could figure out who is who and what is what. --Woohookitty(meow) 04:41, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Hello again Doc_pato. There are many views here that get debated. There are views that some would rather dismiss and remove from the article. The engram fact is one of them. We have had many arguments thrown at it, but Wikipedia accepts views that are represented in the literature. Just because some NLPers with a biz or therapy orientation to NLP don't like to see it, that doesn't mean it should be struck from the article. If we do that, then we have to get rid of the science view, the view of NLP as a pseudoscience, and the more occult and New Age views. We are all familiar with NLP here. However, arguing the engram concept should be removed because it was derived from outside NLP (neuroscience) is the same as arguing neuro or senses should be removed for the same reason. I understand that the view is objectionable to some, but we all have to live with that. We just try to be as neutral as possible, and report the facts, whether objectionable or not. I personally believe NLPers want to argue for removal of such things because NLP is a kind of new religion, and adherants find NLP's related connections and therapies hard to countenance. But thats just my view. My view agrees with the more independent literature, which is probably why I find it quite easy to edit here and on similar articles. Bookmain 04:36, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Hi Doc. I believe its just the nature of pseudoscience. Those more "familiar" with NLP have given a clear indication of its nature by their behaviour, though I try not to let that effect my view of the subject. Regards HeadleyDown 11:28, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Oh btw. The pov section, disputed tag on the Neuro section really has been answered many times already. The label requires removal I believe. Regards HeadleyDown 13:59, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
The authors used are not representative of critics or proponents of NLP. And there is no science to back up these claims. I think the pov-section tag is necessary to attract more neutral editors to contribute to that section. ---=-C-=- 02:02, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Well, again, the authors are perfectly representative, and there is no science to back up any of NLP. Its been discussed many times before. All that needs adding is Dilt's view (though thats halfway there already, it just needs a citation). HeadleyDown 02:51, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


This can be added: Dilts 1983p61 explains neural functioning in relation to the adding of new connections, Hebbian cell assemblies (Hebbian engrams), causal loops, and digital circuitry. HeadleyDown 03:01, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Comaze. I don't know how many hundreds of hours editors have had to spend repeat explaining stuff, but I think Woohookitty has described the situation quite well already. I still have a lot of patience though. Many citations have been shown that have the engram concept in NLP. Those have been reduced in order to make the article more readable. It seems you want us to add more. Many more, with explanations can be added. If you are trying to use the age old line "its not core" then how about we add some more of the so called "core" author's opinions. There is a lot we could add about Bandler and the demons he talks about in his books and audios. We can explain that using neurological terms. Also, Grinder has written in depth about both demon states, and psychic healing. We can add that. He has also a lot more to say about shamanism and occult, as does Bandler. They both talk about traumas. We can add more about that also. It seems a little odd to want to use philosophical and scientific terms all over NLP, and then want to dismiss other scientific terms such as traumas and engrams. The facts are well supported. I have just reviewed Derk's 1989 book, and I counted over 20 entries to engrams so far, directly relating to NLP patterns and background.
I have some suggestions to help the reader out using some more concrete explanations. How about lets briefly add the - Contact your Inner Sage Pattern - to the new age section, place the - Change Personal History Pattern - in the map-reality part of presuppositional beliefs, and start placing the appropriate occult links into the article. I'd be happy to help out there. More clarity, and a more fair inclusion of views. Lets stop restricting it to the blinkered management guru version. New Ager's may have their biases, but they are particularly valid here as the subject is fundamentally a New Age development as can be seen from the research. Chiao AliceDeGrey 05:05, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
AliceDeGrey, HeadleyDown: I don't want to enter another debate with you on this. For example, Derks does not represent a significant majority view in NLP. In contast Bateson's epistemology can be traced back to the very beginning, and Bateson's criteria of mental process is especially significant for this section. ---=-C-=- 05:31, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Derks on his own is just one author. But his view is corroborated/triangulated by two major scientists (Drenth and Levelt). He has also written with Sinclair (another scientist). And with Goldblatt (another US scientist). These with the other refs and links places the engram as a concept in NLP. There is nothing to debate. Bateson is not an NLP developer, and doesn't write about NLP. Drenth, Derks, Hollander, Levelt etc write about NLP. NLP uses the engram concept.
Bateson only wrote the foreword to "Structure of Magic Vol.1", explaining in some detail how highly he thought of the work of B&G, himself having been active in the field and research of psychotherapeutic methods since the 1950s. Your wanting to exclude Bateson, from whom most of the NLP systems concepts are derived BTW, is just humorous. --Whas 21:50, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
No, Whas. Bateson does not belong in the neuro section. He has nothing to add to NLP in terms of neurology. Bookmain 03:03, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Alice's suggestions will help though, and there is no legitimate argument against them either. There are books on NLP and the enneagram, and many other new age/occult developments. Indeed, the New Age aspect of NLP has been under-represented. We best get those into the article, reasonably pronto. Bookmain 07:06, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Hello Whas. Well, Bateson really hasn't contributed anything himself to NLP. Of course he can be mentioned somewhere in the article, but to mention him in excusion of actual researchers and developers such as Derks, Drenth and so on, really is inconsistent. The latter help to clarify the concepts in the article. HeadleyDown 01:26, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Yes, there are quite a few new age views, even from NLP World (the main NLP journal), that we can add into the article. Perhaps we could start with the 5 elements of the pentagram and NLP, as explained by Bolstad? Regards HeadleyDown 12:59, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks HeadleyDown and Bookmain for reminding us all once again of the quality of your contributions: Threatening to put more spuriously defamatory material about pentagrams, etc. is such a pinnacle of debating culture. I do salute you however for your very consistent and effective use of NLP Milton Model patterns to direct this discussion to your own ends, it is a pleasure to see how well it can work. --Whas 22:01, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Hello Whas. These occult/new age items of information represent the broader views about NLP and deserve clear mention in the article, and that is why they were brought up in discussion. I am sorry that you see it as a threat. Wikipedia policy accepts all significant views, and NLP is a new age development. As mentioned before, restricting the article to the management guru version really goes against Wikipedia policies. Regards HeadleyDown 01:33, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi Headley down and Bookmain. Sorry for the delay, my internet was down for 2 days. Thanks for your insight. In regards to your views as to why engram topic keeps becoming a subject of debate: 1) "NLP is a New kind of Religion and adherents find related connections and therapies hard to countenance" and 2) "It's just the nature of pseudoscience", there seems to be an obvious problem here. If these are indeed the reasons behind the continued dispute of the Engram claim, then one can expect a continuing state of eternal dispute, whether or not you remove the 'disputed tag'. With this particular view, NLP adherents or those who dispute the Engram claim are simply zealots, who have no inclination or reason to stop disputing the subject. This is almost to say... everyone is wasting their time here, for a situation that will not and can not get better.

On the other hand, if we address the fact that perhaps there are valid concerns about the engram issue that can be be addressed in a manner that reflects NPOV and is respectful of these disputers and historical fact, it would be helpful in creating situation where we can move forward and not have to deal with this again.

In my opinion there are two primary reasons why the engram dispute has been a problem and will continue to be a problem until these concerns are dealt with.
1) Despite the notion that 'there is no mainstream NLP', the vast majority of what is taught, practiced, documented, referenced, discussed, etc in the NLP Community from it's inception does not include the word 'engram'. And while there is connection to the original neuro-scientific idea of engrams, which became explained as the widely accepted concept of Neural Networks in NLP, the concept of 'programming engrams' is unique to the likes of Derk and alien to vast majority of people who have participated in NLP seminars and training, or who have read basic foundational NLP literature by Bandler and Grinder.
Saying "the Engram is used within NLP to explain how NLP works" simply isn't accurate in describing the training, and viewpoints among most involved in the NLP community.
While certainly not definitive, a Google search string of "neuro-linguistic programming" neural network will result in somewhere over 10,000 hits.
A Google search string of "Neuro-Linguistic Programming" and Engrams will result in less than 250 hits. A good portion of which are from these wikipedia entries.
2) The other primary concern which will continually generate a dispute, is that of suspicion. Given again, that the experience of most involved in the NLP world, lacks a reference for the term engram, and the numerous other common and widely held explanations for significance of the word Neuro, it begs the question as to why the "anti" crowd seems so adamant about using the term so prominently. The obvious answer is lies in the fact that the word engram is used by Scientologists, albeit in a much different sense. It isn't difficult to imagine that someone with a POV that 'NLP is a cultish new age religion' would use wiki to create as many associations between other groups viewed as cults or religions , by whatever means possible. The undue weight placed on the minority view concept can seem like an attempt to invoke the thought "NLP uses engrams, Scientology uses engrams... are they both pseudo scientific cults? You decide." A obvious POV attempting to masquerade as NPOV.
Since you may have a view of NLP as a religion, imagine for a moment the average Christian reading the Wiki entry for Christianity and seeing:
The Meaning of "FAITH"
All [CHRISTAIN] literature refers to the [proving of one's devotion to god] through the [Acts of Faith]. Most current [CHRISTIAN] literature mentions no more than the [doing good works, going to church, loving one and other]. However, [SNAKEHANDLING] is used within [CHRISTIANITY] to [demonstrate true FATIH] [Biblical Reference]. Practitioners such as Rev. Billy Joe, Pastor Bob, and Deacon Thomas profess that the [truth of Christianity] can be demonstrated through the [Handling of Snakes]. According to Rev. Billy Joe.[32], "[true faith] is [trusting God] by [Handling Snakes and treading on scorpions]". Within [CHRISTIANITY], [SNAKEHANDLING] is proposed [demonstrate the power of an almighty god][32]
Now that might all be 'true'. It might be sourced. And there might be hundreds or even thousands of practitioners who confirm to that ideology... but it's giving undue weight to a minority view, within a larger context of millions of followers, regarding a primary topic. Therefore, one might expect most Christians to object to that sort of depiction of faith, as it does not paint an accurate picture of their experience and knowledge of the matter, and would seem as attempt to associate their faith with an idea that seems extreme or bizarre.

I imagine this is why the NPOV policy states :" If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it's true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not."

In any case, whether Mentors and others begin to see the inclusion of Engram as an attempt to install a minority view in order to dubiously associate the use of engram with that of the term used by Scientologists, and whether or not there is a collective attempt to stop such shenanigans, I agree with Bookmain's idea, that the best way to handle this is simply to add other prominent NLPers opinions of the idea of Neuro, opinions held by the majority of people in the NLP community. I'll be going over the books this weekend for sourced citations.

I also think should the word engram remain, that it should be clearly stated and explicitly stated that the concept does not have anything to do with Scientology/diantetics and is derived from neuroscience theory. This will help address concerns of an underhanded attack, and should raise no objection. Thanks all. Doc_Pato 09:19, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi Doc_Pato. Thank you for your measured and well-argued posting. I have read your new user page as well and noted with some satisfaction your psychology credentials, as well as your valid, technical criticisms of NLP. I agree on most counts. Feel free to contact me via my Wikipedia user page E-mail, there are some things to talk about outside of this discussion. --Whas 00:30, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Again Whas, the first line of the neuro section talks of the majority of NLP literature. If you want that to have some citations on it, that is fine. And again, this line can be added: This can be added: Dilts 1983p61 explains neural functioning in relation to the adding of new connections, Hebbian cell assemblies, causal loops, and digital circuitry. Engrams are a core concept of neuroscience, and the research persists on that stream. The NLP advocates here have spent a lot of time arguing to remove the terms; cult, engrams, traumas, belief, and many others that are clearly stated in the literature. It is a waste of time trying to remove facts that are clearly stated in reliable books and papers. There are far more constructive things to be doing. If you can find clearly stated views to say that the NLP engram has nothing to do with Scientology, then please present it on the discussion page. Regards HeadleyDown 00:59, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Actually, HeadleyDown, my comment was directed at Doc_Pato, however you obviously felt addressed yet again, so I'll respond, as briefly as your boiler-plate response warrants (it would be nice if you even once addressed the substance of other people's arguments instead of hiding behind obscurantist language such as "the literature", "the research", and supposed "facts" that are really merely views):
Engram is in fact just one of the many concepts of neuroscience, specifically used in the debate between localists and distributionalists in the study of human memory. It stands for "memory trace" (coined by Semon in 1912). NLP is just about never concerned with such a low level of resolution (in that it is a bit more like the behaviorist "black box" approach), given that it is first and foremost a set of therapeutic techniques arrived at by modeling processes, etc. Now if someone somewhere used the term from the neuroscience perspective within NLP, then please by all means quote that if it contributes something insightful. If it is just meant to associate NLP with Scientology, which is in my view spurious and at best a minority view, then leave it out.
Your statement that I should prove that NLP doesn't use it in a Scientology sense amounts to a request to prove a negative, and betrays your extreme bias. Why should we unconvince you of a view that is so thinly supported in the first place? Whoever makes the claim in the first place should have the citation in their writing as to where Bandler, Grinder, et al. used this in a Scientology sense in core NLP literature (or anywhere). And if you had that quote, then you would have already introduced it a long time ago, when this argument began. Yet you haven't so far. If it's only used by Derks, et al. then it is a minority view, very late at best given that most of the core NLP literature was already written by 1985, and misleading, certainly in the context of the claim that "NLP uses the engram to explain how NLP works" (poor style BTW). What much of NLP does use as an explanatory model is a neural network model of the brain. Maybe your sentence should read, "Derks and Goldblatt (1985) make reference to the engram term to explain how NLP works from their perspective". That would actually for once be proper attribution in a well-written article (e.g. APA style).
BTW, here is a handy style guideline for attributions and claims made: There are four rough categories, none (0%), some (0.1-49.9%), most(50.1-99.9%), all (100%) that can be used to describe views as to relative majority/minority. If you have a view stated in some source, then by default you can at most say either "some claim/state/etc." or "[author's name(s)] claims/states/holds/etc.", unless you do a very complete overview of all literature extant and can show that the percentage making that specific claim is greater than 50% of the total number of articles considered. It "helps the reader..."
You write: "Engrams are a core concept of neuroscience, and the research persists on that stream." Great, so it's not a core concept of NLP then, as NLP does not equal neuroscience. I am not sure what research you are referring to, you could of course just cite it. I have no idea what it means that it "persists on that stream". You appear to be confusing logical levels all over the place. BTW, "Hebbian" refers to Hebbian learning, the proposition by Hebb (1949) that two neurons, from a neural network perspective, become associated when both of them are active at the same time, with the strength of the link being a function of the strength of their joint activiation (from Haberlandt (1999), "Human Memory", one of the standard textbooks on memory). It specifically does not reference the engram concept, which does appear elsewhere in the textbook in relation to Semon, etc.
I'll reserve the right to judge for myself what topics I consider productive, thank you. I agree with you in that these attempts at smearing NLP in such obvious and undifferentiated ways is a waste of time, yours and everybody else's. In case you haven't noticed, the article is very poorly looked upon by most, both as to style and content, and my guess is it will remain marked disputed until you and the others one day let go of your insistence to criticize (which is in principle your right to do) before NLP is even reasonably explicated in an ecyclopedic context (which by the way has nothing to do with its validity; even proto-scientific theories from the pre-socratic philosophers of Ancient Greece are afforded the courtesy of being described in full first). As far as I am concerned, the style of the article is the equivalent of battling a phantom, as nobody reading it yet knows what specifically you are criticizing. It would appear that a criticism mounted after a complete expose of the thing to be criticized would be much more coherent, logical, and powerful (e.g. how can it be that a section titled "Overview" contains only claims about NLP being a quasi-but-not-really-more-per-se-like religious movement, etc.). For a list of more differentiated criticisms of NLP, I suggest reading Doc_Pato's user page outline. --Whas 05:53, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
You have a point with 'their persective' change Whas. It does make the statement clearer and properly attributed. I can do that. Doc_Pato 17:29, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I'll put in the Dilts line into the article. HansAntel 01:47, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Hans. I'll add a link to Hebbian Learning so people can read more about where Dilt's ideas came from, lest they confuse Hebbian Engrams with Scientology Engrams. Good Work. Doc_Pato 06:19, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks Doc and Hans. I'd say that just about solves it. Regards HeadleyDown 11:24, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Hi again Doc_pato. Actually, on reflection, NLP does use the engram term in the same way to Dianetics/Scientology. They take a theoretical necessity, make out of context claims about it, and use it to support a set of prescriptions that have already shown negative results according to empirical assessment. I'm sure some editor will clarify this point here and on related articles at a later date. Regards HeadleyDown 03:05, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
Well it's definitely a step in the right direction. The section will look better once there are some sourced explantions about the significance and meaning of 'neuro' that reflect most NLPers experience. When that's complete there shouldn't be too much more objection.
One other thing that concerns me: "All NLP literature refers to the altering of one's neurology through the neural pathways of the senses and the neural circuits of the brain." One has to be careful with the word "All". I've severel NLP books that refer to specific areas with NLP theory such as "Sleight of Mouth" by Dilts and others dealing more with language patterns. These don't address that particular idea as they are technique specific. I'd suggest the more accurate "NLP literature often refers to altering one's neurology through the neural pathways of the senses and the neural networks of the brain", also using the word "networks" which as noted above is extremely common in NLP. If there's no significant objection, I'd like to fix that. Doc_Pato 17:29, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Hello Doc. Please suggest a specific line you wish to use here first. The last few changes you made could have led to an unconstructive reversion war with other editors. Regards HeadleyDown 02:57, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
Hmmm. Thought I did that. Perhaps I should have highlighted it. Again the specific line is:
1. I'm suggesting "All NLP literature refers to the altering of one's neurology through the neural pathways of the senses and the neural circuits of the brain." be turned to.
2. "NLP literature often refers to altering one's neurology through the neural pathways of the senses and the neural networks of the brain"
Again, because the term 'all' is an innacurrate generalization, and because neural networks is very common often used term amongst NLPers and in NLP literature. Objections? Doc_Pato 6:29, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok, Doc_pato. The way to sort this out is to remove any reference to all, some, every etc. There is no survey to say how many NLP books say whatever. I suggest we remove the first two lines of the section. We can stick with what Dilts, Derks, Hollander, Drenth and so on clearly state from the literature. We can leave it totally up to the reader to make up their own mind what it means. They will have the rest of the article to help them. Bookmain 09:01, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Bookmain, that sounds like a reasonable solution. Would you like to make the change assuming there is no further objection? Doc_Pato 6:29, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Its fine by me also. Just straight quotes. HeadleyDown 17:06, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Made the change. Looking better. Doc_Pato 1:49, 30 May 2006 (UT

Yes, that is getting better. We probably need to be a little more precise to define what specific literature and what aspects of NLP are influenced by neural networks. We could also include something about limits of conscious attention and notions of chunking information, and making use of unconscious attention. These are fundamental ideas in NLP, and are in line with current thought in cognitive psychology. ---=-C-=- 04:55, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Well we could certainly explain how NLP mixes simplified psychology (the magic number 7+-2) engrams, and unsupported notions of the unconscious. HeadleyDown 06:14, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Hollander answered Drenths criticism in 1999 NLPwolrd magazine. Is it right for the article? Hylas Chung 10:19, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps Hylas. Do you have more information on this? Doc_Pato 21:29, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] peer-review

I've been in contact with some advanced wikipedians, and they have suggested we attempt another peer-review to get more editors in to make comments and suggestions. I think this is the best way forward from here. Headley, Bookmain - are you interested? ---=-C-=- 02:04, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I'll be happy with any neutrally minded peer review, as long as it doesn't get in the way of the present effort. HeadleyDown 02:52, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
As mentioned above, I have a whole bunch of stuff they can peer review. From the looks of things, it can all be included. AliceDeGrey 05:09, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
In theory, this is a good idea, but honestly, I'm not sure we need more voices here. --Woohookitty(meow) 05:27, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
I tend to disagree, but I'm willing to be guided on this. If the various editors can summarise their positions - that is the positions of the anti-NLP group and the pro-NLP group. Maybe the mentors could assist us with a structured discussion to keep us on-topic. Then we could engage a third opinion on how to integrate the various positions. I currently think the layout and structure of the document is very poor, so this would be the first thing I'd like to get external comment on. ---=-C-=- 05:36, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Hello Comaze. You have already stated that you don't like the structure of the article, and other editors have disagreed with you. If the present clear structure of the article does not suit you then please present a new argument for why you want it done your way. I see no reason for any external view on this. Bookmain 07:08, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
The problem with bringing other opinions in at this point is that you guys tried mediation (which is essentially what you are talking about, Comaze) several times. We were appointed as a new method of trying to work this out. Getting others in here right now would be a step back IMO. The mentors never want to completely close any avenue, but I'm not sure that third opinions would be useful right now. Also, even if other opinions would be brought in, peer review is not really the way to do that. You'd be looking more at Wikipedia:Third opinion or a request for comment. Peer review is generally only for making articles featured candidates. There is precedent for peer review to be used in cases like this, but we would want dispute resolution type things and peer review isn't really for that. --Woohookitty(meow) 07:48, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
I'll investigate some ways to engage third opinion, and check back with you. ---=-C-=- 08:49, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I can't editing the article page. There is the patterns section and some mixed up patterns. The circle of excellence and the anchoring are needed to seperate. What is wrong with the article? Hylas Chung 08:45, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Welcome Hylas. Well, there's nothing wrong with the article per se, but the way we do things here is a little different from most of Wikipedia. There is some helpful mentoring going on. I'm not sure when (or if) you will be able to edit the article. But thanks for the pointer. I will make the change. I'm sure the mentors will be able to help you further. Regards HeadleyDown 12:01, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Headleydown. I will watch out and try the article now. Hylas Chung 10:15, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed change: foundational assumptions (item 12)

Replace item 12 in foundational assumptions
  • Text to replace: Direct and objective knowledge of the (external) world is not possible (you create your own reality)
with this
  • Replace with text: Perception of the world is comprised of mental maps, built up via experience. These maps (or filters/beliefs) of the world are limited, that is, they are distorted, generalised and deleted representations, therefore direct knowledge of the world is not possible. The limits to our mental maps can be identified in our choice of language and questioned to gather information and to expand our options (you create your own reality).

---=-C-=- 02:59, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Hello Comaze. I have no problem with your line, however, the original line is supported by a citation in the article, and it is a direct quote, so I believe it should stay. Your line may also be more appropriate in the map/territory part of the presuppositional beliefs section. HeadleyDown 03:10, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
I've altered the proposed change to take into accounts your objections :) I'll wait 24 hours for the others to chime in ---=-C-=- 03:27, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
Hello Comaze. Your intention is unclear now. Do you intend to delete the first line in the foundational assumptions section, and then add your new line in the presuppositional beliefs section? HeadleyDown 03:53, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
I've made it very clear that this is a change to foundational assumptions - item 12. ---=-C-=- 04:08, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
Well you also said it addressed my objections. I suggest the best way to do this is to expand the section on presuppositional beliefs. This will explain the foundational assumptions very well, without leading the reader round in circles. The foundational assumptions are very clear and comprehensive as a list, and well supported. Then the reader can go on to the presup beliefs section to have them properly explained. So the article would be better presented with:
Direct and objective knowledge of the (external) world is not possible (you create your own reality) (ref)
and then in the presuppositional beliefs section:
Perception of the world is comprised of mental maps, built up via experience. These maps (or filters/beliefs) of the world are limited, that is, they are distorted, generalised and deleted representations, therefore direct knowledge of the world is not possible. The limits to our mental maps can be identified in our choice of language and questioned to gather information and to expand our options (you create your own reality).
That would be the clearest and most accessible way to present the facts to the reader. Regards HeadleyDown 04:20, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
I did addressed and satifisied your first two objections. I've decided to have a go at the entire section. Maybe you could assist, or present an alternative so we can get a third opinion. ---=-C-=- 11:02, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] proposed change (entire foundational assumptions section)

Remove this text:

  1. There is a mind-body connection [29] [24]
  2. The mind is broadly composed of a conscious and a subconscious (or unconscious) component [23].
  3. A person's experience of the world is processed and organized exclusively in terms of the five senses [23][44]
  4. Physiology, sensory representation ("submodality") and emotion comprise internal state [30]
  5. Behavior is the result of systematically ordered sequences of sensory representations ("strategies") [28][44]
  6. All behavior occurs in the context of internal state [30] .
  7. Internal state mediates experience and influences or determines behavior [30] .
  8. Internal state and strategy — hence behavior — have a discernible and communicable structure [44] [30] .
  9. People exhibit their internal state in their language (verbal and non-verbal) [30] .
  10. Since behavior and its substrates — internal state and strategy — can be codified, a person's skill can be reproduced in another person [44]
  11. Behavior is learned [44]
  12. Direct and objective knowledge of the (external) world is not possible (you create your own reality [45]

replace it with this:

  1. The map is not the territory (Korzybski), perception of the world is comprised of mental maps, built up via experience. These maps (or filters/beliefs) of the world (the territory) are limited (distorted, generalised and deleted representations), that is the map is not the territory. The limits to our mental maps can be identified in our choice of language and questioned to gather information and to expand our options (you create your own reality). [23][44]
  2. Life, mind and body are systemic processes that are interconnected; a change in one affects a change in the other [44][29] [24]
  3. Following Korzybski's idea that perception, our maps of the world are distorted representations, in NLP, information arrives at the receptors of the sensory organs, and is subject to a complex chain of neurological transforms (F1) and linguistic transforms (F2) even before we have first access (FA, primary experience) to the information. [24]
  4. The conscious attention is limited to 7+-2 chunks of information; all other information in the mind and body system is unconscious[23].
  5. The elements of behaviour and skills are comprised of internal state, internal computation (strategies, submodalities) and external behaviour. A change in one will change affect a change in another, and will change a person's state. [30]
  6. Verbal and non-verbal cues indicate the type and sequence of our representations that comprise states [30] These strategies of how people's states are organised can be codified; thus models of exceptional people can be discovered and taught to others [44]
  7. Behind every behavior is a positive intention - whatever a person does, they are in fact attempting to fulfill some positive intention (of which they may not be aware of consciously). It assumes that the current behaviour exhibited by a person represents the best choice available to them at the time. [28][46]
  8. There is no failure, only feedback - statement about the importance of feedback loops to learning, borrowed from information theory. (William Ross Ashby, Cybernetics) [23]
  9. Meaning of the communication is the response it produces [28]
  10. Choice is better than no choice (and flexibility is the way one gets choice) - In systems theory the part of the system that can adapt best, be most influential, and has best chance of achieving its goals, is often not the most forceful part, but the part that has most flexibility and least rigidity in its responses [28]
  11. It is useful to believe that people have all the personal resources (states, outcomes, beliefs) they need to succeed, they just need to be organised in a way that serves their outcomes. [28]
  12. Multiple descriptions are better than one - often a person in a situation cannot see answers that a person standing outside can. So by moving between different perceptual positions, it is claimed that one can see a problem in new ways, or with less emotional attachment, and thus gather more information and develop new choices of response. [29]

References:

  • Bandler, Richard & John Grinder (1979). [- Frogs into Princes: Neuro Linguistic Programming], p.15,24,30,45,52., Moab, UT: Real People Press.
  • Bandler, Richard & John Grinder (1983). [- Reframing: Neurolinguistic programming and the transformation of meaning], appendix II, p.171, Moab, UT: Real People Press..
  • Sharpley C.F. (1987). "Research Findings on Neuro-linguistic Programming: Non supportive Data or an Untestable Theory". Communication and Cognition Journal of Counseling Psychology, 1987 Vol. 34, No. 1: 103-107,105.
  • Dilts, Robert B, Grinder, John, Bandler, Richard & DeLozier, Judith A. (1980). [. Neuro-Linguistic Programming: Volume I - The Study of the Structure of Subjective Experience], pp.3-4,6,14,17, Meta Publications, 1980. .. ..
  • Bandler, Richard & John Grinder (1975a). [- The Structure of Magic I: A Book About Language and Therapy], -, Palo Alto, CA: Science & Behavior Books.. -
  • Patterns of the hypnotic Techniques of Milton H. Erickson, Volumes I & II (1977, 1978)

This still needs some work. I'm open to feedback. ---=-C-=- 07:22, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Hello Comaze. Please supply the correct citations on the talk page, then we can properly critique your suggestion. HeadleyDown 08:31, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
The references are basically the same. It is desgined to address the accuracy and to merge the two sections. ---=-C-=- 09:16, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
Hello Comaze. Well it would help if you could paste them into the talk page so we could see them at a glance. Then we can get on with properly assessing your suggestions. HeadleyDown 09:20, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
I've fleshed it out a little. These are basic foundations from the NLP literature. Most of the citations are correct. Maybe you could do some searching in your NLP database. You'll find that most of them are supported in Bandler & Grinder (1975a, 1979) and Dilts et al (1980). ---=-C-=- 09:57, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
Hello Comaze. Could you supply all of the citations, not just some. HeadleyDown 10:02, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
These are basic foundation assumptions of NLP. What do you want to check so I can provide the page numbers? ---=-C-=- 10:19, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
Well, you are suggesting a great many changes. So all citation details would be useful. We can go through one by one, and each one you can provide citations and page numbers etc, just as other editors have done. Regards HeadleyDown 10:59, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm not going to engage in circular discussion. Tell me what you are contesting and I'll makes adjustments and/or provide the full citation details. ---=-C-=- 11:16, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
Hello Comaze. After months of work with the mentors and mediators on how things should be done to avoid conflict, it is normal now to supply citation details and justification for each change made to the article in order for us to assess each other's suggestions. Please supply citation details and your reasons for why you want to change a particular line, for each line you want to change. Then we will be better able to assess your suggestions. Regards HeadleyDown 14:55, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I've added the citations for each line. Any further comments or suggestions? ---=-C-=- 00:33, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Hello Comaze. First, you have not made the citations clear, please be cooperative and do it. Now also please explain in details here why you want to remove the original line No1 to write your No1 instead. HansAntel 03:32, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

HeadleyDown/HansAntel, Do you have issues with line 1? If so, what are they? ---=-C-=- 03:48, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Looks fine to me Comaze. No objection here. Doc_Pato 06:32, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Comaze. You've been asked to explain why you want to change the first line to your version. There may be many objections to your suggestion. But editors need to know why you want to make the changes. A detailed explanation is necessary. Please provide an explanation why you want to make those particular changes/deletions to the first line. Bookmain 05:18, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Bookmain/HeadleyDown, I've made a few changes. Do we need third party sources for this section? I've tried to stick with the base NLP literature. ---=-C-=- 12:57, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Hello Comaze. No, but we do need to attribute certain statements to certain page numbers. Please paste the citations clearly properly next to the lines you suggest eg (Name, Year, PageNo). The clickable links you are using are not clickable at all. HeadleyDown 13:19, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
I've added the references to the talk page. The reference links will work when they are posted to the article. Very soon, if you don't have any specific objections to the content - these are widely accepted as fundamental ideas in the base NLP literature. If you want to contest this, please do so within 24 hours. If you have independant literature to provide third party confirmation, please post it :) ---=-C-=- 23:57, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I've added some more information on neurological transforms. ---=-C-=- 01:05, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Hello Comaze. You have been asked to properly attribute each of your many changes with a name, year and page number, and to add a reason for why you want to make the changes to each specific point, each in turn. As you have not, I object to each one of your suggestions on the grounds that you are being unclear, not attributing properly, and that you are being unconvincing. Editors here have been cooperating with such requests for months, and it would be cooperative if you did the same. Please do so, then editors can make proper assessments of each of your suggestions. HeadleyDown 01:23, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Hi Headley. I could be incorrect but it seems if you look at the markup code when replying, Comaze has referenced the changed according to your request with page numbers, etc. It simply isn't showing up/functioning because it hasn't been published to main page. They are viewable when you hit edit for the talk section. Doc_Pato 01:42, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Hello Doc_pato. Clarity is required for both the article and the talk page. I know you are new here, but over the months a vast amount of requests have been made (often by Comaze) for citations, page numbers, and clarity in general, and even for arguments for why perfectly citable authors should be used. Comaze has been asked to provide something very simple (name, year, page number), for each change, but has not complied. It is easy to do if you are acting in good faith (actually using the source properly). Comaze will be able to prove he is acting in good faith if he makes the details immediately visible on the talk page, and gives his reasoning for each suggested change. Overload has always been a conflict-provoking move. This discussion will improve when there is more cooperation, and when each point is properly discussed. Lets keep things more clear, open, and manageable. Bookmain 03:44, 30 May 2006 (UTC)


Comaze. I don't object to the content of you recent edition, given that it's sourced to Grinder, however I'm wondering if perhaps it would be better to place this addition at the beginning of the The Meaning of Neuro section, given that section is somewhat lacking and could use further elucidation and more foundational views such as that of Prof. Grinder. Doc_Pato 01:32, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Hello Doc Pato. You have just made undiscussed and unagreed changes to the article. Again, that is likely to cause conflict. eg, Derks and Goldblatt used the engram concept from an NLP perspective. Please remedy the situation. HeadleyDown 01:51, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Hi Headley/Camridge/Etc. I've just removed those lines as agreed. Any other changes were made days ago after an unobjected discussion on this Talk Page with Whas above. You're a little late. We can re-discuss this now however. If Derks and Goldblat had talked about engrams from an NLP perspective, they would have been using a developer's model, such as Dilt's. Hebbian engrams are not of the subconscious nature. If you'd care to simply drop the subconscious, I'd have no problem removing the 'their perspective'. User:Doc_Pato Doc Pato 04:30, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Hello again Doc-pato. Dilts talks of engrams and neural networks in terms of the unconscious in his books (eg 1983) and Derks and Goldblat also do (page 33), as does Derks 1989 page 95. NLP advocates have constantly sought to remove these kind of facts from the article (eg, engrams, holism, belief, spirit, new age, and so on). But we have to accept the fact that they are all clarifying and all part of NLP according to the sources. NLP practitioners and promoters are criticised for trying to mislead the public into thinking NLP is scientific whilst offering no real evidence. I know that readers may see the connection with other pseudoscientific subjects such as Scientology and Scientologists, but the fact remains; NLP developers take subjects we know little about (neuroscience) and take unvalidated theories to build other theories to support the commercial development/uncritical following of NLP. When readers conclude NLPers and Scientologists are in the same category of pseudoscience, it will only be due to the facts and their own understanding, not due to any conclusions made by editors of Wikipedia. Bookmain 05:46, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Well that's interesting. Because here you mention 'unconscious', and the entry says 'subconscious'. Was it 'unconscious' or 'subconscious'? Because both can mean different things to different authorities. And whether it was 'unconscious' or whether it was 'subconscious' in what particular manner was it used? And what precisely did it say? Because while Dilts certainly talked about the 'unconscious' and certainly did not talk about the 'subconscious', I'm quite sure he did not use the term 'unconscious engram' or 'subconscious engram'. So the question is did Derks use one of those terms term clearly and specifically, or is that the conjecture of POV Warrior Editor? Doc Pato 15:24, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Doc Pato, I wouldn't be concerned about removing Derks and Goldblatt (engram psuedoscience), they are minority view. Regarding the other suggestion - I'm also leaning that way. I assume that the focus of this section would be the neurological transforms and how they relate to the linguistic transforms, and first access. It could also be related to conscious/unconscious, George Miller's magical number seven, 4-tuple, TOTE, greek logic, and Gregory Bateson's criteria of mind. The descriptions of these processes are fairly consistant in the base literature, Structure of Magic Vol.1 (1975), Patterns I (1976), Whispering in the Wind (2001), and it could be could be summarised in the "Meaning of Neuro" section. I just don't know how much detail we need.---=-C-=- 02:14, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
I disagree, Comaze. I would be extremely concerned about an editor who claims to make an agreed change to remove two lines, and then makes other undiscussed (and very inaccurate and biased) changes to other parts of the article. I know we can guarantee that some kind editor will correct the misbehaviour by placing the actual (and probably more starkly illuminating) quote as a correction. But the fact remains; when editors are not acting in good faith, it should be clearly pointed out. I trust Doc_pato will take note of this. Your effort to paint the fact as minority POV has been noted, and considering the level of corroboration the fact gets, we will have no option but to add more of the same (and there are many more) into the article in order to clarify it for the old and new editors here. Derks has some more to say about the engram and NLP assumptions, the swish, submodalities, the metamodel, and other areas of NLP. Also Drenth 1999 can be added to this. Bookmain 03:33, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Hi Bookmain. Are you suggesting that I have made undiscussed and inaccurate, biased changes to other parts when I deleted those two lines? Or just offering a friendly warning? Just to be clear... Doc_Pato Doc Pato 04:00, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
No Doc_pato. You have made changes over the past few days that were not subject to propper discussion. The two sentences that were deleted were discussed. Its just the undiscussed changes that are conflict forming. Bookmain 04:06, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Comaze, despite that the term engram is almost never used explicitly with most NLPers experience, in a strictly Hebbian Context, engrams form the basis of what nearly all NLPers identify as the concept of Neural Networks. Therefore I don't thinkthe idea of completely removing the engram will be productive, particularly with strong contingent (sock puppets and all) disagree with it's removal.
The main problem with that section is the lack of other information regarding the word 'Neuro' which gives the engram concept undue weight. I think at this point the best way to handle it is to provide more information from Developers such as Dilts, Bandler and Grinder on their concepts and opinions of Neuro and Neural Networks, rather than minor authors. My only concern with the Derks citation is the word 'subconscious', which seems to be out of context. It's been my experience most NLPers use the term unconscious and besides that, if Derks was follwing along Dilts line of thought, Hebbian engrams aren't of a subconscious or unconscious nature. They're neurological. 'Headly/Camridge/etc' is it possible to quote the word 'subconscious' directly in it's context? If not, would you object if we simply dropped the word and left it as engrams?
In anycase I suggest the following update to the 'meaning of neuro' section in the meantime:
Echoing Korzybski's ideas, NLP postulates that our maps of the world are distorted representations due to neurological functioning and constraints. (Bandler, Grinder 1975a, p12). Information arrives at the receptors of the sensory organs, and is subject to a complex chain of neurological transforms (F1) and linguistic transforms (F2) even before we have first access (FA, primary experience) to the information. (Grinder, 2001, Pgs 127, 171, 222)[24]
Dilts (1983 p61) explains neural functioning in relation to the adding of new connections, Hebbian cell assemblies (Hebbian engrams), causal loops, and digital circuitry. From the work of Konrad Lorenze, Dilts stated that when learning experiences occur in our life, new neural networks are imprinted in our brains recording events and their associated meaning. Basing his conclusions Timothy Leary's 8-Circuit Model of Consciousness, Dilts claimed that these imprints "established at neurologically critical periods" could be later reimprinted or reprogrammed. (Dilts, 1990, p76,77). Derks and Goldblatt (1985) make reference to the Engram term to explain how NLP works from their perspective [18]. Practitioners such as Derks, Singer, and Goldblatt theorize that NLP processes can be explained through the neurological concepts of programming and reprogramming engrams. According to Derks [18], NLP anchors are conditioned stimuli which work by activating engrams in the which are proposed "to give a patterned response which has been stabilized at the level of unconscious competence" [18]
The additional reference would be: Beliefs: Pathways to Health & Well Being 1990, Dilts, Hallbom, Smith - Metamorphous Press ISBN 1-55552-029-4 Doc Pato 04:00, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
I have no issue with this proposed update. ---=-C-=- 06:10, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Dilts talks of the unconscious as a precious resouce. He says that it relates to the shamanic concept of the nagual. NLP assumes that all excellent people have a strong relationship between the zonal and the nagual. These shamanic concepts could be presented in the neuro section. Bookmain 05:55, 30 May 2006 (UTC)


Yes this is the kind of material that is relevant, but it needs to be made far more accessible to readers, and if it is to be properly representitive, it also requires a criticism line or two. That is only fair. Criticisms come from Druckman et al 1988, Drenth, Levelt, Beyerstein, and others. The Corballis line may also be moved to this section. Bookmain 04:12, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Please structure/propose your additions/simplifications the the above text and we'll take it from there Doc Pato 12:07, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

The Tim Leary information is fascinating. Definitely needs including. To this can be added Robert Anton Wilson's notions and views. The jargon needs cutting though (transforms etc) or at least making more concrete for the reader to understand. Bookmain 08:29, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Please structure/propose your additions/simplifications the the above text and we'll take it from there Doc Pato 12:07, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Come now Comaze. Please do write those page numbers nice and clear next to your suggestions/deletions. Other editors have played ball, now its about time you provided some work yourself. And lets face it, you havn't quite finished the article citations you claimed to do on your own talk page. I'm sure other editors here will be patient and wait for you do put it all in order. Until then, it would be nice to see a little less abrasive behaviour. Other editors would like to properly attribute the sources in the article, just as they have said they would. And DocPato and Whas, well perhaps you should take another look at the article history. Each time an NLP advocate takes a swipe at the scientific views (eg Drenth, Levelt, Druckman, holism, belief, and so on and so forth) the issue gets investigated further and more "damning" evidence comes to light. Wikipedia is certainly a very bad forum for promoting NLP, and the more you try to reframe, the more it seems like pseudoscience. Facts are only facts, but through facts, the truth tends to peep out. NLP is fundamentally a postmodern and anti-science pseudoscience. Wikipedia's guides are pretty much antagonistic to such things and their associated coverups, jargon, anti-science sentiments and the like. The deeper you dig, the worse it gets for NLP promotion. Sorry. If you can't help pushing, then at least a consolation would be that the article is becoming clearer and clearer all the time. I have some more Winkin to read. There are quite a few points left out that can be included here. Chiao AliceDeGrey 10:28, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Any further suggestions to this "proposed change (entire foundational assumptions section)" .. if there are any suggestions for improve I'll make them. Otherwise, are we read to post it? I've made a few adjustments to the suggested change. ---=-C-=- 00:51, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I suggest to add holism to the first one. The mind body holism is common in fringe therapy, and it should explain that NLP has this also and it makes it clearer. Now explain exactly why you want to make your specific change to the first line. And say exactly which page number you refer to, not just a vague list. Once that is finished, we can go to number 2. I also object to your suggestion to change 2, but we can be discussing it later. HansAntel 03:28, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mind-body holistic

Hello. Mind-body therapys are holistic. It should mention in this article. I know the spirit is used more now and mind is thought about as spirit in holism therapys. SincerelyHylas Chung 10:13, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Sure Hylas. That is also in the literature. Regards HeadleyDown 13:19, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
'Hylas', I'm not quite sure what your communicating. Could you elucidate or formulate a line you'd like to add or change? In anycase, I think a simple wiki link to Mind-Body Interventions would suffice, make the information available, curb debate and move us forward. Doc_Pato 21:49, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Hello Doc Pato. Actually the mind-body-spirit holism is also part of NLP and similar therapies according to the literature (Hunt, Beyerstein, Harris, and others). The mind body spirit connection also partly explains the use of rituals in NLP. A short line on this first point may make it more concrete and accessible to the reader. The link you provide is clearly written in a biased way (it implies that fringe therapies will all be validated by science one day). HeadleyDown 01:40, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Hello 'Headley/Camridge/Hylas/Hans' your opinion that the Mind-Body Interventions is POV and implies fringe therapies will be validated certainly is interesting. I'd be interested in how precisely you come to that conclusion, if only because I see no such implication. Perhaps there's not enough mention of 'quackery' or 'pseudo science' in the article for your liking?  ;)
Regardless, I think we've got a lot of other stuff we can work on before we start debating an additional notions, which would surely be debated (sockpuppet armies and all, I'm sure.) The main problem in this case would be that out of the 4 different NLP Practioner training manuals I have from various trainers, while all mention mind-body connections, none mention 'mind-body-spirit' connections. These would indicate there are a lot of NLP Practioners who have no basis for this model within their experience of NLP, despite a few authors who might subscribe to this model. If you've well sourced material from some of the Developers (and Gordon isn't a developer, he probably added that link himself hahaha) mentioned on the main page specifying clear non-metaphorical theories and prescriptions for 'spirt', I say we talk about it, if not, I wouldn't bother stirring up another Hornet's nest when we can start moving forward with some other points. Cheers Doc_Pato 12:00, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
I've got a quote here from Grinder saying that spirituality is a personal preference and to include it as part of any training or change work would be an ethical violation. [24] ---=-C-=- 03:07, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Hi Doc_pato. NLP is considered holistic, and NLP authors say it is holistic. We can illustrate this very well for the reader by mentioning some brief examples from the NLP developments of Skydancing Tantra, parts negotiation, or the swish pattern. Bookmain 03:22, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Yes NLP is considered holistic by some, and the opposite by others. We can do this all day on most considerations by NLP with experts and authors back and forth. It's rather unproductive however. And as far as Sky Dancing Tantra goes... in the same way the NLP is NOT neuro-science, simply because it borrows from it, Sky Dancing Tantra is NOT NLP simply because it borrows from it. Can we stop being silly and really try and present an unbalanced article, without loose associations and stretches? I'm all for loopy new age crackpots being represented accurately... as long as it is in fact, accurate and representative as a whole. Doesn't anybody want to stop playing this game, present an article that makes everyone happy and be done with it? Doc_Pato
Hello again Doc_pato. There are authors who say NLP is holistic, and they can be represented. It is productive. Sky dancing tantra uses NLP. As you can see from the article, NLP developers and practitioners have been called fraudsters, charlatans, and names similar to crackpots. We can make those views more clear. Wikipedia articles are not written in order to make everyone happy. The guidelines are written in order to cope with the fact that not everyone will be happy with the outcome. We just have to accept that. Bookmain 05:34, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps I should clarify my bias. I don't believe NLPers are crackpots. If Dilts, Grinder and Bandler want to mix unverified neuroscience with the shamanic notions of the zonal and nagual, or with mind and spirit, that is fine by me. But some experts will want to say it is new age neurobabble or occult banality (Beyerstein and others). Bookmain 05:58, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Yes, Comaze, we can include that when you have shown us the page numbers clearly on the talk page, and only when it has been discussed properly. Then, of course, we can show how Grinder developed rituals for moving the spirit to other realities. Bookmain 03:22, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Hello Doc_pato. NLP promoters, practitioners, and adherents make a great many unsubstantiated and exaggerated claims according to even empirical research papers. It is perfectly reasonable to present those claims, whether they be from the earlier New Age or occult developers, or the more recent New Age or occult developers. Regards. HeadleyDown 12:17, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed change (structure): High level plan

Further to my previous thread on proposed structure. Here is an interim structure change with notes.

  • 1 Overview (merge with introduction)
  • 2 Principles
  • 3 Theory (merged with Foundational assumptions, Presuppositional beliefs)
  • 3.1 The mind is embodied
  • 3.2 The map is not the territory
  • 3.3 Multiple descriptions
  • 3.4 Representational systems and accessing cues (merge with BAGEL)
  • 3.5 Meta model and Milton model
  • 3.6 Conscious/Unconscious attention
  • 3.7 Bateson's Criteria of mind
  • 3.8 Exceptional individuals can be modeled
  • Scientific analysis (move here)
  • 6 Pseudoscience (merged with False claims to science)
  • 4 History
  • 4.1 History (merged with Background 1973-1979)
  • 4.2 History (1980-1986)
  • 4.3 History (1986-present)
  • 5 Alternative brands or schools
  • 6 Common Applications
  • 7.1 Psychotherapy
  • 4.2 Sales training
  • 4.3 Business management
  • 4.4 Motivational seminars
  • 4.5 Learning (Education)
  • 4.6 New Age
  • 4.7 Criticism
  • 7.1 Ethical concerns
  • 7 Criticism
  • 8 See also
  • 9.1 Developers
  • 9 Notes and references
  • 10 External links

This is my plan for the structure of the document. We will probably have to get lots of comments on this one. I think it will make the document much easier to read. I've made some adjustments to make it clearer. ---=-C-=- 13:06, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, yes thats your plan. But I believe we have a lot more stuff higher on the list of priorities to do first. How about we focus on getting the citations straight on the article, getting the neuro sorted, and adding the occult/new age views to the article first. Once thats all done, we can argue about structure later. HeadleyDown 13:18, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Citations can be fixed as we rewrite the article,
  • neuro would go in theory,
  • occult/new age views would go under Applications/New age. ---=-C-=- 14:55, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
No Comaze. It would be far more constructive to ignore any distracting arguments about structure or rewriting articles and focus on getting the citations in order. HeadleyDown 02:16, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
This layout seems much more comprehensive than the current article, which is a good thing. At this point it would be a matter of proposing and building the structure one point at a time. My suggestion would be to begin that process, or begin to hammer out the details structure that currently matches. You eat an elephant one bite at a time. Doc Pato 02:30, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] add to sociologist view, Barrett

Text to insert

"...several organizations such as NLP, Insight and Landmark Education which are not religions but are usually categorized as 'personal development movements'. They are included for three reasons. First, though the organisations are not religions, personal development or self-improvement is a common religious aim, so there an overlap in the perceived benefits which members gain from them. Second, some the techniques of these organisations are used in movements which are religious. And third, some of these organisations have met criticisms similar to those made of new religions by anti-cult groups. However, it should be stressed that this" ... "is not suggesting that they are sects or cults, nor classing them as religions." p.13 The New Believers: A Survey of Sects, Cults and Alternative Religions David V Barrett (http://books.google.com/books?ie=UTF-8&vid=ISBN1844030407&id=OwT1ctFO42MC&vq=NLP&dq=%22new+age%22+NLP&lpg=PA12&pg=PA13&sig=1HdAFIAWLMeUpBPw7UkJcd4qLQk)

Where

There several places where the sociologist view is presented in a blatantly biased way (New Age, Cults, etc.). This quote or a paraphrase of it would help with WP:NPOV ---=-C-=- 00:55, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with this Comaze, however it would help if you would propose a specific place to insert this. Doc Pato 02:20, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Hello Comaze. This comment does not negate the fact that there are views that NLP is new age, a cult and so on. In fact there is nothing new here at all. It is already stated that Barrett says that the balance comes down against calling NLP a religion. The NLP article does not say that Barrett thinks NLP is a cult or a sect. So what is your point? HeadleyDown 02:37, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, I don't mind opening the can of worms a little wider. One needs to look at what Barrett actually wrote about NLP, rather than what he writes about his book. For example, how is NLP criticised in a similar way to how cults are criticised? He states that the fervour of many adherents is similar to the fervour of religious converts. He also states that PDMs have been criticised for a reluctance to let go of people once they have become involved. Also, what does he mean by personal development movements? He does not say that Emin, TM, NLP, Scientology, Dianetics are religions, but that they are all PDMs. So, we would need to list all the PDMs, and state the criticisms in the article. Winkin is also an anthropologist (sociologist). He has more to say on this. Bookmain 04:21, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Moving Forward

A few things we were proposing seem to get waysided, so I'm bring them back to focus. At this point I'd like to make a few requests.

  • I request that the following rewrite be made to the 'Meaning of Neuro' Section for the expanding and clarifying the topic as well as aforementioned reasons:
Following Korzybski's ideas, NLP theory states that our maps of the world are distorted representations due to neurological functioning and constraints. ([1] p12). Information about the world arrives at the receptors of the 5 senses and is then subjected to various neurological transforms (F1) and linguistic transforms (F2) even before our first access to the information, meaning we never experience an objective reality that hasn't been shaped by our language and neurology. (Grinder, 2001, Pgs 127, 171, 222)[24]
Dilts (1983 p61) explains neural functioning in relation to the adding of new connections, Hebbian cell assemblies (Hebbian engrams), causal loops, and digital circuitry. From his observation of the work of Konrad Lorenze, Dilts states that when learning experiences occur in our life, new neural networks are imprinted in our brains recording events and their associated meaning. Basing his conclusions Timothy Leary's 8-Circuit Model of Consciousness, Dilts claimed that these imprints "established at neurologically critical periods," could be later reimprinted or reprogrammed. (Dilts, 1990, p76,77). Practitioners such as Derks, Singer, and Goldblatt theorize that NLP processes can be explained through the neurological concepts of programming and reprogramming engrams. According to Derks [18], NLP anchors are conditioned stimuli which work by activating engrams in the which are proposed "to give a patterned response which has been stabilized at the level of unconscious competence" [18]1999
Critics such as Corballis [31] dispute the relation between NLP and science asserting that "NLP is a thoroughly fake title, designed to give the impression of scientific respectability. NLP has little to do with neurology, linguistics, or even the respectable subdiscipline of neurolinguistics".
The additional reference would be: Beliefs: Pathways to Health & Well Being 1990, Dilts, Hallbom, Smith - Metamorphous Press ISBN 1-55552-029-4
  • I request that the moved Corballis quote be strickin from it's previous place in theory
  • I request given the additional information regarding language and linguistics and programming that the heading be renamed from "The meaning of Neuro' to 'The Meaning of "Neuro-Linguistic Programming"
  • I request that any objections to this change be made in a prompt fashion, citing either:
a) Wikipedia Policy, or
b) Specific and formulated additions, changes or deletions.
  • I request that any such additions, changes or deletions not be crafted or submitted to bias the information in a pro or con format.

It is my intention to assist moving forward with this article and make these changes unless objections are made in the above specified manner. Thank You Doc Pato 03:15, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Hello Doc Pato. The Derks line has the word "unconscious" missing. Also, the Corballis line is not attributed correctly. It should read - Professor of psychology, Corballis states that "NLP is a thoroughly fake title....Bookmain 04:14, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Hello Bookmain. Regarding
  • Point 1 (Missing 'Unconscious'): Context Required - The previous version used 'subconscious'. Regardless I will be happy to insert either the term 'unconscious' or 'subconscious' if a direct quote can be provided showing the context of the word in relation to the engrams, by Derks.Until we can properly and clearly attribute the context it's best left out so the word will not be objected to and we can move forward.
No worries, its easy to provide. And in the process, Derk's explanation of all the other aspects of NLP can be provided also. He also stated that the mental benefits of NLP are similar in result and mechanism to the benefits of joining a religious sect. I believe that can go in the overview. Bookmain 06:13, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Point 2 (Professor of neuroscience, Corballis): Change Accepted Not a problem, I'll be happy to add the term 'Professor of Linguistics' to Grinder when applicable as well so we're not in violation of NPOV. Doc Pato 05:10, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Oh, thats interesting. Grinder ceased to be an assistant prof of linguistics over 30 years ago. Is it just your belief that he is still practicing or researching as a professor, or do you have reliable source to support the notion? Bookmain 06:13, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Withdrawn Apparently, they will have to settle for Associate Prof. of linguistics at 1st mention. Doc Pato 08:52, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I think the title could change. It could read - the meaning of Neuro, Linguistic, and Programming in NLP. Bookmain 04:25, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Change Accepted -Sounds reasonable. I like it. Doc Pato 05:10, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Yep, the small title change, and the added Derks info on the religious sect effect of NLP will be clarifying.Bookmain 06:13, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi all. Well, here's a few adjustments and prompts for proper attribution:

According to Drenth (2003:68), NLP is grounded on a number of truisms: emotions and motivations affect the body ("neuro"), often people mean something different from what they say ("linguistic"), and setting a goal and believing in it helps achieving it ("programming"). According to ( ) NLP follows Korzybski's ideas. ( ) states that NLP theory states that our maps of the world are distorted representations due to neurological functioning and constraints. ([1] p12). Grinder states that “Information about the world arrives at the receptors of the 5 senses and is then subjected to various neurological transforms (F1) and linguistic transforms (F2) even before our first access to the information, meaning we never experience an objective reality that hasn't been shaped by our language and neurology. (Grinder, 2001, Pgs 127, 171, 222)[24]
Dilts (1983 p61) explains neural functioning in relation to the adding of new connections, Hebbian cell assemblies (Hebbian engrams), causal loops, and digital circuitry. From his observation of the work of Konrad Lorenze, Dilts states that when learning experiences occur in our life, new neural networks are imprinted in our brains recording events and their associated meaning. Basing his conclusions Timothy Leary's 8-Circuit Model of Consciousness, Dilts states that these imprints "established at neurologically critical periods," could be later reimprinted or reprogrammed. (Dilts, 1990, p76,77). Practitioners such as Derks, Singer, and Goldblatt theorize that NLP processes can be explained through the neurological concepts of programming and reprogramming engrams. According to Derks [18], NLP anchors are conditioned stimuli which work by activating engrams in the unconscious which are proposed "to give a patterned response which has been stabilized at the level of unconscious competence" [18]1999. Professor of psychology, Corballis [31] states that "NLP is a thoroughly fake title, designed to give the impression of scientific respectability. NLP has little to do with neurology, linguistics, or even the respectable subdiscipline of neurolinguistics".

I believe there is a whoooole lot more stated about neuro especially by Dilts, and more could be clarified using Beyerstein's paper on neuroscams. But this will do for now while we research and consider. Regards HeadleyDown 10:36, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Overuse of 'According to X', 'Author Y states', is poor style. ---=-C-=- 11:44, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Headleydown. I've no issues with the Drenth line and attribution is a good idea. Comaze, while I agree overuse of 'According to X', 'Author Y states', is poor style, due to the conflicting opinions of what NLP is even amongst developers, I think it's important that most ideas be attributed in this article. We can ease the choppiness with something like this:
According to critic Drenth (2003:68), NLP is grounded on a number of truisms: emotions and motivations affect the body ("neuro"), often people mean something different from what they say ("linguistic"), and setting a goal and believing in it helps achieving it ("programming"). Others, such as the developers of NLP, Bandler and Grinder, explain NLP follows Korzybski's ideas; that our maps of the world are distorted representations due to neurological functioning and constraints. ([1] p12). “Information about the world arrives at the receptors of the 5 senses and is then subjected to various neurological transforms (F1) and linguistic transforms (F2) even before our first access to the information, meaning we never experience an objective reality that hasn't been shaped by our language and neurology. (Grinder, 2001, Pgs 127, 171, 222)[24]
NLP Developer Robert Dilts (1983 p61) explains neural functioning in relation to the adding of new connections, Hebbian cell assemblies (Hebbian engrams), causal loops, and digital circuitry. From his observation of the work of Konrad Lorenz, Dilts states that when learning experiences occur in our life, new neural networks are imprinted in our brains recording events and their associated meaning. Basing his conclusions Timothy Leary's 8-Circuit Model of Consciousness, Dilts states that these imprints "established at neurologically critical periods," could be later reimprinted or reprogrammed. (Dilts, 1990, p76,77). Practitioners such as Derks, Singer, and Goldblatt theorize that NLP processes can be explained through the neurological concepts of programming and reprogramming engrams. According to Derks [18], NLP anchors are conditioned stimuli which work by activating engrams which are proposed "to give a patterned response which has been stabilized at the level of unconscious competence" [18]1999. Critics such as Corballis, Professor of psychology,[31] state that "NLP is a thoroughly fake title, designed to give the impression of scientific respectability. NLP has little to do with neurology, linguistics, or even the respectable subdiscipline of neurolinguistics". updated
If there are no further immediate changes we can print this tonite, remove the disputed tag and move forward to the next point of order. Doc Pato 16:20, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Well it wouldn't hurt to w]ait for some more input on this one first. There's no particular rush. HeadleyDown 17:09, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
We'll see what input comes up and address any particular items as they come. It's Wiki, nothing is written in stone  ;) Doc Pato 17:24, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
You could post what you've written. There are a few problems such as the minority views should really be dropped, and it is wierd how you open with Drenth, that is not an acceptable source. Here's a few suggestions.
  • Move Drenth from the first line to the critics section next to Corballis. This source is not really acceptable in reliability, and is not well-informed of the psychological literature available on NLP. But atleast it should be characterised as a critic's view. Critics such as X, ... and critic Drenth says blah..
  • Drop this line: "Practitioners such as Derks, Singer, and Goldblatt ..." -- that is a minority view that is not worth mentioning. ---=-C-=- 23:45, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Comaze. Your saying Derks, Drenth and so on are not reliable is noted. We already established they are reliable and other papers say the same. Keep Drenth, keep Derks Singer Goldblatt and expand using Eisner. I have also some suggestions to add more about neuro. Yes the Beyerstein scams paper also says neurobabble uses unconscious like an organ. NLP treats unconscious like neurons. That is needed to make the article more clearer. HansAntel 03:19, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I have an objection to "expand this notion" in the suggested change above. It is POV. It could be "make wild claims about this notion, elaborate on this notion, exaggerate this notion" etc. Just keep it name---states that "etc.... Bookmain 04:07, 2 June 2006 (UTC) Actually, the Critics on Corballis line should be removed, as should "assert". He is explaining something from a psychology viewpoint. Just make a straight statement without all the twisting. ie "Corballis, professor of psychology states that "NLP is a thoroughly fake.....Bookmain 04:19, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi Bookmain, in regards to your objection:
  • Point 1 (expand this notion is POV): Well, frankly I disagree. Drenth makes a simplified claim. Developers have expand that simplified claim. However, I'll remove the statement as you suggest, and add a 'However', at the beggining of the next statement to clarify his statement is at odds with developers explanations and ideas.Accepted
  • Point 2 (removal of critic, removal of assert) as a psychologist Corballis doesnt have the authority "explain from a psychology viewpoint" about the relation of neurology, lingusitics and neurolingistics to NLP. He's clearly making an assertion, and he's clearly doing so not as an expert in neurology, linguistics or neurolinguistics.... but as a critic of NLP. Frankly, the statement should be removed as such, Corballis not being an authoritive source on those subjects. If there's any twisting or POV involved, it's the fact that his opinion and assertion as a non-expert on that which he is talking about.... is even allowed to remain at all. This particular point is baseless. Doc Pato 18:49, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Hello Doc Pato. "However" is argumentative according to Wikipedia guidelines. And well, even a 2nd year undergraduate can see that NLP has little to do with neuroscience etc. Corballis is perfectly qualified to make this statement (just look at his publications). This is easy to solve. Just leave out the POV words, -however and asserts- and use states instead. Regards HeadleyDown 03:04, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
We can mention of more Timothy Leary 8 circuit LSD theory of conscious attention. I think it is funny that it is not mentioned before. I have some good literature paper on this. HansAntel 03:02, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Okay Headley. I've check the guidlines and 'However' can go.
From Wiki words to avoid:
"In general, "A asserts Y. However, according to B, Z." can suggest that the latter assertion is truer or better than the former one. Avoid this construction in favor of simply stating: "A asserts Y. Others, including B, believe Z.""
I'll use the Wiki suggested structure: "Others, such as...". I will also switch the "assert" to state. As you said, problem solved. Doc Pato 04:10, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
The lines on neurological transforms are really too obscure for the average reader. It is easier for the reader to simply state that stuff gets passed through the senses, and the engram circuits of the brain, and then is imperfectly perceived. Here we can also mention in brackets (NLP assumes we create our own reality). Bookmain 05:25, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unprogrammed refs

I added a section for those who choose not to program in the refs. Of course there should be no stipulation for any editor to have to laboriously go through the refs and learn to program them in. It is quite acceptable (and definitely much clearer anyway) to place a name date and page number next to a quote, and then clearly write the source in that section. The refs were all there before, but somehow they got swiped away by someone. Please do not let that happen again. Enough time has been wasted by vexacious editors already. Any such censorious moves should be reverted immediately. Bookmain 08:03, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

It was agreed upon in mediation that we use inline referencing. I should remind you that the <reference /> format is the new standard for wikipedia. It handles automatic numbering and backlinks which helps improve. See [57]. ---=-C-=- 08:15, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
No Comaze. This is an encyclopedia that anyone can edit.　If an editor wants to helpfully add a citation and page number etc, then they should be given a chance to do it. Editors have already showed agreement to do this. However, for some reason, the software simply does not work for my computer, and I believe others will have the same problem. So the only way I can help clear up citations is to add the page numbers etc on the article. New editors should also have that option. For editors who have the technological capability, they can convert those references. For example, you could do it yourself instead of telling others to do it. Bookmain 08:24, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
I don't mind teaching people how to use the new citation style. But creating a section for it and then converting references to a nonstandard format [58] is just poor form. ---=-C-=- 08:34, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Well Comaze, I think we are going to have to be flexible on this one. Especially as the priority here is to attribute quotes properly. Bookmain's suggestion is both constructive and timely. The section can be removed if ever it becomes unused or unuseful. HeadleyDown 10:24, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Comaze, you removed the small section I supplied for new editors and editors like myself, for whom the citation software does not work. Your action is both unconstructive, and I believe it leads to exclusive privelage (for those who can use the technology). Your unconstructive action is noted. I will replace the section heading (without any citations) in order to invite other new editors to help with the attribution efforts here. Bookmain 05:30, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] No reverts!

Bookmain says "Any such censorious moves should be reverted immediately. Bookmain 08:03, 2 June 2006 (UTC)"

This is reminder to the remaining editors who were named in the arbcom case, reversions are not allowed. This ruling would also extend to include editors covered under WP:SOCK ---=-C-=- 08:19, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Hello Comaze. If you think I am a sockpuppet, prove it and stop casting aspersions. By censorious moves, I mean people removing citations that previously took weeks to write in. Reverting such deletions is constructive. It is akin to reverting vandalism (deliberate reduction in the quality of the article). So why are you arguing against reverting such actions? Bookmain 08:28, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Constructive discussion please

Comaze, today I have seen you add a large section to the article that was clearly biased towards a narrow POV, and was objected to by many editors, and that you refused to adjust, explain, or discuss. You have also removed a perfectly useful section that invites anyone to help improve the citations of the article. You did this with no discussion at all. Please try to be more cooperative. I believe you are provoking other editors towards conflict. HeadleyDown 10:30, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Please see, Talk:Neuro-linguistic_programming#Proposed_edit:_Common_patterns for a reply. ---=-C-=- 11:03, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Comaze, this is a suggestion for general constructive discussion. It is not only directed towards one of your unwanted suggestions. Please be more constructive. It is easy for you to supply what other editors are requesting (eg, page numbers etc), and if you don't you are only showing a reluctance to cooperate. HeadleyDown 13:07, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Headley, Based on Verifiability/Citing sources we should use reputable/reliable third party sources. The burden of evidence lies with the editors who have made an edit or wish an edit to remain. Editors should therefore provide references. If an article topic has no reputable, reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on that topic. ... Any edit lacking a source may be removed, but some editors may object if you remove material without giving people a chance to provide references. If you want to request a source for an unsourced statement, a good idea is to move it to the talk page. Alternatively, you may tag the sentence by adding the {{fact}} template, or tag the article by adding {{not verified}} or {{unsourced}}. You could also make the unsourced sentences invisible in the article by adding <!-- before the section you want to comment out and --> after it, until reliable sources have been provided.
For more details on this topic, see Wikipedia:Verifiability#Burden_of_evidence.
For more details on this topic, see Wikipedia:Citing sources.
---=-C-=- 13:37, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Hello Comaze, you are unclear. Why are you showing me Wikipedia guidelines. I have made suggestions for you to discuss properly. What has these directives got to do with my suggestion? HeadleyDown 13:42, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Change/move to Patterns/rituals section

Hello all. The article is still in need of better accessibility and readability. Therefore, I suggest the patterns section be made more concrete, to remove non-patterns (eg, metamodel, milton model, etc) and place it just after the overview section. This will help the reader know what NLP is about. Once the reader gets a good picture of the kind of things NLPers do at seminars and in practice, then it is easier for them to understand the rest of the article. Regards HeadleyDown 13:18, 2 June 2006 (UTC) The suggested change is below:

[edit] Common patterns/rituals

  • Circle of excellence: Imagining "your own magic circle on the ground in front of you" [47], filling it with symbols and archetypes of choice, in order to banish negativity and enhance positive thinking for use in any NLP situation [48]
  • Parts Negotiation: Asking the conflicting parts of yourself to make a deal and come to agreement.
  • Anchoring: Resourceful states from the past are recalled and a bridge is created for those resource to be available in future contexts [28]
  • Perceptual positions: A situation is considered from different points of view. E.g a situation is considered from the perspective of self, other, neutral observer, God's eye view etc [29] [30].
  • Logical levels / logical types: Ordering information into different by type. * Neurological levels: Categorisation of information into a hierarchies consisting of environment, behavior, competency, belief/value, identity and or spirituality (purpose) [30]. Sometimes associated with the chakras with spirit linked to the crown chakra. [30].
  • Visual / kinesthetic dissociation: Floating back and out of the body in order to dissociate from a negative memory or trauma.
  • Swish pattern: A quick fix technique that involves repetitively pushing away negative mental imagery and pulling forward positive imagery using body language and saying "SWISSSHHH" in order to affect a behavior change [48]
  • More specific patterns: The Receiving Wisdom From Your Inner Sage Pattern, Change Personal History Pattern, Blow Job Pattern (Jeffries 1991).

Regards HeadleyDown 13:43, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

There is already a thread open for discussion of common patterns. Talk:Neuro-linguistic_programming#Proposed_edit:_Common_patterns ---=-C-=- 14:00, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

This is a different thread. The difference is: This thread is about making the patterns more consistently patterns, more clear, more concrete, and placing the section just after the overview, so that the reader can actually get a better idea of what NLPers do. HeadleyDown 15:46, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Hi Headley, regarding your suggestion:
Objection 1.(addition of 'releasing your inner sage pattern'):
  • Unsourced
  • Inaccurate: Listed under heading of common patterns, yet is not a common pattern. (i.e not found commonly in major training manuals, term "inner sage pattern" results in zero google hits
  • POV Warrioring: Consistent article pattern of inserting uncommon or fringe ideas in NLP and attempting to present them as common NLP
Objection 2. (Changing of Visual/Kinesthetic Dissociation)
  • Inaccurate/Ambigous : Suggested fix: Imagining one's self outside of the situation or body in order to dissociate from a negative memory or trauma.
Objection 3. There are other innacurracies and POV in the original text that should be dealt with prior to moving. I'll suggest what they are by tomorrow.Doc Pato 20:07, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok, Doc Pato. I will be happy to source the facts presented. Also, I now believe the Inner Sage pattern belongs in the presuppositional beliefs section under resourcefulness. I can provide quotes for the dissociation floating recommendation, and other parts of the text. Regards HeadleyDown 03:09, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Please ensure that your sources pass minimum academic standards. Your current sources are not acceptable. A good test for reputability and reliability for this subject; Is this source cited in the psychological and experimental literature on NLP? That will help filter out most of the minority views on the subject. ---=-C-=- 03:16, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
No problem, Comaze. The sources meet the Wikipedia standards. I'm a bit confused about your view on minority and psych lit though. Are you now saying that the psychology literature is valid and we need to use more of it? HeadleyDown 06:48, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed: third opinion

Once you are convinced that this proposed change passes wikipedia policies, let's get a third opinion. It will take me alteast a few day - how long do you need? The third person could compare this with my suggested change: Talk:Neuro-linguistic_programming#Proposed_edit:_Common_patterns. They select the most appropriate, or merge best of the two suggestion. WP:3O. ---=-C-=- 06:22, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I suggest we seek Woohookitty's opinion. I remember his advice on clear language was always constructive. HeadleyDown 06:46, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Great. Atleast we agree on getting a third opinion on this change. Go ahead and take you time to bring you suggestion change up to standard, I'll do the same then we'll engage a third opinion via WP:3O. Woohookitty may or may not be available, and has kept out of content disputes. ---=-C-=- 06:56, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Woohookitty is a helpful mentor, and though he has been busy with other things, his influence remains. I believe his opinion on clarity rather than content as a mentor is more appropriate here. Even I need some advice sometimes on what a reader is likely to see as obscure jargon. HeadleyDown 07:04, 3 June 2006 (UTC) Oh, for example, I imagine he would see Anchoring as obscure. "Bridge" is a confusing term and conjures images of cards or infrastructure. I believe I have a far more concrete way of phrasing it. eg, touching the side of the head, in order to recall, for example, a "demon state" of empowerment. HeadleyDown 07:08, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Woohookitty is helpful yes, and good with the clear words. This issue is just matter of checking content though. Looking through literature is the only thing that will do it. Any legitimate editor can do it. I did it myself and it is correct. THe patterns of Headleys suggestion are right and I found the uncited ones myself because they are obviously there. This is just like before when VoiceOfAll ask the NLPers if representation systems was still taught, and they deny it, even when it is in all the new NLP books in the shop. HansAntel 02:57, 5 June 2006 (UTC)