Talk:Neuro-linguistic programming/ archive6

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

1 Accusation of POV
2 Research Subpage
3 NLP not a science? What about behavioral psychology? What about "Human Development", Social Science, and Medicine?
4 Meta Programs
- 4.1 Medline & PsycINFO
5 Back to science
6 Fuelwagon's Edit
7 Question about weight given to references
8 FuelWagon's notion of neutral
9 Headley's helpful suggestion
10 Protected page
11 Research pre 1987 vs Research post 1987
12 Science Vs. Claims not supported by science
13 Tony Robbins
14 Science
15 Presentation of Criticism
16 JP's response
- 16.1 Informing the public; Cults and NLP consumption
- 16.2 My response (OK its me DaveRight 02:24, 21 November 2005 (UTC))
17 Space for balance
18 Damage Control for NLP

[edit] Accusation of POV

Could everyone please stop accusing the other side of POV, as it is by no means helpful; lets just try to edit this article and if talk doesn't work, then I will try to come up with a compromise that still support Wiki policy(NPOV).

Also, please change only ONE section at a time. Thank you.Voice of All ^{T|@|Esperanza} 05:22, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Sure, VoiceOfAll. I did also come to that conclusion. I re-posted the information that admits NLP and other pseudosciences such as Dianetics, EFT, and EMDR have also been listed as being used within psychology associations. This is simply to clarify, balance and frame the criticisms properly. regards HeadleyDown 05:39, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Hello VoiceOFAll. I noticed you removed the concluding statement from Sharpley 87. I think you are completely justified in doing so. The reason it was placed there was because an NLP promoter kept placing a selectively edited and inconclusive discussion statement from Sharpley within the opening criticism section. I certainly agree with keeping the article brief. Novelty in Sharpley's paper would refer to the wild claims of "new improved" or "new theraputic magic" etc. The Sharpley conclusion may well have to go back there sometime in future in order to fend off the selective editing of NLP promoters. I can remove the bit that says "novelty" in future though if you like. Regards HeadleyDown 05:50, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Nothing will be added to "fend-off" anyone. However I will try to get the intro NPOV and keep it that way.Voice of All ^{T|@|Esperanza} 05:56, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Great VoiceOfAll! I'll help you keep it NPOV. Regards HeadleyDown 05:59, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi Voice of All. I'm thinking that most of our comments or reversions involve a claimed attempt by ourselves to be more NPOV (and hence "they're using POV"... Am I right to assume that what you're asking is for us not to use "NPOV" as an explanation, rather spell out any reasoning for change, in detail?

As for one section at a time - might I suggest we do any major change to opening/overview last so they can reflect whatever NPOV we've come to in the other sections? GregA 08:29, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Oh, and in light of POV - Headley, you always call us "pro", and presuppose you are the "neutral editors" (we call you anti). Labelling yourself Neutral doesn't make you less biased... in fact it may do the opposite.

Well you have all had a busy weekend. OK VoA, I'll do my best to calm the sarcasm gland in the interests of the article. CheersDaveRight 02:34, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Research Subpage

You need to add a bibliography with complete citations. As it currently stands the abstracts are incomplete. One of the purposes of citation is to allow the possibility of review by other parties. This objective cannot be fulfilled because you have not provided complete citations (i.e. author(s) fullname, name of publication, edition). flavius 07:44, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Hello Flavius. To add a bibliography would go against the promotional editor's purpose. If you could check the actual research, you would come to the same conclusion as all the other neutral editors. NLP is pseudoscientific, wrong in theory and application, and misleading (kindly put; scientifically unsupported and pseudoscientific). The most conclusive and encyclopedic evidence is already on the article page, and you are welcome to check it out. If you spend your time looking through the inconclusive refs presented on the alternative research page, you would just go round in circles. The burden of proof rests upon the NLP promoters, and they have not presented any evidence for NLP's principles or claimed efficacy. The most basic conclusion of recent reliable researchers is that NLP is scientifically unsupported. No need to take my word for it. Regards HeadleyDown 07:53, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

I quickly reviewed FT2's truncated abstracts and citations and I offer the following observations: (a) at least some are not sourced from reputable, peer-reviewed journals; and (b) most of the summaries are replete with vague and imprecise quantificational language (eg. "most helpful", "positive correlation" (magnitude?), "partially positive effects", "strongly related", "marked improvement", "positive reduction", "deeper trance", "substantially", "very helpful", "enormous changes", "very many of the people" etc.). The use of such vague language is evidence of methodological defect. I have reviewed some of the cited literature and I too am of the view that NLP is largely -- if not entirely -- without substance, ineffective (beyond non-specific factors) and without any scientific basis. flavius 08:37, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

That's unfortunate Headley.

The burden of proof rests on the person making the claim, not just if a person is presenting supporting evidence. I note also that you presuppose the references presented are "inconclusive", yet rather than opening debate you encourage not talking about them. Flavius is right to ask for expanded information before something is put into the main article, and to request that information. The recognition by other groups looks well cited, the papers give researcher, year, but some give the journal, title, some don't. GregA 08:25, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Greg, it seems that promoters are behaving pseudoscientifically. They seem to be placing the burden on scientists to prove NLP works. Not only that, but they want to take each minor study, and work their own thesis (AKA pov) that NLP is actually supported by science. I don't mind discussing it, but really if you want to be conclusive, all you have to do is go to the conclusions of the reviewers (overviewers). Your own conclusions are completely inappropriate. Remember NPOV states that the article should not include your own work. If you want to state that your own review negates the reviews of the other scientists then really you should not be editing. HeadleyDown 08:32, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Greg, Headley's stance is consistent with the preponderance of scientific evidence and the consensus of scientific opinion. All of the literature reviews on NLP that I have seen (and that are quoted in the article) arrive at the position that Headley is advancing. We are treading well-worn paths and performing our own literature review or meta-analyses is entirely inconsistent with Wikipedia policy. My point to FT2 was that if (s)he is going to cite research s(he) should provide full, well-formed citations. Nothing more. I apologise if my response in any way indicated that the "jury was still out" on NLP. I refer you to this exhaustive literature review on EMDR because (a) it is online; (b) EMDR is often claimed by the NLP community as being derived from NLP; (c) NLP (specifically VK dissociation) is mentioned; (d) it is illustrative of how pseudoscience and bunkum becomes institutionalised; (e) you will find many of the NLP proponents tactics regarding unfavourable scientific review coming also from EMDR proponents; and (d) it clearly explains the problem of substantiation and evidence regarding therapeutic interventions. See http://www.drexel.edu/academics/coas/psychology/papers/herbertscience.pdf. flavius 08:55, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Hello again Flavius. Yes, EMDR and indeed elements of EFT and other such pseudoscientific confections are closely associated with NLP. I was thinking earlier, that actually one of the most telling signs for NLP's pseudoscientificness is the theories (and yes they do talk theory) and hypotheses they propose. Not only are many of them completely conflicting but they are often on the perifery of science and have been debunked. Actually, I would like to look more at the EMDR literature as it is another really interesting (the eyes have it) kind of pseudoscience. Anyway, I'm glad you have an understanding of science. I think you can expect a sockpuppet label pretty soon though. Every other science savvy editor here has got the sockpuppet label so far (apart from VoiceOfAll). How does he do it?:)HeadleyDown 12:00, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi again Flavius. I believe you have hit on an extremely enlightening article. Perhaps I have become too accustomed to NLP to see it's pseudoscientific novelty, but this article about EMDR really does offer a fresh perspective.

I suppose I should get straight to how it relates to this article. The research supporting EMDR is as the clinicians say - superficial. It is interesting how they present it as a kind of cost-benefit ratio, with all the benefit going to the charlatans and the cost going to the client and the field of clinical psychotherapy. I can see more about why they are so troubled by the mantra of eclecticism. Its almost like that word "holistic".

The collection of trauma fixing techniques is really very telling and reminiscent of Dianetics (which grew mostly out of the claim to remove traumas). I did attend a newsgroup that actually claimed to do power therapies such as EFT, and they were as deluded as Dianetics proponents even to the extent that reading the word "cancer" could give you that illness. Basically, the reason it spreads is due to the neurotic perspectives that it fosters. The same could be said of NLP and its use of "negative energy deflection shields" that people place around themselves to deflect negative energies (a wholly pseudoscientific idea due to energy never physically being negative anyhow).

The excuses for NLP and EFT and Dianetics seem to be very similar. They all adhere to the notion that cures can be obtained fast, but also be undone fast. This is not a notion that is recognized in any other kind of therapy. You tap on a meridian (or change a submodality or reframe) and you are done. Then someone comes along and undoes it and you have to start again.

The decision of the APA is troubling considering how pseudo these kind of techniques are (troubling according to Eisner, and Lilienfield amongst others). Anyway, this is a good comparison, and has certainly clarified things for me. Certainly it seems that NLP is just as, if not more so pseudoscientific. As NLP is more popular as a self help technique, it also seems to be introducing the public to pseudoscience and a reinforcing a wide range of popular misconceptions. Regards HeadleyDown 15:05, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi Headley - what "decision of the APA is troubling"? What do Eisner and Lilienfeld say exactly? GregA 22:18, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Quick replies:

Flavius - When you are faced with a huge mountain of information there is a limit to what one can type. Your point is well taken, and insofar as if this was the actual wikipedia page it would be cited differently, I agree. However, I am a shortage of manpower, and you will have to look up some of the research for yourself to double check its quality. My purpose in posting that information is to demonstrate that there is in fact widespread use of, and positive views on, NLP, by credible bodies, and that the present research grossly misrepresents the field. In many cases the academic papers were published but I had not typed a formal location. They are none the less traceable and can therefore meet WP:V for verifiability. Despite this, some I have added sources regardless. The non research uses, which are arguably the more important since they are evidence that NLP is used in practice, are all 100% cited. That is all.
Second, have you or anyone else, anyone noticed that certain editors are trying to ignore them as fast as possible, with wide generalizations, rather than investigating those which are sourced? There's enough of them, and if you cared you could find citations and abstracts for the rest. FT2 10:06, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

A quick reply of my own... and I see you've just written what I was going to say FT2....

I find it quite disconcerting how unwilling Headley et al are to even discuss the science supporting NLP.

And FT2, thank you for the time you've put into this. GregA 10:18, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi! Again Greg, from the research presented (including that part which is presented on the alternative research page) NLP is scientifically unsupported. I really believe it is not my part to discuss evidence that experts such as Heap, Sharpley, Morgan, Lilienfeld, Singer, Drenth, Levelt, and a good many more there and to be added, have already discussed with the conclusion that NLP is unsupported and pseudoscience. Perhaps you will hear a different view from someone else, but it is already clear that NLP is pseudoscientific from theory to results to excuses. Regards HeadleyDown 13:01, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Disconcerting but not suprising. Did you know that a lot of web geeks used to play 'dungeons and dragons' when they were kids and now see the web as some kind of substitute game. 'Really', 'actually', 'mostly' I suspect they don't really care about the article at all. Just hanging out under a bridge sort-of-thing Faxx 13:05, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] NLP not a science? What about behavioral psychology? What about "Human Development", Social Science, and Medicine?

The "Syntax" system derived from "eye patterning" movements is more of a science than anything found in the sheeple herding "sciences" of sociology or behavioral psychology or so many other supposed "sciences." It looks like the "skeptics" (mismatchers in NLP lingo) got hold of this page, and we all know that most scientists who've had breakthrough ideas are not skeptics. The top scientists are visionaries (matchers in NLP lingo.) They have an idea, then they try to prove that it works. If a scientist maintains a skeptical point of view they will most likely not be inclined to think outside the box, they will most likely not come up with the new ideas needed for innovation and change. The strongest argument that NLP is a science is (after looking at the NLP system) one looks at the neurological studies done by Karl Pribram and others at UCLA. Add to this the MRI studies done with sufferers of "multiple personality disorder", now called "dissociative Identity Disorder." Pribram's findings about the behavior of the brain, when it "switches" from one personality to another, matches the NLP model which preceded Pribram's finding and the MRI results.

The editors of this fine free encyclopedia (a People's Encyclopedia -- what a concept) might find a way to filter out the disinformation and misinformation which flows from nay-sayers, debunkers, and cover artists. ( NLP has deep roots in the cryptocracy's MKUltra programs. I am lumping them together under the MKU umbrella, rather than name all the programs that spanned 70 years or so.) Once you understand that NLP is a super form of hypnosis ( modeled by Grinder and Bandler, in part, upon the practices of Milton H. Erickson, a scientist, a psychiatrist, a hypnotherapist, and a brilliant mind, great wit, and generous friend) is one of many names for an emerging science, one that comes out of the clinics where people are being treated for Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (the VA gives drugs only), and the pandemic of disorders that (study your Marshall McLuhan) may be the result of technological influences.

One of the foremost specialists in psychiatry exclaimed, upon meeting me for the first time at a conference in Santa Barbara: "This country has gone mad..." I was amazed that he recognized this, not because of any lack of intelligence on his part, but because of his conditioning in medical school. When I thought about it, I remembered that he had been educated, and had practiced for many years, in a foreign country and therefore could think outside the AMA box.

When you think about the Diagnostic and Statistical Manuals, you realize that it's largely a sorting mechanism, tagging a variety of transitory conditions with a variety of names, and having the bias of attempting to find pharmaceutical treatments with drugs for symptoms, masking the cause of the symptom, making life hard on clients and health care providers, and easy on the insurance companies who are represented on the panels which decide what will and will not go into any particular edition. (For example, compare the DSM-III with the DSM- IV.)

Recently, for the first time, a science journal has published a series of articles in which a number of leading practitioners agreed that the abuse of a child has profound affects upon the mental health of the adult they grow up to be. For thirty or forty years, this fact was obvious to the clinicians and therapists and only now has it come out because of the "collapse of the ((mental)) health system". At the last minute, apparently, it's time to get real. If this single idea gets more support, and after the usual years of nattering and peer reviews find it indeed true, then things will have to change. The first thing that might change for the better is the American judicial system which holds that the plea "not guilty by reason of insanity" is a form of malingering. The Shrinks sold out all of the accused in the 1970's and the prisons have filled up with "criminals" suffering from one of the many disorders and psychoses found in that three-lettered big book.

For those who want to debunk NLP as "non-scientific" ask them to describe the science in advanced physics. Note that most of the verbage in a science that gave us the nuclear age was, and is still, largely only theoretical. As are most of the other cutting-edge and rapidly emerging sciences. And this is a "hard science", not a "soft science" like most of the other disiplines we call science which are not much more than huge collections of theoretical exercises.

My criteria is, "does it work?" when applied in the clinic, and can it be repeated by others with predictable results. If the answer is yes, then it's probably a science (a form of academic politics). If it doesn't work, one stops trying to use it, and goes on to something else. And that's why we don't hear much about some of the "human development" studies.

For those who use the pet phase "cult", I ask them only to stop shooting themselves in the foot with that word. Go look it up in the Oxford English Dictionary and find out it means merely "a small group." And we know that all science is emerging from a "cult" -- a small group of people -- because the general public, largely semi-literate and poorly educated can't even handle their native language, let alone the jargon that attempts to clarify the esoteric meanings of many scientific insights.

I think that all this "by-pass charge" ( a useful cult term) about NLP comes from people who are threatened by the concepts (I call them the Golden Lies) of NLP which start with "You create your own reality." Now, let's see them argue with that phrase... I hope I have another page to reply.

Thank you all for being there,ignoramuses, nitpickers, mismatchers, and skeptics alike. Without your nagging, we might just sail off the edge of the world.

W.H. Bowart Author, Operation Mind Control

Hi W.H.Boward. Thanks. That reminds me of a criticism I read from a French author about NLP's loaded language. Loaded language is something that is commonly used in cults and organizations that use mind control [1]. It is something that makes it hard to recover from cults. Its not some kind of special mind power thing, its just a way to take someone's view of themself or view of humanity, and dirty it enough to put undue fear and restriction into them. Its also a way to put fear into your peers. "This person is a mismatcher, they do not fully see things our way!" And relating to pseudoscience, I wonder how skeptical Einstein was about the nazi promotion of the "sciences" of phrenology, eugenics and physiognomy? HeadleyDown 01:30, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Hello WHBoward. I think a little more reality with your map might help. Nuclear theories have led to nuclear fission reactors powering whole countries and economies. Comparing that will NLP is somewhat of a joke. Also, surely your view of humanity is quite negative. You speak of the common people unable to handle their native language and unable to comprehend science. Funny, because I grew up in the country and most natives speak exactly their own language. The language belongs to them, and no amount of Hubbardesque conspiracy writing will convince them otherwise. What's more, they know snakeoil flim flam when they hear it. You see it on the TV on an infomercial, and you know for sure its just garbage. Actually, the people going for cults and NLP are actually fairly similar and have a similarly good level of education. But what they also have in common, is that they are often shiftless and insecure. When I came to this artile I thought cult meant personality cult rather than destructive or nuisance cult. You and other proNLPers here are convincing me otherwise. AliceDeGrey 05:06, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Boward's post addressed with inline commentary flavius 03:03, 15 November 2005 (UTC):

'The "Syntax" system derived from "eye patterning" movements is more of a science than anything found in the sheeple herding "sciences" of sociology or behavioral psychology or so many other supposed "sciences."'

This is problematic for several reasons: (1) it is nothing more than a bold assertion. Do you have any evidence -- in the form of peer reviewed research reults -- that demonstrates the validity of NLPs eye accessing cues theory? (2) it appears that you are operating from an idiosyncratic (and self-serving) definition of 'science'; (3) there is no such field as 'behavioral psychology'. Psychology is -- by definition -- the study of behavior so the phrase behavioral psychology' is redundant not unlike 'brain neurology'.

Hi Flavius - just for the record there was a high behavioural focus in psychology (watson/skinner) and psychologists (at least in the 90s) mainly called them "behaviourists", though they were also understood as behavioural psychologists. They still differentiate different forms of psychology, such as Cognitive Psychology, etc. I'm not sure if Boward had something specific in mind, just saying there is behavioural psych (look it up online if you have any doubts). GregA 04:16, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

'It looks like the "skeptics" (mismatchers in NLP lingo) got hold of this page,'

This is troubling. It is a form of ad hominem and it is redolent of the Scientology notion of 'Suppressive Person' in terms of function i.e. automatically discounting all criticism and defining an "out group".

It would be better not to label anyone skeptic/critic/proNLP/antiNLP/supporter/neutral/etc. At the moment there are people discouraging reading the research with similar arguments GregA 04:16, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

'and we all know that most scientists who've had breakthrough ideas are not skeptics.'

This is another bold assertion without any substantiation. From my reading of the history of science this is an entirely false assertion. The common trait of all of the great scientists is scpeticism i.e. a tendency to question everything and not accept it as true without due evidence and explanation. Albert Einstein's general relativity can be understood as an outgrowth of a sceptical disposition towards Isaac Newton's law of universal gravitation. The work of Galileo Galilei represents a scepticsm and challenge of the Aristotlian concpeption of the natural world. Nicolaeus Copernicus heliocentric theory of the solar system was a direct challenge to the Ptolemaic geocentric view. When James Clark Maxwell formulated his now famous (eponymous) equations he corrected Ampere's law. In formulating the germ theory Louis Pasteur challenged the prevailing notion of spontaneous generation. I can list many more such examples. All of the preceding scientists were highly sceptical else they would not have been prompted to demonstrate the inadequacy of an existing theory via argumentation and/or experimentation. Can you demonstrate -- with reference to actual examples of scientific deiscovery -- that this is not the case?

Agreed - skeptical enquiry is a great trait for a scientist. Cynical is not. GregA 04:16, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

'The top scientists are visionaries (matchers in NLP lingo.)'

No, not necessarily. Michael Faraday -- for example -- was a great scientist though he was not visionary. Faraday was distinguished as a brilliant scientist by his inquisitive nature and ability to devise ingenious experiments to test his hypotheses. 'Vision' is less associated with science and more with echnology. Scientists generally don't labour with a clear and specific conception of the future in mind. Also, this 'matcher'/'mismatcher' dichotomy is intellectually (and epistemologically) bankrupt. The universe is not that simple.

'They have an idea, then they try to prove that it works.'

No, that is how pseudoscientists operate. Scientists formulate a hypothesis and then design an experiment to attempt to falsify that hypothesis. This is a truism amongst scientists. If I formulated the hypothesis that 'all swans are white' I wouldn't test that by seeking white swans. Instead I'd seek black swans. Finding white swans would not have the intended effect of proving my hypothesis.

Well.. they have an idea, they elaborate and build it to fit all the facts they know of, then they (and others) try to falsify it. GregA 04:16, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

You don't appear to understand the difference between a hypothesis and a theory. flavius 09:41, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Vanilla Flavour, What are you saying I don't understand? Please be clearer on where you're pulling this from GregA 10:02, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

'If a scientist maintains a skeptical point of view they will most likely not be inclined to think outside the box, they will most likely not come up with the new ideas needed for innovation and change.'

In the absence of scpeticism science would stagnate. Scientists publish their results and methodology for the purpose of critical review and reproduction. Other scientists attempt to reproduce published results -- and thereby grow the body of scientific knowledge -- because they are of a scpetical disposition, they do not blindly accept the results of a novel piece of research. Can you cite any advances in science that took place as a result of uncritical accpetance of a result?

'The strongest argument that NLP is a science is (after looking at the NLP system) one looks at the neurological studies done by Karl Pribram and others at UCLA. Add to this the MRI studies done with sufferers of "multiple personality disorder", now called "dissociative Identity Disorder." Pribram's findings about the behavior of the brain, when it "switches" from one personality to another, matches the NLP model which preceded Pribram's finding and the MRI results.'

This in no way establishes NLP as a science. Also, it appears that you are operating from an impoverished map of the universe. You appear to be conflating 'science' with 'technology'. Also, the concepts that define the traditional demarcation between science and pseudoscience are derived from the works of Karl Popper and Imre Lakatos. Central to the meaning of science are the characteristics of 'falsifiability' and 'disconfirmation'. Lakatos also distinguised science by its 'progressive research program'. NLP makes many unfalsifiable claims, it has little if any predictive power, and its research program is degenerating therefore it is pseudoscience. (I can elaborate on this matter if necessary).

'The editors of this fine free encyclopedia (a People's Encyclopedia -- what a concept) might find a way to filter out the disinformation and misinformation which flows from nay-sayers, debunkers, and cover artists.'

This attitude is symptomatic of a degenerating research program (which is a characteristic of pseudoscience). A research program is deemed 'progressive' if it at least sometimes produces new predictions that are confirmed. It is deemed as degenerating if it fails to lead to new and confirmed predictions. That is to say, in a progressive research program theoretical predictions successfully anticipate new data. In a degenarting research program the data precedes the theory, there is data "in search of a theory", post hoc explanations abound. An example of this is the addition of the notion of meta-programs to NLP, specifically to 'cognitive strategies'. When it was discovered that individuals with identical strategies presented fundamental differences the notion of meta-programs was postulated to prevent the falsification of the 'cognitive stragetgies' theory (see http://www.nlpuniversitypress.com/html2/MdMe26.html).

Correct me if I'm wrong, but in science, if at any time the evidence falsifies a theory, the theory is modified and it is then, once again, tested. Sometimes a theory can not be modified, or there are so many add-ons and exceptions that the theory becomes unlikely, and if it's a strongly held theory there may be a paradigm shift. Anyway... I would have thought that the discovery of something the strategy model didn't account for and an extension to the theory would be quite normal, don't you think? GregA 04:16, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Lakatos addresses this concern. Lakatos conceptualises a "research program" as being comprised of a "hard core" of very general hypotheses and a "protective belt" of specific auxiliary hypotheis. According to Lakatos, experimentation and falsification is directed at the protective belt because only it is comprised of sufficiently specific hypothesis that are capable of being tested. Meta-programs are not a more specific form of what already existed in NLP, they are entirely disconnected from everything else in NLP. Empirical testing amongst the first generation NLPers showed that strategies had absolutely no predictive power: people with the same strategy for skill X produced widely varying results. If NLPs theory of cognitive strategies were itself revised then we could conceivably regard that as the addition of auxiliary hypothesis to the protective belt. However, Leslie Cameron-Bandler instead postulated another component of the NLP model of the mind in an ad hoc fashion. This is an entirely evasive manouveur designed to illegitimately save cognitive strategies from falsification. Is there any evidence that meta-programs exist? I haven't seen any. Have you? flavius 10:33, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

This is a very interesting question. First let me thank you for your specific answer addressing my question, I appreciate it. Now to the question "Is there any evidence that meta-programs exist?" - interesting because my NLP training says "No", my Psychology training says "Yes"... which is rather counter-intuitive :). The NLP school I went to does not subscribe to metaprograms mainly because they classify people as a personality type. While there is value in that because (once classified) you can then use some standard responses and processes for that type, it also removes the value of calibrating specifically to an individual and working with whatever is presented (ie. metaprograms can be a case of "work out which they are, then administer process" rather than dynamically interactive). My psych background involved alot of personality tests where this kind of classification was very common, and the scoring on different personality traits was linked to competency requirements in jobs to determine probably job-personality match (in conjunction with other measurements from resume, ability tests, assessment centres, etc). Most occupational psychologists are going to say that we do have personality traits based on the "Big 5" that were found many years back. Metaprograms are sometimes linked directly to the MBTI (Myers Briggs Type Indicators). Also, the BPS has endorsed some personality tests based on metaprograms ([2]). An ongoing disagreement between NLP and Psych on metaprograms would _probably_ be the variability of personality traits - NLP argues they can be changed, psych argues they are relatively fixed (though as I said, I haven't trained much in metaprograms). GregA 12:12, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

'( NLP has deep roots in the cryptocracy's MKUltra programs. I am lumping them together under the MKU umbrella, rather than name all the programs that spanned 70 years or so.)'

The roots of NLP are well documented, refer to http://users.pandora.be/merlevede/nlpfaqc3.htm and Grinder's 'Whispering in the Wind'. I'm quite familiar with NLP and its history, there is no evidence for your wild claim.

'Once you understand that NLP is a super form of hypnosis ( modeled by Grinder and Bandler, in part, upon the practices of Milton H. Erickson, a scientist, a psychiatrist, a hypnotherapist, and a brilliant mind, great wit, and generous friend) is one of many names for an emerging science, one that comes out of the clinics where people are being treated for Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (the VA gives drugs only), and the pandemic of disorders that (study your Marshall McLuhan) may be the result of technological influences.'

The above sentence is unparseable, i.e. it is ungrammatical. Also, many of the 'misnmatchers'/sceptics such as myself have had NLP training and are familiar with the primary NLP works (Magic I&II, Patterns I&II, Tranceformations and 'Frogs into Princes').

'One of the foremost specialists in psychiatry exclaimed, upon meeting me for the first time at a conference in Santa Barbara: "This country has gone mad..." I was amazed that he recognized this, not because of any lack of intelligence on his part, but because of his conditioning in medical school. When I thought about it, I remembered that he had been educated, and had practiced for many years, in a foreign country and therefore could think outside the AMA box.'

A paragraph earlier you characterised Milton Erickson as a "brilliant" mind. Erickson was educated in the North American University system, gained a degree in medicine and a post-graduate qualification in pscychiatry. He also practiced. How is it that your suspicion does not extend to Erickson. Similarly, both Grinder and Bandler were educated in North American universities. Also, the "subtext" of the above is that your behavior prompted the foremost specialist[s] in psychiatry" to exclain "This country has gone mad". David Icke (the man that believes that amongst others George Bush, Bill and Hilary Clinton, Queen Elizabeth, the Queen Mum, Bob Hope and Kris Kristofferson are shape shifting reptiles) wasn't part of this conference was he? Who was this unnamed 'foremost specialist[s] in psychiatry'?

'When you think about the Diagnostic and Statistical Manuals, you realize that it's largely a sorting mechanism, tagging a variety of transitory conditions with a variety of names, and having the bias of attempting to find pharmaceutical treatments with drugs for symptoms, masking the cause of the symptom, making life hard on clients and health care providers, and easy on the insurance companies who are represented on the panels which decide what will and will not go into any particular edition. (For example, compare the DSM-III with the DSM- IV.)'

How is chronic depression "transitory"? The symptoms and phenomenology of mental illnesses such as depression, paranoid-schizophrenia, obsessive-compulsive disorder and phobia are largely consistent within the same person and between different people (and even different cultures) and they are clustered consistently. You appear to be alluding to the common NLP "article of faith" that menatal illness is a nominalisation (in a somewhat incoherent manner). There is no evidence that mental illness is merely a nominalisation.

Headley said some stuff about nominalisations and theories contradicting NLP and I enquired about what had been said. He wasn't able to answer, but perhaps you know of some stuff I can read about nominalisations (outside of NLP theory). Certainly I would say that some mental illnesses are approached as a disease that someone has, rather than a cognitive process, and that that will affect how it is treated. GregA 04:16, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi Greg. OK its time to do some linguistics explanation: Apart from the fact that there is no evidence that NLP has lived up to its many promises of providing magical solutions for ailing mankind. But there is more to explain in terms of erroneous concepts:

So much of it is built on untested hypotheses and is supported by totally inadequate data. Additionaly, because, by Chomskys own admission, the concept of deep structure remains an untested hypothesis. So we have assumptions built on assumptions. This is extremely inappropriate and NLP being pseudoscientific.

Bandler and grinder seem to have introduced terms and ideas of their own that are not part of the accepted body of linguistics. Nominalization is a grammatical transformation but according to Bandler and Grinder, nominalizations constitute linguistic distortions. There is no evidence of any kind of this being the case. Works on linguistics make no mention of distortions arising from nominalizations. The same goes for deletions. There is no mention whatsoever in linguistics of this taking place.

They also make mistakes about nominalizations and vagueness. Vagueness can come from nominalizations, but it is really no way the universal that they make out.

All of NLP’s linguistics concepts have the same problems. This is why linguistics books do not have a mention of them. The same is true for neurolinguistics. Actually, neurolinguistics can be defined as the study of speech defects. So NLP could be defined as the study of programming speech defects:) HeadleyDown 12:09, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Headley, I thought you had something more though, you implied some research. Remember NLP is not built on Chomskey, it's built on modeling linguistic patterns. They happened to fit with Chomskey's theories (which you say have not been tested). AFAIK linguistics do not judge whether there is a problem due to deletion - they just note that there is some unknown information that must actually be there. It is in practical use that we explore what the person has placed in that unknown spot (by asking what specifically, how, who, etc). Grinder and Bandler never talk about universal laws, just patterns that are worth exploring. I'd really like to know the nominalisation issue, I wonder if your representation is all there is to it - perhaps it really is that simple?. THanks. GregA 12:28, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Greg, I get the impression you wish to ignore the writings and claims of Bandler and Grinder. They make claims, and linguists state that it is simplistic nonsense and only there for promotional/confusion value. Bandler, Grinder, Dilts and others talk about universal application. They state that it is about form and not content (all form and no content) and therefore can be applied to everything. Now, in my book, that is a universally applied panacea. It is also the view of many of the critics already cited. The nominalizations issue is really that simple. B+G get it wrong throughout, and then claim to build a pragmatic method on it's back. What is happening really though, is they know that big names sell (Chomsky, Perls, Huxley etc) and they present those names together with a pseudo-scientific psychobabblefest with a new age/magical facade. People buy into the cult. The smart ones work out what is happening to them and exit the cult. HeadleyDown 13:18, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Headley, you are either confused or being confusing. We weren't talking about whether NLP has universal application - you said that vagueness was not a universal characteristic of nominalisations, and said that NLP teaches that it is. I responded simply to that (NLP does not teach that a deletion, distortion, or generalisation is a problem, rather that it MAY indicate an impoverished map - this is different from it ALWAYS indicating an impoverished map). Further, linguists are qualified to state if a linguistic theory is simplistic, but rather unqualified to judge that "it is only there for promotional/confusion value". I see you've added some more judgements about mentioning Perls, Chomsky as strategy to sell, a total POV from you that discounts NLP's beginings. GregA 22:04, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Greg, as always, I am writing from other people's perspective. I was quoting Levelt and other linguists and their expert view of NLP's blunders. You seem to be giving your own biased interpretation based on your desire to deny anything that nonproNLPers write. HeadleyDown 02:07, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

NLP nominalizations come from a debunked (even during the 60s) linguistic relativism perspective. That should be clear enough to anyone that NLP proponents are just taking a bunch of jargon and hyping it up to an unsubstantiated pragmatic method (that fails). Bookmain 06:16, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

That's a start in the explanation. Do you know of any psych research on the use of either deliberate nominalisation, or deliberate denominalisation? I'm far more interested in the psych research of what works than in the linguistic background. Greg 203.217.56.137 07:22, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

'Recently, for the first time, a science journal has published a series of articles in which a number of leading practitioners agreed that the abuse of a child has profound affects upon the mental health of the adult they grow up to be. For thirty or forty years, this fact was obvious to the clinicians and therapists and only now has it come out because of the "collapse of the ((mental)) health system". At the last minute, apparently, it's time to get real. If this single idea gets more support, and after the usual years of nattering and peer reviews find it indeed true, then things will have to change. The first thing that might change for the better is the American judicial system which holds that the plea "not guilty by reason of insanity" is a form of malingering. The Shrinks sold out all of the accused in the 1970's and the prisons have filled up with "criminals" suffering from one of the many disorders and psychoses found in that three-lettered big book.'

What science journal? Can you provide a citation?

'For those who want to debunk NLP as "non-scientific" ask them to describe the science in advanced physics.'

NLP isn't merely unscientific, it doesn't work any better than placebo. What topic in advanced physics do you want an explanation of?

There is lots of research both for and against, with arguments over the quality of the research, whether it tested the NLP process effectively, etc. NLP must go much further if it wishes to encourage consistent results (which may support or not support what they're testing) ... inconsistent results are not helpful at all in improving a field. The psychological research is not helpful at this stage and NLP practitioners, rather than helping psychologists, are using internal NLP methods of sensory acuity and modeling. It would be useful for NLP to work with psychology. GregA 04:16, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Greg. You are ignoring what scientists have said since the 80s, that the little support that NLP gets is explained by influences other than NLP. So NLP itself fails in those cases. The majority of studies show NLP does not work. More recently, scientists explain that extrapolating success from minor studies (as shown on FT2's effort) is no evidence at all for efficacy. Bookmain 06:16, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

'Note that most of the verbage in a science that gave us the nuclear age was, and is still, largely only theoretical.'

The fact that the nuclear age actually exists and has artifacts (eg. nuclear power plants, nuclear weapons, medical imaging, radiotherapy, atomic clocks, radiocarbon dating, geiger counters) makes it plain that nuclear physics is not 'largely only theoretical'.

'As are most of the other cutting-edge and rapidly emerging sciences.'

NLP is neither scientific (according to the criteria of falsifiability, disconfirmation and progressive research program) nor is it cutting-edge (it is based on linguistic, psychological and neurological theories from the 1970s, when Bandler was studying at university).

'And this is a "hard science", not a "soft science" like most of the other disiplines we call science which are not much more than huge collections of theoretical exercises.'

It's not science. You've yet to establish NLP as a science let alone a 'hard science'.

'My criteria is, "does it work?" when applied in the clinic, and can it be repeated by others with predictable results. If the answer is yes, then it's probably a science (a form of academic politics). If it doesn't work, one stops trying to use it, and goes on to something else. And that's why we don't hear much about some of the "human development" studies.'

How do you know that when NLP "works" in the clinic you aren't merely witnessing the effect of non-specific factors?

Absolutely. I mean, I'm using an outcome rating scale I've licensed from a psychology company, but it only measures outcomes. How do I know WHAT SPECIFICALLY I did that made the difference. It is one thing to know something is effective overall, and another challenge to determine which elements are necessary and sufficient for the result (a challenge also noted as part of NLP modeling). Sometimes and for some people the necessary element might simply be "belief"... (ala the placebo!).

This is the purpose of matched controls. The use of matched controls that are administered a placebo serve to allow us to separate the specific factors of the treatment from the non-specific factors and to determine if a novel treatment is more effective than placebo. The absence of matched controls is why clinical reports are merely a form of anecdote and hence are unreliable. This is difficult for NLP practitioners to accept. flavius 09:56, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi vanillus. When you are using multiple different processes for change (including rapport, unconscious signals and calibration, intention & consequences, well-formed outcomes, 6 step reframes & parts negotiations, as well as standard meta-model violations, spatial anchoring, etc - how do you replace one of those with a placebo? The idea, as nice as it sounds and as useful as it would be, simply doesn't translate into this kind of context. And if you work with a whole control group, you get what I describe above. This is the crux of the researcher-practitioner divide, you may have heard of it. GregA 10:11, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

My name is Flavius. The Vanillus is just a pun because Flavius looks and sounds like flavor. This is a non-problem. "[R]apport, unconscious signals and calibration, intention & consequences, well-formed outcomes, 6 step reframes & parts negotiations, as well as standard meta-model violations, spatial anchoring" all comprise the treatment, call it X. We want to know whether X is more effective than placebo. Initially we aren't concerned with what elements of X are effective and which aren't -- to proceed otherwise would be presumptuous. In a single-blinded study with matched controls we administer X to a treatment group and we get the control group to tap their knee repeatedly, rub their stomach and repeat "Richard Bandler is a genius" ten times. Then we compare the results. flavius 10:49, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

I know and agree, I was arguing exactly that a few weeks back. Most NLP studies rather than taking NLP generally, have focussed on using just one section (in the 80s that was eye-accessing cues). I only know of the one (Mendslitch?) outcome based study (including control group) that worked with NLP processes openly as you suggest. It is quite possible that eye-accessing cues are insignificant and if so they should be dumped... though the overall combination is still effective. One problem with outcome based research like this is that there may be just one key pattern that's effective (take for instance the original meta-model, which is almost identical to the cognitive distortions of CBT). Headley a month ago described my explanation of NLP as sounding like CBT, he suggested I study CBT instead... perhaps that was my specific NLP training. Anyway, interesting. Thanks Flavius. GregA 12:12, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

'For those who use the pet phase "cult", I ask them only to stop shooting themselves in the foot with that word. Go look it up in the Oxford English Dictionary and find out it means merely "a small group." And we know that all science is emerging from a "cult" -- a small group of people -- because the general public, largely semi-literate and poorly educated can't even handle their native language, let alone the jargon that attempts to clarify the esoteric meanings of many scientific insights.'

The word cult has a distinct meaning when used by cult experts such as Lifton, Singer and Hassan. Your post could readily be characterised as semi-literate, uninformed and delusional.

'I think that all this "by-pass charge" ( a useful cult term) about NLP comes from people who are threatened by the concepts (I call them the Golden Lies) of NLP which start with "You create your own reality." Now, let's see them argue with that phrase... I hope I have another page to reply.'

I don't think so. Many people -- including myself -- that are critical of NLP commenced its study without any preconceptions and biases and parted with many thousands of dollars attending seminars and purchasing video/audio tapes. A younger -- more naive -- version of me was drawn by the promises and claims of NLP only to find after many years and many dollars that the emperor has no clothes and that I had been duped. I never felt "threatened" or challenged by any aspect of NLP. I found that it doesn't work (the expensive way) and I had the courage to admit I had been deceived and swindled out of my money and proceeded to extricate myself from the NLP 'community'. Many NLPers assume that its not working because they haven't understood something and keep returning to seminars and buying more tapes and books hoping that it will eventually click. My investigations -- after I grieved my loss of time and money and resolved the implications to my self-identity if being taken for a ride -- confirmed my suspicions. flavius 03:03, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

My own experience has been very positive, though I have to admit that I work heavily with the metamodel and 6 step reframes (with all the other principles as support - chunking up/down (intention), focus in time, ecology, rapport, anchoring, triple description). I've found this effective (none of this thinking I didn't understand something or spending more money on courses). Though I'm yet to build that same confidence (including anecdotal support or non-support) for some other 'popular' patterns like collapsing anchors, swish, etc. GregA 12:12, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

NLP can be used to model people effectively entering a cult or successfully leave a cult (eg. Charles Figley says that Steven Hassan uses some NLP processes (eg. change personal history and double dissociation process, VK/D) to help people recover from cults). The technology is amoral in that respect. That's why ecological considerations and checking for consequences of any changes is so important. Many NLP trainers consider the meta model to be an antidote to mind control allowing people to free themselves from indoctrination of political or religious organisation by challenging some of the classic examples of logical fallacy put forward by these organisations. Notice how many linguists (Chomsky, Lakoff, etc) have also people anti-doctrination advocates. --Comaze 06:22, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi Comaze. Chomsky and Lakoff are not NLP advocates. Steve Hassan does not primarily use NLP to help people recover from cults. The metamodel is actually used in a cultish way in newsgroups. Just as the author chappy above used the loaded language (missmatcher) people also use the metamodel to demand clarity in everything people say, to literally shout them down by claiming they are unclear. Then they take a self help pseudoscience tome out of their pocket and give a sermon. Actually, if it were appropriate to post the delusional nonsense NLP devotees talk about on newsgroups, this article would be both hillarious and very worrying. HeadleyDown 11:26, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

A skillful NLP practitioner knows that the meta model is used on a need to know basis for information gathering. If someone is being very vague, then it is perfectly fine to ask direct specifying questions, such as, "What definition of cults are you using, HeadleyDown?" I address your questions about Hassan above (it was directly from Charles Figley a very well respected scientist with excellent reputation). Grinder (Whispering, 2001) acknowledges Chomsky as the single biggest contributor to NLP epistemology. Lakoff was also quoted directly in Structure of Magic Vol.1 (1975) and references in Patterns (1977-78) but is not as important as Chomsky. --Comaze 12:01, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Hello there... so "You create your own reality." Not something I subscribe to... what do you want to argue about that phrase? "You create your own map" (subjective experience) .... that is fair enough. GregA 07:02, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Meta Programs

I fail to see the relevance of (pignotti) so I'll focus on matcher/mismatcher idea. As far as Matcher/mismatcher categorisation of people is NOT valid in NLP. These categories originate from metaprograms or MBTI -- both content categorisation models. Some 3rd generation "NLP" trainers have uncritically imported metaprograms into NLP. Grinder is intolerant of this kind of logic -- labelling someone as a "matcher/mismatcher" is epistemologically dodgy. --Comaze 02:28, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Excellent, Comaze. I love to see pseudoscientists disagreeing with each other. It reminds me (after a jolly good transderivational search) that NLPers are not completely hopeless. DaveRight 02:32, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Dave, To be more specific I was referring to the disagreement between John Grinder (and the trainers who agree that metaprograms do not belong in NLP) and for example, Leslie-Cameron Bandler who was responsible for developing and including meta programs in her version of NLP. Here's an example, "Meta-programs are content categories." ... "I consider it to be less than professional to engage in these so-called meta-programs. They're substantive. They are impositions of other people's belief systems on yours. And I will not engage in that." (John Grinder, 1986, p.238) --Comaze 03:23, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi Dave. I'm all for representing the differences in NLP in some way.. they really SHOULD be in there, there are strong differences in opinions, etc. GregA 06:59, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. FT2 13:14, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Just to remind folks, there is now a page citing the other side of NLP research which some editors seem to feel does not exist. Given the amount of vitriol and POV suppression, breaches of policy, and personal attacks and remarks, this link is reposted so that all editors who wish, can independently and neutrally review a partial list of research and citations "as is" and consider their own opinion, in accordance with WP:NPOV's view that good quality information should be able to stand and speak almost for itself. (Also, so that it doesn't become deluged by spam or apparent sock-puppet posts, this link will also be moved to the bottom of this page for the next while). FT2 20:26, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Note also that if you wish to write your neutral assessment of FT2's collection of notes, you will probably have it removed from that page by FT2, even though FT2 has pasted his own pro-NLP POV all over the page. HeadleyDown 03:23, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

In principle you are right, and doubtless some will be found unreliable or not as well documented as you would hope. I'd be amazed if it wasn't. Bear in mind what you have is essentially highly compressed abstracts, often of long papers, so you should expect some raw data to be missing, as see my comment above. My purpose in that page was simple. HeadleyDown and others stated they were unaware (ie, ignorant) of any research into NLP nor any credible use. There is now a list of prima facie what appears to be purported credible research and use. The use is confimed by links. The research listed will now need more reading to validate the details and small print, and ascertain which appears credible and which does not.

Look FT2, your misrepresentation of my words is consistent with your misrepresentational comments on the alternative promotion research page. I have indeed seen the research you present, and it is simply a small part of the larger review. There were other papers there that I simply glossed over because they are simply promotional NLP pseudoscience. It was actually quite entertaining to read through them (especially that Ausie Doctor with the ponytail). But the fact remains; After months of the rigorous overview and review research being presented on the article, the NLP promoters are still trying to find ways to remove/censor them (which they have actually spent months physically doing). Certainly what I originally said holds true: The scientific view is that NLP is scientifically unsupported, and the view that NLP is pseudoscience is highly significant. HeadleyDown 02:06, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

An editor with credibility would respond: "Okay, yes, there are credible sounding researches. Now let's look and see how reliable they are". Then again, an editor with credibility would have spotted the flawed and misrepresentative presentation of the existing research and gone looking for other research instead of accepting a partisan view, too. An editor with credibility would have pulled morgan out, read dietrich carefully and checked the BPS's real view both online and in other ways. Nobody else did. So in a way, it doesn't surprise me. (Thats not personal as it applies to several editors many of whom made claims to "know" what the "truth" was, or who stated they wanted a hard "scientific" line. Hard science means being a skeptic - of both sides. And checking - both sides. A scientist is a sceptic and considers flaws even in his own work)

Any credible editor would accept the scientific fact and realise that scientists do actually do research on this subject. Certainly neutral editors would not snip the last negative words off a paragraph, or place their own unsupported views within the article multiple times out of desperation because they want to promote their belief system/hobby/business HeadleyDown 02:06, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Even so, the wording seems a little ingenuous, flavius. "At least some are not sourced from reputable...". Thats a sleight of hand wording: it means that if a significant number appear suggestive, one can still say "well some are not". May I have your comment on those that are? Given that I've at least bothered to try and source information and check references, whilst apparently, most here have not? FT2 19:12, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Do you mean disingenuous? If so that was not my intent, I did not have the time when I made that remark to be precise. Here is a partial list with my comments:

Forster,C., Jansen, A., Margenrot ,L, Unterberger, G., (1993) "Medias of psychotherapy. What conditions are decisive for rapport?" College of Hildesheim-Holzminden, Germany, FB Sozialpädagogik Comment: Unpublished paper

Macroy, T.D. (1978) "Linguistic surface structures in family interaction" Utah State University Comment: Unpublished paper

Cheek, D., (1981) "Awareness of Meaningful Sounds Under General Anaesthesia." in Theoretical and Clinical aspects of Hypnosis, Symposium Specialists, Comment: Not indexed by Medline

Dilts, R. and Epstein, T., (1995) Dynamic Learning, Meta, Capitola, California (reports Loiselle (1985) and Malloy (1989)) Comment: Publsihed in book, Loiselle (1985) and Malloy (1989) not published in any journal index by Medline

Acosta JK, Levenson RL Jr. (2002) "Observations from Ground Zero at the World Trade Center in New York City, Part II: Theoretical and clinical considerations.",Int J Emerg Ment Health. pring;4(2):119-26. Comment: Not a report of a study but merely a set of suggestions for for emergency field medicine.

Frank (1997) Comment: Not indexed my Medline

Genser-Medlitsch, Martina; Schütz, Peter: "Does Neuro-Linguistic psychotherapy have effect?" ÖTZ-NLP, Wiederhofergasse 4, A-1090, Wien, Austria, 1997. Comment: Not indexed by Medline

Konefal J, Duncan RC, Reese MA (1992) "Neurolinguistic programming training, trait anxiety, and locus of control." Psychol Rep. 1992 Jun;70(3 Pt 1):819-32. Comment: Methodologically flawed, "A matched control group was not available, and follow-up was unfortunately not possible."

Swack, J.A. (1992) "A study of initial response and reversion rates of subjects treated with the allergy technique." Anchor Point 6, 3:1-10 Comment: Anchor Point is an NLP magazine and is not indexed by Medline

Unterberger Ulbrich (1998) Comment: Not indexed by Medline

Weerth (1992) Comment: Not indexed by Medline

Baxter (1994) Comment: Not indexed by Medline

If a medical journal is not indexed by Medline then it is obscure and without reputation. This explains the imprecise language I mentioned earlier. I conjecture that most (80%+) of your citations are either not indexed by Medline, methodologically flawed or mispresented. flavius 04:45, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Yo FT2. You want ingenuous, you have a look at your own hype page:) DaveRight 03:20, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi again FT2. I just took another look at your "promote pseudoscience - dismiss science" research page and it looks like the biggest bunch of fraudulent nonsense I have seen on wikipedia. Not only is it there to promote a logically and intellectually fraudulent psuedoscience (NLP) but it namedrops all these scientific looking names, but none of the journals/papers are mentioned. For all we know, they all come from the "Xenu Journal of Pseudoscience". I also made comments, and I expect them to remain there (this is wikipedia where anyone can write something). If you remove my comments, I will restore them. DaveRight 03:47, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Just reading your 2nd sentence and your labeling of the page and it's obvious you're approaching it in an open minded manner - skeptical but not cynical :). Oh... 3rd sentence too - "to promote an intellectually fraudulent pseudoscience". You must be the 5th person (or username) who has said "give us the journal names" and I agree we should make really clear the quality of anything quoted on the main page (we should do that with Platt & Morgan too! Wow!). As FT2 responded the other 4 or so times, he's presented some alternatives in order to build a neutral argument with ALL the facts (not having the skeptics discussion group as a primary source) - and IMO to ask all editors to help evaluate the research fairly so we can make a great article. Also there are quite a lot of well cited evidence would you care to comment on those, or keep your current agenda? GregA 04:24, 15 November 2005 (UTC) p.s That goes for me too... time to start looking at what's good in there and what's not, and bring the good stuff into the article in a representative manner :)

The characterisation of NLP as "intellectually fraudulent pseudoscience" is the mainstream scientific evaluation of NLP. I expanded some FT2s brief citations into full citations. Most of the one's I expanded refer to obscure journals that aren't even indexed by Medline. Some are so obscure that I couldn't expand them and did an author/keyword search on Medline and failed to locate them. To "evaluate the research fairly so we can make a great article" would constitute original research, which is contrary to Wikipedia policy. Literature reviews have been performed and they arrive at the view that NLP is "intellectually fraudulent pseudoscience". flavius 04:54, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Damned if you do, damned if you don't eh? I say we should look at the quality and you say we can't do that, yet you just expanded FT2's stuff to say it was too obscure. All I'm saying is why not do exactly what you did for FT2, with the research currently cited (start with Platt and Morgan). To not do this would be hypocritical. GregA (aka 203.*) 07:18, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

203.217.56.137. As DaveRight below states you seem to have missed the point. You can look at the research that FT2 cited by all means. Understand though that specialists -- people that know more about the constituent topics (linguistics, neurology, psychopathology, trauma etc.) than you or I -- have reviewed the literature (at least that published in reputable journals) and concluded that it is bunkum. You are pretending that no research scientist is aware of the literature cited by FT2 and that new ground will potentially be broken on Wikipedia. This won't happen for at least two reasons: literature reviews have already been conducted and their conclusions are that NLP is unsupported scientificlly; and Wikipedia is not the place for original research (even if it is doomed to be still-born). Expanding the citations is not a violation of Wikipedia policy. My point in expanding what I could was to show that the journals cited are marginal, not credible, not reputable and hence unreliable. It says much about the marginality of the citations that I couldn't expand some of them at all. FT2 has collected what is largely a bunch of junk research. flavius 09:37, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Flavius, I made no suggestion at all we should do any original research. I'd like to know whether the Skeptic's Dictionary (etc) is included in your list of citeable research. I am AGREEING that the quality of research is important and that there is stuff there that was not published in research journals. FOr instance, some seems to be research for Psych honours or Masters programs - it seems that by your standards these students should have written a web page instead of done a year or 2 of original research, then they might be worthy of being quoted. [[User:GregA|GregA] 203.217.56.137 09:53, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

'FOr instance, some seems to be research for Psych honours or Masters programs - it seems that by your standards these students should have written a web page instead of done a year or 2 of original research, then they might be worthy of being quoted.' How so? Unpublished dissertations have not had circulation amongst peers and have not received the critical scrutiny that papers published in reputable journals receive. I don't understand where you got the idea that I regard only material on the web as worthy of quotation. The negative reviews cited in the NLP article do not appear online. flavius 10:04, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi Flavius. Sorry about that - I made an assumption you were implicitly justifying the current quotes already on the page (like Sanghera, Platt, Morgan, Carrol). I agree that an unpublished dissertation doesn't have critical scrutiny like those published in reputable journals, my main point is they have more scrutiny (and time invested and scientific focus) than many opinion pieces. GregA 22:40, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Hello um, 203something. I do believe you are missing the point. FT2 deliberately did not use references in his little research page because it does not look good for his NLP promotion drive. Flavius has made is very clear that FT2 is trying to pull the wool. The fact is, there is a significant scientific view that NLP is a kind of Scientology for the terminally insecure (ie pseudoscientific nonsense). There is something emerging here though. Yourself and FT2, and other NLP promoters are generally taking an anti-science stance. This is also reflected in NLP as a whole, especially in NLP advocate's refusal to face the empirical results of research that state NLP is scientifically unsupported. I think Platt and Morgan are more practitioner views than scientific, though they both have very good credentials - Platt as a respected management training author, and Morgan as a PhD and psychotherapist who prefers direct interaction rather than dubious physiognomy readings. DaveRight 07:46, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Splendid, Flavius. I know its hard enough trying to explain to these people what a scientific view is. I work in a research library and still find it hard to find the time to repeat explain things to the NLP promoters. It seems that empirical evidence is not acceptable to those of the promotional persuasion. So well done with the science view explanations. No doubt they will have to be reiterated at a later point and I am sure some re-pasting of your research will be in order. Its good to see people such as yourself making good use of the most neutral and clear view around (independent scientific research). Certainly NLP is pseudoscience from theory to practice. Their fraud does extend beyond the intellectual though. There are a few cases of proposed NLP cancer and deafness cures that have had to be dealt with through litigation. Anyway, your work is much appreciated. ATB Bookmain 06:05, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

DaveRight, there is a limit to what one person can do. If you, or others, truly were interested in neutrality, you would perhaps have looked up references and helped. FT2 16:01, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Medline & PsycINFO

In the meantime, flavius, I have two questions regarding your points, which are on the surface reasonable ones. But to test that they are reasonable, a question for you. You stated: "If a medical journal is not indexed by Medline then it is obscure and without reputation". I know medline is an authority in medicine. I know it has many many articles and it's part of the Library of Medicine. What I do not know or pretend to know is, its criteria and procedures, nor whether it is such an authority that every journal relevant to hypnotherapy, psychotherapy, psychology or similar that is not indexed is "without reputation", nor that a paper not being indexed by medline makes it suspect. These sound like "puff" -- exaggeration for effect. Could you provide some solid credible sources to confirm whats sound very much like a personal assertation which medline itself probably would not agree is valid? I'd like a solid medical research source that agrees with you, because I find that an incredible statement. My personal guess is that your words are inadvertantly overstated. Can you confirm whether you meant them as I understand you to mean?

Please refer http://www.nlm.nih.gov/pubs/factsheets/jsel.html. Medline is the largest life science and biomedical bibliographic database. Medline indexes many psycological journals. As a rule of thumb it is true that if a journal is not indexed by Medline it is not credible or at least suspect. Further, if it is not indexed by Medline relatvely few experts are likely to have read it and most periodical collections of research libraries will not carry it. Of course this isn't a hard and fast rule its a heuristic that is generally accepted by researchers. If perhaps two or three of your citations were not indexed by Medline and the balance were then your compilation would be respectable. Unfortunately, a pattern emerges in your list of citations. Many -- perhaps most, I haven't checked all of them -- of your citations aren't indexed. So as a body of evidence the citations you provided are lacking: the number of citations that support the efficacy of NLP are numerically small (in comparison to well-accepted clinical interventions); and but they are sourced from unreputable journals. flavius 01:16, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Second, in any event, can you answer GregA's query, I assume you have also looked up the citations posed by Headley & Co on medline too. Can you let me know the results? Thanks. FT2 15:55, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

I have looked up some of them. The journal that Drenth (2003) is published in is indexed. Most of the others are books and are not listed (since Medline does not index books). This isn't a problem because the citations are critical reviews rather than novel proposals. Heap (1998), Heap (1989), Lilienfeld (2003), Williams (2000), Salerno (2005), Singer (1999) are books that present literature reviews and critical analysis, i.e. they are a form of meta-analysis (not necessarily in the sense of the formal statistical method) of literature that has already been published and/or notices that there is no evidence for a particular claim or set of claims. flavius 01:14, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

FT2. Flavius' criteria are indeed quite similar to the ones I see when I review publishable papers. You look for reliability and rigour. If it does not appear, you reject the paper and it gets published at a less rigorous journal. I do not know the exact method the researchers used to accept or reject papers, however there are plenty of hints in the review papers already. However, the fact remains, those reputable researchers and many other reputable writers hold the scientific view that NLP is unsupported and pseudoscientific.HeadleyDown 17:14, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm looking for evidence of a common standard applied to papers that support NLP and papers that dismiss it. On the one hand I see mass dismissal of some 100 papers, although it is likely a significant number are indicative. On the other I see people like Morgan. Headley, it's very hard to take your words about research seriously when I see little or no evidence of any attempt by you to apply a common standard both ways. In any event, the question was for flavius, who does appear to have thought about the matter. I'd like his considered view please. FT2 17:41, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] PsycINFO

Hello! Flavius has shown that some of the sources on the research page are not in Medline. I agree with FT2 that medline is a medical database... perhaps psyclit is more relevant (though I don't think it's online). Anyway, I have just spent a bit of time going through our references on the main page looking them up on medline (and their authors to check whether a book author or web author is listed with research background). GregA 01:18, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

No that is incorrect Medline is not only a medical database. It indexes all of the life sciences and biomedical sciences. For example, an exact phrase search "cognitive behavioral therapy"/"cognitive behavioural therapy" yields 3255 citations (2334 + 921). The exact phrase search "neurolinguistic programming" yields 78 citations and many aren't reserach papers and some find against the efficacy of NLP (I'll investigate the distribution of negative/positive results and report later). flavius 01:26, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

I have given the matter of journal coverage vis-a-vis MEDLINE some more thought. MEDLINE indexes 4,800 journals covering biomedical and life sciences (these categories subsume the behavioral sciences) (see http://www.nlm.nih.gov/pubs/factsheets/jsel.html). The American Psychological Association's index of behavioral science journals -- Psychological Abstracts (print version)/PsychINFO (online version) -- covers 1,995 behavioral science journals alone. Thus PscyhInfo has a broader coverage of behavioral sciences research than MEDLINE. Also it appears that MEDLINEs indexing of a journal is not complete (I suspect that a quota is allocated for behavioral science journals and certain journals fall in and out of coverage). For example, Studia Pscyologica and the Australian Journal of Clinical Hypnotherapy and Hypnosis are indexed by MEDLINE but not in a complete fashion. There are NLP related papers in both journals that are not indexed. Unfortunately, for the proNLP camp this is bad news as the research not indexed by MEDLINE but indexed by other reputable services (such as PsychINFO) provides even more research finding that don't support NLP. For example:

"Though it claims neuroscience in its pedigree, NLP's outmoded view of the relationship between cognitive style and brain function ultimately boils down to crude analogies. 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." (Beyerstein, BL. (1990). Brainscams: Neuromythologies of the New Age. International Journal of Mental health, 19 (3), 27-36.)

". . . N.L.P. Theory is not well articulated, its terminology, premises and assumptions are ambiguous or poorly specified. As the analysis in this article has shown, a basic reason for the theory's inadequacies are due to its borrowings from theories that are theoretically antagonistic to each other. . . . The conclusions from reviewing the literature are that as a theory, it is undeveloped and incoherent and that its techniques offer nothing new." (Baddeley, M. (1989). Neurolinguistic programming: The academic verdict so far. Australian Journal of Clinical Hypnotherapy and Hypnosis, 10 (2), 73-81.)

This study compared NLP techniques such as pacing, metaphor, and phonemic devices to two much simpler non-NLP control conditions: a direct-information condition and a placebic information-only condition. No differences in attitudes were found among the conditions, but the non-NLP direct-information control condition demonstrated significantly more persuasion in behavioral measures, resulting in the opposite of what NLP practitioners would predict. (Dixon, PN; Parr GD; Yarbrough D; and Rathael M. (1986). Neurolinguistic Programming as a Persuasive Communication Technique. The Journal of Social Psychology, 126(4), 545-550.)

Huge intercorrelations (hovering around r=.7) between subject performance in different sensory modes resulted, which is the only possible outcome that wasn't predicted by NLP. (Fromme DK & Daniel J (1984). Neurolinguistic Programming Examined. Journal of Counseling Psychology 31 (3) 387-390.)

"The basic tenents of NLP have failed to be reliably verified in almost 86% of the controlled studies . . . the inquirer in this field may be forgiven for accepting the conclusion of Elich et al, (1985), 'NLP has achieved something akin to a cult status when it may be nothing more than another psychological fad' (p.625)." (Sharpley, C. F. (1987). Research findings on neurolingusitic programming: Nonsupportive data or an untestable theory? Journal of Counseling Psychology, 34 (1), 103-107.)

(Citations sourced from http://www.workingpsychology.com/nlp.html.) Shortly -- probably next weekend -- I shall conduct a search on PsychINFO for more papers. flavius 12:28, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi Flavius! I'm unsure of the differences between PsycLIT as I suggested and PsycINFO - it appears to simply be one is on CD, one is on the Web... but certainly using PsycINFO is a great idea. I'm eager to see what comes up. I'm still interested in my questions regarding any outcome based study that showed no effect of the NLP intervention (in contrast to your various comments that the research didn't have controls or placebos)... could you keep a look out for those? I'm looking myself... I have little time so I'll focus more on this than on the other comments made in here (apologies to others!). GregA 02:11, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

PsycINFO lists "Dissertation Abstracts International" as a source.... Anyway, I'm restricting my search to "neurolinguistic programming", AND "Methodology:Empirical Research" AND "Publication Type:Peer Reviewed Journal"... with 50 hits. Would you suggest a different search? GregA 02:29, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi GregA. "Dissertation Abstracts International" may be indexed but that doesn't change that the dissertations themselves have not been subject to the same scrutiny that that papers submitted for publication in well-known journals receive. PschINFO appears to be exhaustive with respect to behavioral sciences research, I'm not sure what the APAs indexing policy is. I want to stress that I'm willing to collaborate with you on digging up primary reserach regarding NLP only if you make it clear to me that you understand that the conclusions of Eisner, Sharpley, etc. take precedence over your conclusions or my conclusions regarding NLP and the content of the article. flavius 08:23, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi flavius. I wasn't clear about the dissertation abstract comment - it is listed as a source, but I restricted my search to avoid them. Would you suggest a different search to what I had above? Certainly a dissertation has far more scientific rigour than a newspaper article, but is not subject to the same scrutiny as peer-reviewed stuff. I note you say you're willing to collaborate with me, and I did originally ask for PsycLit after you supplied Medline, but you were the one who brought up using PsycINFO. The Einspruch-Sharpley papers both are good references to reflect the debate of science (Sharpley writes, Einspruch writes and responds to Sharpley, Sharpley responds to Einspruch) - it's almost the same as has been argued for here (NLP says something, Critics say something of their own and respond to NLP, NLP responds to critics (without adding something new)). I have no problem with representing that, it's notably PRS of course back in the late 80s.

I do not believe that Eisner's book subtitled "From Freud to Alien Abductions" is unbiased science. On a related note, did I misinterpret your Medline comments earlier... I thought you were avoiding "review" papers and focussing on "research" papers - though if we're going to end up using the "reviews" then ideally reviews published in peer-reviewed journals would be the go, right? GregA 22:27, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi GregA. I'd use an exact phrase search on "Neurolinguistic Programming" and Neuro-linguistic Programming" and manually sift through the results. I don't understand why you believe that Eisner's book is "unbiased science". Eisner (2000) is basically a literature review it isn't primary research literature. Eisner is of course repeating the conclusion originally made in Eyesenck's classic paper "The Effects of Psychotherapy: An Evaluation" (1957) (reproduced at http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Eysenck/psychotherapy.htm). It is a strong conclusion, namely that psychotherpay is no better than placebo (Eyesenck concluded that psychotherpy is no better in terms of time to recovery than simply doing nothing and waiting for spontanous remission which is effectively the same as Eisner's conclusion) but that is no reason to label it biased and summarily dismiss it. Eisner is a licensed psychologist and his conclusion is based on primary research. Certainly we can dispute Eisner's interpretation but we can't ignore it because of the unpalatable conclusion. Why don't you do a search on PsychINFO/PsycLit to see how Eisner's re-iteration of Eyesenck's conclusion was received? Yes, literature reviews published in peer reviewed journals are perfectly acceptable, the contra NLP position is based (largely) on a set of literature reviews published in peer reviewed journals. flavius 05:01, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Medline and existing references

...Criticism

^ Derks and Hollander (1998) Systemic Voodoo. ISBN 1907388896

Not in Medline (we don't expect a book to be - this refers to authors also not on Medline)

^ Robert Todd Carroll, Robert T. Carroll (2003) The Skeptic's Dictionary Publisher: Wiley; The Skeptic's Dictionary: neuro-linguistic programming (NLP).

Not in Medline (again, don't expect a website to be - refers to R Carroll).

^ Thaler Singer, Margaret & Janja Lalich (1996). Crazy Therapies : What they are? Do they work?. New York, NY: Jossey Bass. 0787902780.
^ Salerno, S (2005); Sham : How the Self-Help Movement Made America Helpless. Crown Publishers ISBN 1400054095

Not in Medline

^ Sanghera, S. "Look into my eyes and tell me I'm learning not to be a loser", Financial Times, London (UK), Aug 26, 2005.

Not in Medline

^ Scott O. Lilienfeld, Steven Jay Lynn, and Jeffrey M. Lohr (Eds.) (2003) Science and Pseudoscience in Clinical Psychology. Guilford Press, New York. ISBN 1-57230-282-1,.

Book not in Medline of course - though Authors have many articles cited in medline. .....Scientific review of NLP

^ Bördlein, Christoph (2001). Das "Neurolinguistische Programmieren" (NLP) - Hochwirksame Techniken oder haltlose Behauptungen? Schulheft, 103 , 117-129.

Not in Medline

^ Drenth, J.D. (2003) Growing anti-intellectualism in Europe; a menace to science. Studia Psychologica, 2003, 45, 5-13

Not in Medline

^ Druckman, Daniel & John A Swets, (Eds) (1988). Enhancing Human Performance: Issues, Theories, and Techniques. Washington DC: National Academy Press, 138-149.. ISBN 0309037921. Retrieved 25 Aug 2005

Book not in Medline (of course), Author Druckman is.

^ Ekman The Observer. CRIME UNCOVERED: YOUVE GOT THE LOOK: WOULD YOU LIE TO ME? London (UK): Apr 27, 2003. pg. 58

Not in Medline

^ Bradley, E J & Heinz J Biedermann (1985). "Bandler and Grinder's Communication Analysis: Its historical context and contribution.". Psychotherapy, Theory and Research 22: 59-62.

Not in Medline

^ Bertelsen, Preben & Lars Hem: (1987). "Om begrebet: klientens model af verden (??: the client's model of the world)". Psyke & Logos 2: 375-408.

Not in Medline

^ Beyerstein. B.L. (1997) Why Bogus Therapies Seem to Work. Skeptical Inquirer magazine. September/October 1997

Not in Medline

^ Beyerstein, B. (2001). Fringe psychotherapies: The public at risk. The Scientific Review of Alternative Medicine, 5, 70-79.

Not in Medline - he has a different article in another journal.

^ Platt, Garry (2001). "NLP - Neuro Linguistic Programming or No Longer Plausible?". Training Journal May: 10-15.
Retrieved 24 Aug 2005.

Not in Medline

^ Bliemeister, J (1988). "Empirische Uberprufung zentraler theoretischer Konstrukte des Neurolinguistischen Programmierens (NLP) (Empirical verification of central theoretical constructs of neurolinguistic programming (NLP).)". Zeitschrift f klinische Psychologie, Forschung und Praxis 17(1): 21-30.

Not in Medline. There is a Bliemeister J mentioned in medline, unsure if it's him.

^ Heap, M. (1989) Neurolinguistic programming: What is the evidence? In D Waxman D. Pederson. I, Wilkie, and P Mellett(Eds) Hypnosis: The fourth european congress at Oxford (pp 118-124) London. Whurr Publishers.

Not in Medline - Author is.

^ Williams, W F. general editor.(2000) Encyclopedia of pseudoscience

Publisher Facts On File New York. Not in Medline

Helisch. M (2004) Veranstaltung:- Gesellschaftliche Funktion, Entwicklung und Sozialisation von Emotionen Seitenzahl: 39 Issue: 1

Not in Medline

^ Raso. J. (1994) "Alternative" Healthcare: A Comprehensive Guide. Prometheus Books. ISBN: 0879758910

Not in Medline

^ Winn, C.M , and Wiggins,A.W (2001) QUANTUM LEAPS..in the wrong direction: Where real science ends and pseudoscience begins. Joseph Henry Press.

Not in Medline ...Psychology theory

^ Michie, S, M Johnston, C Abraham, R Lawton, D Parker & A Walker (2005). "Making psychological theory useful for implementing evidence based practice: a consensus approach". Quality & Safety in Health Care 14: 26-33.

Yes, in medline

^ Derks, L. & Goldblatt, R.,(1985) The Feedforward Conception of Consciousness: A Bridge between Therapeutic Practice and Experimental Psychology. The William James Foundation, Amsterdam.

... Human Resources

^ Hardiman (1994) NLP background and issues. Industrial relations review and report No 560 May

Not in Medline

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

Not in Medline - though Von Bergen has a couple of research articles.

Thaler Singer, Margaret (1995). Cults in Our Midst : The Continuing Fight Against Their Hidden Menace. New York, NY: Jossey Bass. ISBN 0787967416.
See Margaret Singer and Excerpts from 'Cults in Our Midst' Retrieved 25 Aug 2005

Not in Medline.

^ Krugman, Kirsch, Wickless, Milling, Golicz, & Toth (1985). Neuro-linguistic programming treatment for anxiety: Magic or myth? Journal of Consulting & Clinical Psychology. Vol 53(4), 526-530.

Yes, in medline.

I may have missed some authors in my searches of course (eg Salerno S has articles but it's a different field, and in italian, unlikely to be our Salerno S?). I'm only putting these here to put things in perspective. Hope it helps. GregA 01:18, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

GregA. Studia Psychologica -- the journal in which Drenth (2000) is published is/was indexed by Medline. The issue at hand is the credibility of the journals that published the research cited by FT2. I proposed the widely accepted heuristic of referring to whether the publication in question is or was indexed by Medline. Additionally we can check whether a given author has any publications in Medline indexed journals and we can use 'Google Scholar' to determine how many times a piece of research is cited by other researchers. I contend that you will find that most of FT2s citations are seldom cited and that the authors of the papers cited have few or no published papers in any journal indexed by Medline. I don't have the time to perform all this work and to be frank I'm not sure what the result will be if it is completed. Even at this stage it is plain that the preponderance of evidence and the consensus of expert opinion is that NLP is scientifically unsupported, of dubious value at best and outright fraudulent at worst. The brutal fact is there isn't a body of results drawn from single-blind studies with matched controls that find that an NLP intervention is more effective than placebo that has been published in reputable journals, favourably reviewed by experts and reproduced by others. This is the 'elephant in the living room' that you, FT2, Comaze et al are doing your best to ignore. My concern is that the pro-NLP participants in this discussion have abandoned the basic premises of rational discourse and are instead engaging in 'religious wars'. The NLP artcile as it currently stands is neutral, it presents the claims of NLP proponents and the critical review which challenges those claims. The problem appears to be the unfavourable reviews by experts and the highlighting of the absence of evidence is unacceptable for those whose livelihood is connected to the practice of NLP. This is understandable but it is unacceptable. flavius 01:55, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

flavius, I "didn't have time" either. I'm in the middle of selling my house and work, and the like. But when I edit an article on Wikipedia, I check out the subject matter responsibly, to try and get a sense what all sides are saying and why, with the intent of seeing how a balanced view can form. Someone who edits and then says "this is my view, and my main reason for not checking the other views is essentially someone else told me it isn't valid" -- whether that someone is medline, a book, or a friend -- I'm sorry. To me, that just doesn't hold weight. My primary concern is that a large volume of "something" is being ignored. Whether it is anecdotal evidence from end users of credible bodies who say "It is valuable. It works [for us]", or whether its research that we need to examine paper by paper for credibility rather than assume, there is a significant body of "something" out there. There is mis-reporting of that "something". That is my primary concern. As I said, my impression is that a fair summary is simply, "the jury is out on NLP". There is less hard double-bind lancet-reported trials than I'd like, and on the other hand there is a lot more credence than pseudoscience given by hard nosed users such as advocacy colleges and the FBI, who are not using homeopathy, dianetics, or scientology but are recommending NLP.

Firstly, I didn't edit the NLP article so I don't see what you're hissing about. Secondly, I pulled up all the relevant citations from Medline (see below). Thirdly, I provided you the Medline indexing criteria. What's your response? Do you find the Medline expert panel lacking? Thirdly, anecdote doesn't count as evidence, especially not in matters of mental health where the placebo effect has been well documented or when many problems improve on their own without any intervention. Fourthly, it is of no significance that the FBI uses NLP. The criminal justice fields have been influenced by all manner of bunkum throughout history (eg. phrenology, craniology, physiogonomy). flavius 11:00, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

So we ought to be a little wary of saying its all junk (and NLP enthusiasts should not say its all proven), especially since several present citations state explicitly that experimental design has often been often flawed, or that whilst NLP is not proven, this does not mean it doesn't have value. When even the negative reviews say that, it's worth noting. What I would like in this article, is a balanced representation. It is not yet proven by a large number of trials. But it is also not proven or accepted by science to be invalid by a long way either, and the verdict by credible bodies is that in the field it is often felt to have proven itself useful in a way that many other methods have not. Notice how often it is one of only a handful of techniques, after filtering down, that are recommended. That is my point. Not that it should be sugar coated, or ignored, but that a balanced review is needed. When certain editors put in unwiki-ish edits, then no matter WHAT the subject itself is, we have a problem because the edits and overall slant are not fitting to the encyclopedia. When editors say "our view and only our view may prevail", thats when i go to escalate the dispute, not because I want one side or the other to win, but because they don't understand wikipedia..... FT2 03:44, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

No, it is all junk and the burden of proof is on NLP advocates to demonstrate otherwise. flavius 11:00, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Flavius, that's where you and wikipedia differ. "Its all junk" is an opinion. Wikipedia records opinions but does not advocate them. "NLP is gods gift to humanity" is also an opinion, and for the same reason Wikipedia should not say that either. There is no "burden of proof" since wikipedia is not about "proof". NLP here is descriptive. Your opinion whether NLP is right or wrong, is unimportant. What's important is that NLP is covered descriptively, and that different views that significant groups have on it are made clear, so that a reader can gain an understanding and appreciation how NLP sees itself, and how differing groups also see it. FT2 17:41, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

FT2. You and wikipedia differ a huge amount. Flavius did not write "Junk" within the article itself. But you wrote "you may notice that scientists saying NLP is ineffective is inconsistent with cults using it for power" etc. That is your opinion. And there is no actual inconsistency anyway. Cults also use Dianetics and tealeaf readings, but they are almost as ineffective as NLP. I wish to point this out because you seem to be the one person telling everyone what to do and claiming to have had deep experience of editing. If you are to live up to your claims to wiki expertise, you have a very long way to go. HeadleyDown 02:19, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Medline and NLP search

Searching for "neurolinguistic programming", in PubMed (which includes Medline) retrieves 62 citations. My earlier search on Scirus yielded 84 citations. I reviewed the 22 and found that they were either off-topic or were book reviews. What follows is the 62 citations from PubMed/MEDLINE and my comments:

1: Lyon S. Find some inner courage to beat your interview nerves. Nurs Stand. 2005 Sep 21-27;20(2):70-1. No abstract available. PMID: 16209412 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

COMMENT: No abstract or MEDLINE classification. Title suggests content is a discussion about calming anxiety, perhaps some NLP techniques are offered. The paper is unlikely to be a research report.

2: Grandke B. [Logopedics in neurologic rehabilitation: properly supporting patients in "home work"] Pflege Z. 2005 Apr;58(4):222-3. German. No abstract available. PMID: 15887912 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

COMMENT: No abstract or MEDLINE classification. Titles suggests a discussion piece with suggestions for supporting disabled patients working from home.

3: Gora EP. [Altered states of consciousness] Usp Fiziol Nauk. 2005 Jan-Mar;36(1):97-109. Review. Russian. PMID: 15810684 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

COMMENT: Review/tutorial.

4: Littlewood S. A route less well travelled. Prof Nurse. 2005 Jan;20(5):54-5. No abstract available. PMID: 15683001 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

COMMENT: No abstract or MEDLINE classification. Unlikely to be research report.

5: Percival J. Confidence tricks. Nurs Stand. 2004 Nov 24-30;19(11):24. No abstract available. PMID: 15615168 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

COMMENT: No abstract or MEDLINE classification. Unlikely to be research report.

6: Theilig P. [Andras Peto conductive promotion] Kinderkrankenschwester. 2004 Sep;23(9):343-53. German. No abstract available. PMID: 15493861 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

COMMENT: No abstract or MEDLINE classification.

7: Ellis C. Neurolinguisic programming in the medical consultation. S Afr Med J. 2004 Sep;94(9):748-9. Review. No abstract available. PMID: 15487837 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

COMMENT: Review/tutorial.

8: Clabby J, O'Connor R. Teaching learners to use mirroring: rapport lessons from neurolinguistic programming. Fam Med. 2004 Sep;36(8):541-3. No abstract available. PMID: 15343412 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

COMMENT: Tutorial.

9: Chinellato P. The recovery of subject clitics in mild agrammatism: implications for treatment and linguistic analysis. Cortex. 2004 Feb;40(1):162-3. No abstract available. PMID: 15174450 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

COMMENT: Off-topic.

10: Woodard F. Phenomenological contributions to understanding hypnosis: review of the literature. Psychol Rep. 2003 Dec;93(3 Pt 1):829-47. Review. PMID: 14723451 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

COMMENT: Review.

11: Wilhelm J. [5 models for effective communication] Krankenpfl Soins Infirm. 2003;96(7):12-3. German. No abstract available. PMID: 14619890 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

COMMENT: Interview.

12: Ball MJ. Clinical applications of a cognitive phonology. Logoped Phoniatr Vocol. 2003;28(2):63-9. PMID: 14582829 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

COMMENT: Off-topic.

13: Nelson R, Ball MJ. Models of phonology in the education of speech-language pathologists. Clin Linguist Phon. 2003 Jun-Aug;17(4-5):403-9. PMID: 12945616 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

COMMENT: Off-topic.

14: Burke DT, Meleger A, Schneider JC, Snyder J, Dorvlo AS, Al-Adawi S. Eye-movements and ongoing task processing. Percept Mot Skills. 2003 Jun;96(3 Pt 2):1330-8. PMID: 12929791 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

COMMENT: Research study

ABSTRACT:

This study tests the relation between eye-movements and thought processing. Subjects were given specific modality tasks (visual, gustatory, kinesthetic) and assessed on whether they responded with distinct eye-movements. Some subjects' eye-movements reflected ongoing thought processing. Instead of a universal pattern, as suggested by the neurolinguistic programming hypothesis, this study yielded subject-specific idiosyncratic eye-movements across all modalities. Included is a discussion of the neurolinguistic programming hypothesis regarding eye-movements and its implications for the eye-movement desensitization and reprocessing theory.

15: Leybaert J, D'Hondt M. Neurolinguistic development in deaf children: the effect of early language experience. Int J Audiol. 2003 Jul;42 Suppl 1:S34-40. PMID: 12918608 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

COMMENT: Off-topic.

16: Perlak D, Jarema G. The recognition of gender-marked nouns and verbs in Polish-speaking aphasic patients. Cortex. 2003 Jun;39(3):383-403. PMID: 12870818 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

COMMENT: Off-topic.

17: Vianna LA, Bomfim GF, Chicone G. [Self-esteem of nursing undergraduate students] Rev Bras Enferm. 2002 Sep-Oct;55(5):503-8. Portuguese. PMID: 12817532 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

COMMENT: "Socio-drama techniques of Neurolinguistics were used and the evaluation was done according to Minayo" (from Abstract)

18: Walter J, Bayat A. Neurolinguistic programming: the keys to success. BMJ. 2003 May 17;326(7398):s165-6. No abstract available. PMID: 12750228 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

COMMENT: Introductory NLP tutorial.

19: Walter J, Bayat A. Neurolinguistic programming: temperament and character types. BMJ. 2003 Apr 19;326(7394):S133. No abstract available. PMID: 12702636 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

COMMENT: Introductory MBTI (not metaprogrammes as you'd expect) tutorial.

20: Walter J, Bayat A. Neurolinguistic programming: verbal communication. BMJ. 2003 Mar 15;326(7389):S83. No abstract available. PMID: 12637421 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

COMMENT: Introductory NLP tutorial.

21: Bowers JS. Challenging the widespread assumption that connectionism and distributed representations go hand-in-hand. Cognit Psychol. 2002 Nov;45(3):413-45. Review. PMID: 12480480 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

COMMENT: Off-topic.

22: Gershkoff-Stowe L, Goldin-Medow S. Is there a natural order for expressing semantic relations? Cognit Psychol. 2002 Nov;45(3):375-412. PMID: 12480479 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

COMMENT: Off-topic.

23: Acosta JK, Levenson RL Jr. Observations from Ground Zero at the World Trade Center in New York City, Part II: Theoretical and clinical considerations. Int J Emerg Ment Health. 2002 Spring;4(2):119-26. PMID: 12166017 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

COMMENT: Discussion paper with suggestions.

24: Francelin Romero RA, Kacpryzk J, Gomide F. A biologically inspired neural network for dynamic programming. Int J Neural Syst. 2001 Dec;11(6):561-72. PMID: 11852439 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

COMMENT: Off-topic

25: Suthers M. Our personal space. Ann R Australas Coll Dent Surg. 2000 Oct;15:280-3. PMID: 11709956 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

COMMENT: Introductory NLP tutorial.

26: Hotz G, Helm-Estabrooks N, Nelson NW. Development of the pediatric test of brain injury. J Head Trauma Rehabil. 2001 Oct;16(5):426-40. Review. PMID: 11574039 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

COMMENT: Off-topic

27: Lin EL, Murphy GL. Thematic relations in adults' concepts. J Exp Psychol Gen. 2001 Mar;130(1):3-28. PMID: 11293459 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

COMMENT: Off-topic

28: Ronnberg J, Soderfeldt B, Risberg J. The cognitive neuroscience of signed language. Acta Psychol (Amst). 2000 Dec;105(2-3):237-54. Review. PMID: 11194414 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

COMMENT: Off-topic

29: Hugdahl K. Lateralization of cognitive processes in the brain. Acta Psychol (Amst). 2000 Dec;105(2-3):211-35. Review. PMID: 11194413 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

COMMENT: Off-topic review/tutorial.

30: Andrianopoulos MV, Gallivan GJ, Gallivan KH. PVCM, PVCD, EPL, and irritable larynx syndrome: what are we talking about and how do we treat it? J Voice. 2000 Dec;14(4):607-18. PMID: 11130117 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

COMMENT: Not a research report. "A multifactorial management program is proposed utilizing principles of motor learning, neurolinguistic programming model, respiratory and phonatory synchronization, relaxation techniques, concurrent monitoring of behavioral adjustments, and formal psychological counseling." (from the abstract)

31: Sumin AN, Khairedinova OP, Sumina LIu, Variushkina EV, Doronin DV, Galimzianov DM, Masin AN, Gol'dberg GA. [Psychotherapy impact on effectiveness of in-hospital physical rehabilitation in patients with acute coronary syndrome] Klin Med (Mosk). 2000;78(6):16-20. Russian. PMID: 10900863 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

ABSTRACT: Of 103 patients with acute coronary syndrome (mean age 51.6 +/- 0.9 years) 47 patients participated in 5 group psychotherapeutic sessions added to conversional rehabilitation program. Psychotherapy included progressive muscular relaxation, neurolinguistic programming, eriksonian hypnosis, therapeutic metaphora. Psychotherapy decreased the hear rate, number of ventricular extrasystoles, stimulated tonicity of the parasympathetic nervous system. Compared to the controls, the test patients developed higher exercise tolerance and lower reactivity of the central hemodynamics in all the exercise tests.

COMMENTS: Findings confounded by the administration of multiple, simultaneous psychotherapies.

32: Begley S, Check E. Rewiring your gray matter. The brain: you can teach an old brain new tricks. Neuroplasticity promises to give a whole new meaning to 'changing your mind'. Newsweek. 2000 Jan 1;134(26):63-5. No abstract available. PMID: 10848178 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

COMMENT: Off-topic news.

33: Kaplowitz GJ. Communicating with patients. Gen Dent. 1999 Jul-Aug;47(4):399-403. PMID: 10687469 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

COMMENT: Review/tutorial.

34: Turner J. [Neurolinguistic programming and health] Soins. 1999 Jul-Aug;(637):33-6. French. No abstract available. PMID: 10615173 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

COMMENT: No abstract or MEDLINE classification. Unlikely to be research report.

35: Schaefer J, Schajor S. [Learning with all one's senses. Neurolinguistic programming in the teaching of pediatric nursing] Kinderkrankenschwester. 1999 Jul;18(7):289-91. German. No abstract available. PMID: 10514683 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

COMMENT: No abstract or MEDLINE classification. Unlikely to be research report.

36: Gorecka D, Borak J, Goljan A, Gorzelak K, Mankowski M, Zgierska A. [Treatment outcome in tobacco dependence after nicotine replacement therapy and group therapy] Pneumonol Alergol Pol. 1999;67(3-4):95-102. Polish. PMID: 10497441 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

ABSTRACT: The deletorious (sic) health effects of smoking are generally known. In spite of that, great numbers of people still smoke tobacco in the whole world. It is primarily due to the addictive properties of nicotine. Cigarette smoking is also dependent on various social and psychologic factors making quitting very difficult. Among various treatment modalities for tobacco dependence we aimed to assess the efficacy of nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) vs group therapy. 325 subjects smoking at least 15 cigarettes/day for more than 3 years were studied. They were allocated to group therapy (neurolinguistic programming) or NRT (gum or patch) at their will. Non-smoking was validated at each of follow-up visits, at 1 and 2 weeks 1, 3, 6, 12 months by measuring CO in expired air. All groups were matched in age, smoking history and nicotine dependence. The best quit rate was observed as a result of group therapy (41% at 1 year, p. < 0.001) as compared to nicotine patch (2%) and nicotine gum (9%).

COMMENT: No control (no treatment) or placebo group.

37: de Miranda CT, de Paula CS, Palma D, da Silva EM, Martin D, de Nobrega FJ. Impact of the application of neurolinguistic programming to mothers of children enrolled in a day care center of a shantytown. Sao Paulo Med J. 1999 Mar 4;117(2):63-71. PMID: 10488603 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

ABSTRACT:

CONTEXT: Of the members of a family, the mother is without doubt the most important one, which provides justification for including an evaluation of her mental health as one of the variables to be considered as determining factors in each child's level of development. OBJECTIVE: To assess the impact of the application of Neurolinguistic Programming (NLP) on child development, home environment and maternal mental health. DESIGN: Randomised controlled trial. SETTING: The study included children enrolled in the municipal day care center of a shantytown in the City of Sao Paulo. PARTICIPANTS: 45 pairs of mothers and respective children between 18 and 36 months of age. MAIN MEASUREMENTS: Children's development (Bayley scales); home environment variation (HOME); and maternal mental health (SRQ). Comparison between before and after the intervention was made in terms of children's psychomotor development, home environment and maternal mental health. INTERVENTION: Application of the NLP technique to the experimental group and comparison with a control group. 1--Experimental (EG), consisting of 23 children submitted to intervention by NLP; and 2--Control (CG), with 22 children with no intervention. Length of intervention: 15 sessions of NLP. RESULTS: 37 children remained in the study (EG = 10, CG = 27). Variations in mental development (OR 1.21, IC 95% 0.0 to 23.08) in their home environment (Wilcoxon): p = 0.96 (before) and p = 0.09 (after); in maternal mental health: p = 0.26, 2 df. CONCLUSIONS: There was a trend that indicated positive effects on the home environment from the intervention.

COMMENT: Randomized control trial with an apparently sound design. The design incorporated a control group with no intervention but no placebo group. The study tells us that something is better than nothing but it fails to tell us if NLP was better than placebo.

38: Turnbull J. Intuition in nursing relationships: the result of 'skills' or 'qualities'? Br J Nurs. 1999 Mar 11-24;8(5):302-6. Review. PMID: 10362932 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

COMMENT: Tutorial.

39: Konefal J, Duncan RC. Social anxiety and training in neurolinguistic programming. Psychol Rep. 1998 Dec;83(3 Pt 1):1115-22. PMID: 9923190 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

ABSTRACT: The Liebowitz Social Phobia Scale measured the effect of training on social anxiety responses of 28 adults prior to and following a 21-day residential training, and at 6 mo. follow-up. Significant reductions posttraining and at follow-up were evident in the mean self-reported global scale scores on fear and avoidance behavior in social situations. The item scores, aggregated to reflect the situational domains of formal and informal speaking, being observed by others, and assertion, showed significant and continuing reduction from posttraining through follow-up. These findings are consistent with the hypothesis that this training may be associated with reduced responses to social anxiety, but as there was no formal control group, pretest scores from another study were used. Interpretation is limited.

COMMENT: No control group.

40: Starker S, Pankratz L. Soundness of treatment: a survey of psychologists' opinions. Psychol Rep. 1996 Feb;78(1):288-90. PMID: 8839319 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

ABSTRACT: A random sample of 300 psychologists listed in the National Register of Health Service Providers in Psychology were surveyed about the soundness of forms of mental health treatment and use of these treatments in practice. The 139 psychologists responding expressed greatest confidence in cognitive-behavioral therapy and antipsychotic medications. Approaches most in question as to soundness were primal therapy, neurolinguistic programming, bioenergetics, and aversive therapy. Factor analysis indicated widespread endorsement and use of multiple techniques within two broad camps of research-based "hard-edged" versus clinical wisdom/philosophy-based "soft-edged."

COMMENT: Survey report.

41: Graf U. [Neurolinguistic programming in physician-patient communication. Basic principles of the procedure--examples for application in surgery] Fortschr Med. 1995 Sep 20;113(26):368-71. German. PMID: 7498856 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

ABSTRACT: Neurolinguistic programming (NLP) is a means of improving physician-patient communication that can be learned by any doctor. The present article first describes some of the fundamentals of NLP and then provides examples taken from the field of surgery-in the first instance dealing with the treatment of painful conditions by means of trance or dissociation and, secondly, on the influencing of expectations and the restructuring (reframing) of doctrines in a patient with malignant disease.

COMMENT: Tutorial and case report.

42: Hossack A, Standidge K. Using an imaginary scrapbook for neurolinguistic programming in the aftermath of a clinical depression: a case history. Gerontologist. 1993 Apr;33(2):265-8. PMID: 8468020 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

ABSTRACT: We employed neurolinguistic programming (NLP) principles to develop a positive self-identity in an elderly male patient in England recovering from clinical depression. This novel technique encouraged recall of intrinsically rewarding past experiences. Each experience was conceptualized in an image and compiled chronologically in an imaginary book, providing continuity to what were chaotic and fragmented recollections during the immediate postdepressive stage. The patient's anxiety and depression were alleviated and his own functional goals largely realized.

COMMENT: Case report.

43: Konefal J, Duncan RC, Reese MA. Neurolinguistic programming training, trait anxiety, and locus of control. Psychol Rep. 1992 Jun;70(3 Pt 1):819-32. PMID: 1620774 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

ABSTRACT: Training in the neurolinguistic programming techniques of shifting perceptual position, visual-kinesthetic dissociation, timelines, and change-history, all based on experiential cognitive processing of remembered events, leads to an increased awareness of behavioral contingencies and a more sensitive recognition of environmental cues which could serve to lower trait anxiety and increase the sense of internal control. This study reports on within-person and between-group changes in trait anxiety and locus of control as measured on the Spielberger State-Trait Anxiety Inventory and Wallston, Wallston, and DeVallis' Multiple Health Locus of Control immediately following a 21-day residential training in neurolinguistic programming. Significant with-in-person decreases in trait-anxiety scores and increases in internal locus of control scores were observed as predicted. Chance and powerful other locus of control scores were unchanged. Significant differences were noted on trait anxiety and locus of control scores between European and U.S. participants, although change scores were similar for the two groups. These findings are consistent with the hypothesis that this training may lower trait-anxiety scores and increase internal locus of control scores. A matched control group was not available, and follow-up was unfortunately not possible.

COMMENT: No control group.

44: Jepsen CH. Neurolinguistic programming in dentistry. J Calif Dent Assoc. 1992 Mar;20(3):28-32. No abstract available. PMID: 1383450 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

COMMENT: No abstract or MEDLINE classification. Unlikely to be research report.

45: Lachler J. [NLP communication model (neurolinguistic programming)--practical application. Opening up inner power sources and helping others with it] Krankenpfl Soins Infirm. 1991 Feb;84(2):74-6. German. No abstract available. PMID: 2005751 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

COMMENT: No abstract or MEDLINE classification. Unlikely to be research report.

46: Schneeberger S, Rohr E. [NLP communication model (neurolinguistic programming)--an introduction. Greater clarity in communicating and observing] Krankenpfl Soins Infirm. 1991 Feb;84(2):70-3. German. No abstract available. PMID: 2005750 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

COMMENT: Tutorial.

47: Pesut DJ. The art, science, and techniques of reframing in psychiatric mental health nursing. Issues Ment Health Nurs. 1991 Jan-Mar;12(1):9-18. PMID: 1988384 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

COMMENT: Tutorial.

48: Christensen JF, Levinson W, Grinder M. Applications of neurolinguistic programming to medicine. J Gen Intern Med. 1990 Nov-Dec;5(6):522-7. No abstract available. PMID: 2266436 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

COMMENT: Review/tutorial.

49: Duncan RC, Konefal J, Spechler MM. Effect of neurolinguistic programming training on self-actualization as measured by the Personal Orientation Inventory. Psychol Rep. 1990 Jun;66(3 Pt 2):1323-30. PMID: 2385721 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

ABSTRACT: Neurolinguistic programming training is based on principles that should enable the trainee to be more "present"-oriented, inner-directed, flexible, self-aware, and responsive to others, that is, more self-actualized. This study reports within-person changes on self-actualization measures of the Personal Orientation Inventory following a 24-day residential training in neurolinguistic programming. Significant positive mean changes were found for 18 master practitioners on nine of the 12 scales and for 36 practitioners on 10 of the 12 scales. Findings are consistent with the hypothesis that training increases individual self-actualization scores.

COMMENT: No control group.

50: Field ES. Neurolinguistic programming as an adjunct to other psychotherapeutic/hypnotherapeutic interventions. Am J Clin Hypn. 1990 Jan;32(3):174-82. PMID: 2296919 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

COMMENT: Case report.

51: Dooley KO, Farmer A. Comparison for aphasic and control subjects of eye movements hypothesized in neurolinguistic programming. Percept Mot Skills. 1988 Aug;67(1):233-4. PMID: 3211676 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

ABSTRACT: Neurolinguistic programming's hypothesized eye movements were measured independently using videotapes of 10 nonfluent aphasic and 10 control subjects matched for age and sex. Chi-squared analysis indicated that eye-position responses were significantly different for the groups. Although earlier research has not supported the hypothesized eye positions for normal subjects, the present findings support the contention that eye-position responses may differ between neurologically normal and aphasic individuals.

COMMENT: Weak conclusion, doesn't demonstrate the validity of eye accessing cues.

52: Seunke W, Keukens R, von Pernis H. [Neurolinguistic programming. A communication technic] TVZ. 1988 Jan 7;42(1):21-5. Dutch. No abstract available. Erratum in: Tijdschr Ziekenverpl 1988 Feb 4;42(3):84. PMID: 3127930 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

COMMENT: No abstract or MEDLINE classification. Unlikely to be research report.

53: Wertheim EH, Habib C, Cumming G. Test of the neurolinguistic programming hypothesis that eye-movements relate to processing imagery. Percept Mot Skills. 1986 Apr;62(2):523-9. PMID: 3503261 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

ABSTRACT: Bandler and Grinder's hypothesis that eye-movements reflect sensory processing was examined. 28 volunteers first memorized and then recalled visual, auditory, and kinesthetic stimuli. Changes in eye-positions during recall were videotaped and categorized by two raters into positions hypothesized by Bandler and Grinder's model to represent visual, auditory, and kinesthetic recall. Planned contrast analyses suggested that visual stimulus items, when recalled, elicited significantly more upward eye-positions and stares than auditory and kinesthetic items. Auditory and kinesthetic items, however, did not elicit more changes in eye-position hypothesized by the model to represent auditory and kinesthetic recall, respectively.

COMMENT: Suggests that eye accssing cues model is invalid.

54: Poffel SA, Cross HJ. Neurolinguistic programming: a test of the eye-movement hypothesis. Percept Mot Skills. 1985 Dec;61(3 Pt 2):1262. No abstract available. PMID: 4094868 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

COMMENT: No abstract (can anyone retrieve it). (I found a reference to it which said they did not support eye-movement hypotheses GregA 08:11, 16 November 2005 (UTC))

55: Farmer A, Rooney R, Cunningham JR. Hypothesized eye movements of neurolinguistic programming: a statistical artifact. Percept Mot Skills. 1985 Dec;61(3 Pt 1):717-8. PMID: 4088761 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

ABSTRACT: Neurolinguistic programming's hypothesized eye-movements were measured independently from videotapes of 30 subjects, aged 15 to 76 yr., who were asked to recall visual pictures, recorded audio sounds, and textural objects. chi 2 indicated that subjects' responses were significantly different from those predicted. When chi 2 comparisons were weighted by number of eye positions assigned to each modality (3 visual, 3 auditory, 1 kinesthetic), subjects' responses did not differ significantly from the expected pattern. These data indicate that the eye-movement hypothesis may represent randomly occurring rather than sensory-modality-related positions.

COMMENT: Suggests that eye accssing cues model is invalid.

56: Coe WC, Scharcoff JA. An empirical evaluation of the neurolinguistic programming model. Int J Clin Exp Hypn. 1985 Oct;33(4):310-8. No abstract available. PMID: 4030158 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

COMMENT: No abstract (can anyone retrieve it). The neurolinguistic programming hypothesis that most people have a preferred way of dealing with the world -- a primary representational system -- was tested. 50 Ss were evaluated for sensory modality preference in 3 ways: (a) they chose among written descriptions using either visual, auditory, or kinesthetic wording (preference); (b) their eye movements were recorded during an interview; and (c) their verbal responses were scored for sensory predicates. The results did not support neurolinguistic programming theory in that preference of 1 modality on 1 measure did not relate to the same modality on the other measures as would be expected if primary representational systems were characteristic of the sample. Other studies have shown mixed results. The conclusion seems warranted that a good deal more empirical support is needed before the positive therapeutic claims of neurolinguistic programming proponents can be taken seriously. (GregA 08:11, 16 November 2005 (UTC))

57: Knowles RD, Brockopp DY. [Building rapport; through neurolinguistic programming] Kango Gijutsu. 1984 Oct;30(13):1829-34. Japanese. No abstract available. PMID: 6567712 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

COMMENT: No abstract or MEDLINE classification. Unlikely to be research report.

58: Yapko MD. Implications of the Ericksonian and Neurolinguistic programming approaches for responsibility of therapeutic outcomes. Am J Clin Hypn. 1984 Oct;27(2):137-43. No abstract available. PMID: 6517044 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

COMMENT: No abstract or MEDLINE classification. Unlikely to be research report.

59: Brockopp DY. [What is NLP (neurolinguistic programming)?] Taehan Kanho. 1983 Dec 30;22(5):48-9. Korean. No abstract available. PMID: 6560114 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

COMMENT: No abstract or MEDLINE classification. Unlikely to be research report.

60: Knowles RD. [Building rapport through neurolinguistic programming] Taehan Kanho. 1983 Dec 30;22(5):45-7. Korean. No abstract available. PMID: 6560113 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

COMMENT: No abstract or MEDLINE classification. Unlikely to be research report.

61: Dowd ET, Hingst AG. Matching therapists' predicates: an in vivo test of effectiveness. Percept Mot Skills. 1983 Aug;57(1):207-10. PMID: 6622159 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

ABSTRACT: The theory of neurolinguistic programming predicts that a therapist's matching of a client's primary representational system, as expressed in the client's predicates, should result in increased therapist's rapport and social influence. This hypothesis was tested in an actual interview situation. Six relatively inexperienced therapists, two each in predicate matching, predicate mismatching, and predicate no-matching conditions, conducted a 30-min. interview with nine undergraduate student volunteers each, for a total of 54 subjects. After the appropriate interview condition was completed, subjects rated ther therapists on the Counselor Rating Form and the Counseling Evaluation Inventory. No significant differences among the three conditions on any of the measures were found. Results are compared with those of previous research on assessment and primary representational matching in analogue situations.

COMMENT: Suggests that predicate matching does not work.

62: Thomason TC, Arbuckle T, Cady D. Test of the eye-movement hypothesis of neurolinguistic programming. Percept Mot Skills. 1980 Aug;51(1):230. No abstract available. PMID: 7432961 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

COMMENT: No abstract (can anyone retrieve it).

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

Hi Flavius. I was doing the same search, a good idea and you beat me to it.

I'm not sure how you make that conclusion. You've been saying that an article being in a journal indexed by medline indicates a certain quality and openness to peer review. Then for every research piece supporting NLP you find a fault. Lets be clear on what you just summarised above.

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

I don't know how you can say that medline is a good measurement of quality, and on the other that each article in support of NLP is not good enough.

Perhaps the answer to all our disagreements is in reporting more clearly the differences between PRS studies and all other NLP studies. This would concur with Druckman, Heap, Einspruch, etc, and be consistent with all the articles we've found showing use of NLP within police, FBI, etc. We could also accurately reflect Druckman, Heap, Einspruch when they said that there was more research to be done... which indeed there has been, successfully. Sure this is only medline stuff at this point.

What it doesn't reflect is cult books, skeptics dictionary, and pseudoscience books... which would need to be addressed but may be explained by the above. GregA 08:47, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

GregA. So are you suggesting that the massive commercial edifice of NLP sits securely on seven studies -- that although published in reputable journals -- have obvious flaws, that I, a non-expert can point out. I'm beginning to think that you're not really serious about this matter. I've answered all of your questions (and some) yet you steadfastly refuse to yield even though you have no basis for maintaining your position. I'll repeat my line of argument. If a journal is not indexed by Medline its most likely not even worth citing. If it is indexed by Medline it is worth citing and critiquing. I have offered a short critique of those NLP-related papers that are indexed by Medline. This is entirely consistent with my stated position. Unfortunately -- for you, FT2, Comaze, the crackpot conspiracy theorist and NLP -- all of the NLP related studies that report a result in favor of NLP have one or more major flaws. We really needn't proceed any further, this alone confirms the report in the critical texts cited in the article that NLP is without scientific foundation. However, we can proceed further and make an even stronger case against NLP. There are studies published in reputable journals that don't support the core NLP theory of representational systems. We can go further yet. We know from the need to postulate meta-programs that another pillar of NLP theory -- cognitive strategies -- is invalid, lacking predictive or explanatory power. We can go even further. Neurology and linguistics -- two professional fields that are not tied to psychology and psychiatry and hence cannot be slandered with the usual Church of Scientology style propaganda -- reject NLP theory completely. Whenever I encounter a modern textbook, dictionary or encyclopedia on linguistics, psycohlinguistics, philosophy of mind, cognitive science, or neurology I always look up 'Neurolinguistic Programming' and I am yet to find an entry. NLP theory -- which makes many claims about psycholingustics and neurology -- has absolutely no currency in modern neurology or linguistics. Before you ask, I'm not going to give you a list of neurology and linguistics that do not mention NLP. Further, NLP has all of the characteristics of a pseudoscience (most notably it proposes unfalsifiable hypothesis, its theories have no predictive power and its research program is degenerating). Also, the burden of proof rests on the shoulders of NLP proponents not its critics. flavius 10:30, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi again Flavius. That steadfast refusal you notice is mostly just a kind of trolling tactic. I have had to put up with it for months. No matter how much you explain, they keep on claiming you have not answered the question. They sometimes use it as an excuse to rip the facts they don't like from the article. Comaze did that yesterday. You probably noticed already. If they do that, just revert as you wish. Regards HeadleyDown 13:24, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi Flavius. Actually it is quite useful within cults (as a rich source of convenient pseudoscientific misdirection for creating insecurities in normal people). Of course it is also good for selling meaningless subconcious processing (pseudoscientific) audio tapes. Its also great for speading popular and potentially damaging myths about the mind (quite evident on this discussion page). Regards HeadleyDown 11:46, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Of course I'm not suggesting that Flavius. You named the terms of discussion and I entered. Lets keep the emotion out of it eh??! I haven't mentioned Scientology I see no relevance to NLP. I think linguistics and neurology should reject NLP theory when it's wrong... NLP's focus is elsewhere, by and large (modeling patterns for instance). As far as pseudoscience goes, the NLP processes are certainly falsifiable, the definition of a pattern is predictability, but I agree that if NLP had a "research program" it would probably be degenerating (certainly psychological research on NLP seems to be). Anyway, back to medline - you wanted to use medline as a baseline ... then you discount each study supporting NLP, and I can discount each study not supporting NLP, and we get nowhere. We're not here to do our own research and are not allowed as you should know... we can just represent what's there (plus cite responses to that research or whatever else is necessary to present the research fairly). If the only research was medline, we could say that all non rep-system research supports NLP though criticisms have been made that existing studies require blind trials to confirm the effect (cite the criticism....). Really Flavius if you want to make some rules you can't change them when they don't suit you (not that I agree to your original or modified rules!). Thank you for clarifying the position of NLP from medline's perspective though I think it's great for the article. GregA 12:18, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Flavius, I have two observations right now (in a bit of a rush)

How many of the cited articles in the article, cited by headley et al (Eisner, "Morgan", Carroll, Heap, etc) are on Medline. I see a double standard being applied.
You have stated that NLP (theory?) has "absolutely no currency" in linguistics, as a specific example you highlighted. But I don't know if you are aware, but Lakoff, a leading professor of linguistics, has publicly and in his books, credited NLP with significant efficacy as used in USA political campaigning. He cites three examples - one of verbal anchoring, one of non-verbal, and one of lingistic post-hypnotic use. SO I don't think your view is shared by all concerned. FT2 18:57, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

FT2 17:52, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

I can't find any mention of NLP in at least two of Lakoff's books ("Philosophy in the Flesh" and "Metaphors We Live By"). There is no mention of NLP on Lakoff's homepage (http://www.georgelakoff.com/), the website of his Rockridge Institute (http://www.rockridgeinstitute.org/) or any of his articles or archived presentations (online). Lakoff's material regarding US politics revolves around the notion of the conceptual frame of a word (i.e. the implicit and explicit conecptual topology of word usage), metaphor and what appear to be Jungian archetypes (eg. the disciplining father and nuturing mother). I can't find any NLP theory in Lakoff's work. The notion of frames is from psycholinguistics not NLP. Metaphor and its role in persuasive discourse has been a subject of study since the Rhetorcians of ancient Greece. The "strict father" and "nurturant parent" ideas are very archetypal. You are eager to make George Lakoff a member of the NLP granfalloon (without his knowledge or consent) to lend the NLP granfalloon some prestige and authority but you do so without any justification. flavius 01:49, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi Flavius and FT2. The website that FT2 is referring to is actually not written by Lakoff. It is written by an NLP promoter who does what NLP promoters do all the time; Makes spurious associations between NLP and well known experts for the sake of promotion. It appears on the NLP map, but not in reality. HeadleyDown 02:25, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Back to science

It seems that proNLPers here are absolutely determined to confuse and cloud issues surrounding NLP's lack of scientific support and pseudoscientific principles/theory. Scientists already state that the few studies that have found supporting evidence for NLP can be better explained by factors other than NLP. Those recent few supporting studies, for example, are fatally flawed (Eisner 2000) and are not rigorously performed (Lilienfeld 2003). They tend to involve no control groups, or are testing subjects who have already a huge vested interest in claiming success. Studies will continue, and most of them will show negative results (some of those will never be published). The fact is, nobody will conduct properly arranged sets of clinical trials because it is too expensive, and the pre-clinical experiments have failed. The erroneous principles (pseudoscientific pop psychology) also needs more of a mention in the article. As does the flawed linguistic background. There is a strong educational aspect to wikipedia, and it is already stated in the policy statements that science is there to help explain and clarify pseudoscientific thinking. JPLogan 02:24, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

QUoting flavius:

The brutal fact is there isn't a body of results drawn from single-blind studies with matched controls that find that an NLP intervention is more effective than placebo that has been published in reputable journals, favourably reviewed by experts and reproduced by others. flavius 01:55, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi Flavius. The brutal fact is that there isn't a body of results drawn from single-blind studies with matched controls. Period. (I note your redundancy there... "single blind studies" have "controls" in their design). This is an obvious elephant. There's nothing to show an NLP intervention more effective than placebo. Personally I find the difference between "there are lots of studies which provide no support" and "there is no body of results" significant. Am I understanding you correctly? GregA 05:47, 16 November 2005 (UTC) (ps... that's buying into your argument of course... I know at least one outcome based study with controls. Incidentally, how do you do a 'blind study' with a 'control', I assume you have to give the control group some form of therapy otherwise they'd know they were not getting treated (ie the placebo group). GregA 05:50, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

A single blind will always have a placebo group but not necessarily a no-treatment group also. A control group can simply have treatment withheld (as a basis of comparison). I'm suggesting that a sound design for testing an NLP intervention should have a control group (no intervention) and a placebo group (null treatment). A single blind by definition does require a placebo group but it doesn't require a no-treatment group. The no-treatment control group gets nothing they exist only to provide a baseline for comparison. Without the no-treatment control group we wouldn't know -- for example -- if the anxiety went away by itself, with the passage of time. flavius 06:42, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Just reading the later literature solves this problem. "In the case of certain highly touted techiques such as neurolinguistic programming (Druckman and Swets 1988), subliminal self-help tapes (Moore 1992; Pratkanis 1992), and facilitated communication for autism (Mulick, Jacobson, and Kobe 1993), controlled studies overwhelmingly indicate that early reports of their effectiveness were illusory". (Lilienfeld et al 2003). Also, I noticed that later more sophisticated studies into NLP have shown that they do not work (ie in the Perception and Motor Skills publication). AliceDeGrey 07:41, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Fuelwagon's Edit

I noticed that you said that this was POV. [3] There does seem to be "significant" criticism and saying that is not the same as saying "everyone thingk it is wrong" or "NLP is garbage" or anything else construed as POV. Also, it was reworded far too hastily(sloppy syntax):

Criticism can be said as:

1A "There has been some/little/significant/much criticism of aspect Y of subject X"

1B "Many X feel that Y is..." or anything similar...

2A "X said that Z is Y"

2B "according to X, Z is Y" or anything similar...

The problem with choice 2A is that using the name as the in-line MLA resource note looks somewhat strange and is very awkward when heavily used.Voice of All^T|@|ESP 23:47, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

I strongly agree with you here, especially point 1A. Much of the disputes over criticism could be resolved by attributing the criticism to a specific aspect of NLP. Rather than picking one flaw and overgeneralising. --Comaze 01:23, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Minor/seldom used aspects of NLP can get a some criticism in the body, but not too much there either. Major aspects can have more criticism, some of which can go in the intro. As I said on the arbitration page (which just got an accept vote by a committee member), the article is not an unabridged source of criticism or compliment.Voice of All^T|@|ESP 01:29, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. --Comaze 01:35, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, VoA. That is how I see it. Keeping things concise is a good plan. I am getting a little concerned about the article approaching the 80 mark. I'll see what I can do about making is more brief. Tatah AliceDeGrey 03:59, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

The length is a problem. I think this is often a RESULT of our dispute - people adding more stuff to support the alternate POVs, repetition, etc. When you read the whole thing through the repetition (on the disagreements) is quite surprising. I'd like to request that the main (possibly only) brevifying we do is of repetition for now until we're clear on the way forward??? GregA 06:44, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

I would say the most effective way would to be to reduce the "how to" aspects of the article and to simply state eg NLP uses a concept called the metamodel - and then write how people view it, and what scientists and linguists say about it. The same with submodalities, vak and the others. That would solve both the "hype within terminology" problem and the psychobabble problem by treating it scientifically. AliceDeGrey 07:34, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Yup, that is how they do it on other articles. Presently, the article is just an opportunity to post a lot of babble about parapragmatics, and tweaking your submodalities. I think less Hubbard and more real psychology is the order of the day. I can start posting more really damning and harsh stuff now the proNLP lot have gone crying to the arbitrators. Its about time we had a little more balance added. Cheers DaveRight 09:32, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Hehe.. that's hilarious. The only mention of Hubbard, Parapragmatics (I should look that up, never heard of it), and submodalities is what Headley et al have added to the pseudoscience section, yet you make out it's something you object to :). I also think that we should probably have more "real NLP", in contrast to "real Psychology". Thanks for the chuckle :) GregA 10:31, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

My point is that "significant" is not sourced. i.e. there is no outside source that uses the word "significant", there is nothing that I've seen so far that gives any sense of proportion as to critics versus supporters or what have you, so the article cannot say there is a "majority" of criticism. What the editor might have been trying to say is that there is notable criticism, but that's sort of redundant, because all sources must be notable in wikipedia. FuelWagon 16:52, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Question about weight given to references

How do we best determine how much weight is given to each reference for NLP literature or scientific literature? Grinder and Bandler are by far the most cited on NLP with [4] Structure of Magic Volume 1 (~100 citations), followed by Frogs into Princes (~50 citations). Compare it to Robert Dilts [5] or other authors referenced in the article. How relevant is this in determining the weight given to the various sources? How do we best represent this when comparing to academic scholarly references? Is a peer reviewed article given less weight if it has very few citations? I'm looking for something like the Impact Factor for this article. --Comaze 14:38, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

When it comes to NLP literature in comparison to peer-reviewed research, I think we can represent what NLP says, and how (and if) the research responds to what NLP says. Then we have 2 challenges

representing what NLP says fairly from multiple sources
representing the research fairly and clearly

I've not thought about number of citations as a means of judging the importance of a peer-reviewed article. Certainly we don't have that many peer-reviewed articles on our page - I would tend to think more of whether the journal is respectable. I would also suggest that newspaper articles and websites may indicate popular impressions (both for and against) but may not represent what NLP actually says, nor what the research says. GregA 23:14, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

I'd focus first on getting all statements attributed to their sources ("Alice said blah"). Once that's done, then NPOV's first objective is satisfied, and "weight" can then be addressed. But you need to know the source of a view first to know if you're giving that view too much weight. FuelWagon 23:24, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

This is funny. The scientists have already given appropriate weight to articles. They conclude that NLP is scientifically unsupported. Really, if you havn't looked up those neutrally attributed sources yet, even though they were placed in the article ages ago, AND you have already spent days trying to remove them, I suggest you are far more biased than you pretend to be. HeadleyDown 02:30, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Please familiarize yourself with wikipedia's policy on Neutral Point of View. It says, for example, to fairly represent all sides of a dispute by not making articles state, imply, or insinuate that only one side is correct. [6]. What you continue to call "neutrally attributed sources" has absolutely nothing to do with "Neutral Point Of View policy". FuelWagon 03:36, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

This is turning towards the surreal. Hasn't this already been resolved? If MEDLINE doesn't index a particular journal then that journal -- and its constituent artcles -- carry little weight. MEDLINE employs an expert panel of scientists that decide what journals to index and which to exclude (refer the link I provided earlier). There are less than 10 studies that are written up in MEDLINE indexed journals that make favourable conclusions regarding NLP (or some part thereof) (refer to my MEDLINE search). Further, these studies are offset by the 7 or so studies in MEDLINE that contain no obvious methodological flaws and make unfavourable conclusions regarding NLP (or some part therof) and the studies themselves contain obvious methodological deficiencies (see my MEDLINE search). Further to that there are numerous books -- authored by scientists -- that are cited in the NLP article (eg. Singer (1999), Lilienfeld (2003)) that arrive at a negative evalutaion of NLP. What is there left to weigh as assess? Anecdote? Testimonials? Unpublished research results? Research results published in Anchor Point and obscure journals that for all we know were founded and edited by some fruitcake? Articles in obscure journals that pseudoscience topics routinely? I'm eager to know. The consensus of scientific and clinical opinion is that NLP is bunkum. flavius 03:59, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Hallo FuelWagon. Actually, if you would like to familiarize yourself, all views are not to be given equal weight. Science gets the priority. Also your own research is not appropriate. You must use reviews of scientific findings as quoted by the majority of scientists who study NLP.

All the scientists I have read about quote Druckman and state that NLP is wrong or unsupported, or that overwhelming evidence from controlled studies shows that NLP is wrong or ineffective. They also quote Sharpley and show that the research on NLP is correctly conducted, and shows that there is not one iota of evidence for NLP's effectiveness or wild claims (Eisner, and others).

Also, those scientists (post 1995) who talk of the research they have reviewed for themselves, talk about research done in business settings and further theraputic sessions and state that the majority of research still shows that NLP is unsupported. They also say that the small amount of supporting studies are flawed. But this is on top of the fact that NLP uses pseudosciencitic assumptions (promotions) throughout their writings, throughout their associations (with other pseudo subjects like magick) and throughout their excuses. The article gives a very clear scientific view. There are concessions given to NLP, in that other dodgy subjects are promoted in psychotherapy and within business practice and so on. I think that's very fair. DaveRight 04:03, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not allow a Scientific Point Of View. It requires a Neutral Point Of View. There is a significant difference. You must report that "scientist's-name (or organization name) says NLP is pseudoscientific." You cannot state that "NLP is pseudoscientific" and cite some scientist to declare the statement undisputed fact. NPOV policy specifically says report views from the sources who hold them. It does not say to report scientific views as fact and all other views as opinions. There are no concessions to be given to this policy. There is nothing about your definition of what is "fair" involved here. This is Neutral Point Of View policy and it is non-negotiable. Report the views from the sources who hold them. FuelWagon 04:34, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi FuelWagon. Why don't you represent ALL of the other views in the same way then? To argue as you have done is completely inconsistent with the rest of the article. AliceDeGrey 05:34, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] FuelWagon's notion of neutral

I don't care one whit about NLP. I care about NPOV policy. You care greatly about NLP and you don't seem to care about NPOV policy. (Or you don't understand it.) That is the difference here. Personally, it sounds to me like a bunch of NLP business people are running a scam, and there may also be some people using it for good purposes. But my opinion doesn't matter. Again, that is the difference here. A bunch of editors think their opinion about NLP matters somehow. It doesn't. If an editor's opinion about a topic enters an article, it's original research, in violation of wikipedia policy. I have been consistent in maintaining NPOV policy here. And I have focused on the more blatant violations that I've noticed. It is absolutely non-negotiable to call something a "cult" as a fact if it is actually disputed. It must be sourced to whoever said NLP is a cult. Otherwise a lawsuit can land on wikipedia, rather than the notable source who said it. These are blatant violations that easily catch my attention. A number of editors do not seem to grasp the important difference between "NLP is a cult" and "Smith stated that NLP is a cult". A number of editors do not seem to grasp the difference between "NLP is pseudoscience" and "Jones stated that NLP is a pseudoscience". A number of editors do not seem to grasp the importance of URL's for verification of quotes from sources, and instead, still rely on putting someone's name in parenthesis, even though it fails to satisfy requirements for verifiability. I have been consistent in trying to maintain NPOV policy. I haven't gotten through the entire article because every correction I've made so far has been reverted, so I'm spinning my wheels. I am at a loss as to how to get your attention that you are violating policy. And the constant edit warring is tiring me out. A page lock is the appropriate response to edit warring. and that's what this page has been going through. Every correction I've made has been reverted. the article is now undergoing "churn" rather than improving in any detectable manner. Rather than let it escalate until someone violates 3RR, a page lock is an appropriate way to enforce a cooling off period for all editors. FuelWagon 05:49, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

So much for your claims FuelWagon. Here is some evidence: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Neuro-linguistic_programming&diff=28122599&oldid=28118065 FuelWagon was removing occult/psychic development info that is common knowledgeHeadleyDown 11:25, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

It needs to be sourced, that's the rule. And do any of the main sources of NLP (the guys who invented it) say that NLP can be used for "occult" purposes? Is "occult" something that all NLP practitioners apply NLP to? Or is it something that an individual did, taking NLP and applying it to their pet occult project? Since you refuse to provide any sources, there is no way to know. Names in parens don't help. URL's help. But you don't want to do the work. You just want to insert what you believe is "common knowledge", without anything that satisfies wikipedia's requirements for verifiability. And the way wikipedia works is this: if an editor inserts something that is blatantly biased and POV, but presents it as if it were fact, and no sources are provided, then it needs to be deleted until the requirement for sources are satisfied. You do not get to insert POV statements until someone disproves them, you must prove them, and you must source them, and you must present them as a view held by a source, rather than saying they are "fact" or "common knowledge". This is how wikipedia works. If you can't play by those rules, then you will need to find a medium that allows you to state your personal beliefs as fact and common knowledge without any concerns for wikipedia's requirement for NPOV, verifiability, sources, etc. FuelWagon 15:33, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Fuelwagon. You want to work with the proNLP censors to delete without any research. You are uncooperative and disruptive. You know the neutral editors can provide evidence when asked. But you argue for it's permanent dismissal. HeadleyDown 17:26, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Neuro-linguistic_programming&diff=27220168&oldid=27220062 Showing both a complete lack of knowledge, a lack of ability to research, and a desire to delete facts that are even presented within NLP books. HeadleyDown 11:25, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Note that I deleted this POV statement: Many such courses appear to depend more upon charismatic appeal, wish-fulfillment, quick fixes, and lack of critical faculty, than actual quantifiable results, and so are often considered pure pseudoscience. and I stand by that as being a blatant NPOV violation. FuelWagon 15:35, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

FuelWagon. No regard for compromise, just deletion. You are completely like Comaze and other's who want to delete any fact that represents scientific views. HeadleyDown 17:26, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Neuro-linguistic_programming&diff=27215067&oldid=27214916 Again a total disregard for the facts as they are verifiable in links and books. You deleted the fact because you don’t like the sound of New Age, even though NLP is promoted by choosing the New Age category for promotion. HeadleyDown 11:25, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Did you read the quote that you use to support your claim that "NLP is based in the New Age"? Your quote from Dilts doesn't even contain the phrase "New Age", it contains the word "spirituality". Dilts says NLP is based in "spirituality". You try to say NLP is based in "New Age". It may be in the "new age" section of the bookstore, but that's separate from where Dilts says NLP came from. Your "New Age" statement completely ignores the quote. FuelWagon 15:38, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

New Age is and NLP have their core theoretical concepts in common. Both chronologically and philosophically, NLP and new age are the same. You seem to dismiss what everybody else knows for sure. Because you don't like new agers, but you adore NLP. HeadleyDown 17:26, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Neuro-linguistic_programming&diff=27214916&oldid=27214769 Again, removal of cited facts with a disregard for re-phrasing etc. HeadleyDown 11:25, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

I removed the sentence that says ". Many such courses appear to depend more upon charismatic appeal, wish-fulfillment, quick fixes, and lack of critical faculty, than actual quantifiable results, and so are often considered pure pseudoscience.". I stand by that deletion. The sentence is completely POV and violates wikipedia policy. This must be rewritten in the form of "Smith says that NLP depends on charismatic appeal (URL)". If you won't follow policy, I will continue to delete such POV statements. FuelWagon 15:40, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

So why did you not rewrite it? Because you wish to see the back of it, just as you wish to see the back of reasonable mediation. HeadleyDown 17:26, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Neuro-linguistic_programming&diff=27214769&oldid=27214615 FuelWagon’s strong desire to remove the word “pseudoscience” even though it appears in all of the literature of lilienfeld, Eisner, and Salerno. HeadleyDown 11:25, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

All of the literature of Lilienfeld, Eisner, and Salerno does not override the way NPOV policy works. You cannot state as fact something that is disputed by the main proponents/sources of NLP. Unless the main proponents of NLP agree that NLP is pseudoscience, that label is disputed and must be reported as a view held by a source. That is NPOV policy. FuelWagon 15:42, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Fuelwagon. Like I said. You wish to remove all of those views. That is abundantly clear. HeadleyDown 17:26, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Neuro-linguistic_programming&diff=28122893&oldid=28122599

removing a cited and verifiable link that is actually a fact. This is verified by psychotherapists such as Lilienfeld and others who are extremely critical of such bodies promoting pseudoscience. HeadleyDown 11:25, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Calling something "charlantry" needs a verifiable source. a name in parenthesis doesn't cut wikipedia requirements for verifiability. You seem unwilling to follow this basic policy. At the very least, an authors name, book title, ISBN, and page number, would at least allow someone to track down the book and verify the accuracy of the quote. I've pointed this out several times and you continue to ignore it. FuelWagon 15:50, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

FuelWagon. The charlatanry label is corroborated by many other sources. You have ignored those (Winkins, Levelt, Salerno etc). It is a common view and inferred in the media. Chances are though, you cannot even face reading them because they contradict your own favorite beliefs about NLP being the guiding light. HeadleyDown 17:26, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Neuro-linguistic_programming&diff=27880485&oldid=27818827

The attribution to these people only is FuelWagon inferring that only these people have these views. The majority of scientists who know the subject (psychologists eg) have these views. HeadleyDown 11:25, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

If the "majority of scientists" who know NLP believe it is pseudoscience, how exactly does someone like a random editor from wikipedia verify that fact? Where does someone find and verify those numbers to know that you aren't inserting your own point of view? This is the purpose of verifiability. Provide a source that shows "a majority of scientists who know NLP believe it to be pseudoscience" and you can report that from the point of view of the source. Until then, the article cannot make such blanket statements. FuelWagon 15:53, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Fuelwagon. You want to get random and roll the dice? Getting even more desperate? No, we have sources to draw upon. Those sources should not be censored as you have done persistently on multiple occasions. HeadleyDown 17:26, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Neuro-linguistic_programming&diff=27595566&oldid=27595302

You removed it before also. NLP is promoted by NLP promoters under these categories. HeadleyDown 11:25, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

NLP is in the "occult" section of bookstores? I can see it being in the "new age" section (which doesn't determine whether NLP is based on "new age" or whether it is based on "spirituality", but thats a separate issue), but I just have a hard time believeing that the main proponents of NLP would blatantly advertise their books as "fringe therapy" or "occult". if they are blatant, then provide a URL. FuelWagon 15:56, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

FuelWagon. Look at the research. It states "empirical investigation of New Age techniques" etc. Look at the philosophical background of both. They are identical. New age all the way and increasingly so more recently. HeadleyDown 17:26, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Neuro-linguistic_programming&diff=27136656&oldid=27132316 Lots of interest in wild and obscure claims (THE study of structure---) that do not clarify anything, plus a lot of hype. And deletion of fact. HeadleyDown 11:25, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

The "wild and obscure claims" are reported in the form of "NLP is defined by the NLP Seminars Group International as ...", which is far more in line with NPOV policy than what was there before. Another "wild claim" is in the form of "Dilts states ...". This is NPOV policy. Report the views from the sources who claim them. FuelWagon 16:05, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Fuelwagon, I have personally held back posting the more outrageous claims. The fact is, NLP does not even live up to normal expectations, let alone it's bizzare claims. HeadleyDown 17:26, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Neuro-linguistic_programming&diff=27595302&oldid=27592405 It is categorized with these other groups because of it’s pseudoscientific principles, its lack of support, and its ineffectiveness, together with its association with cults. HeadleyDown 11:25, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Unless they actually compare NLP with "Dianetics" and "Landmark", then it is original research. If they do make the comparison, then a URL would allow quick verification, rather than having to take your word for every edit you make to the article. If they don't make the comparison to Dianetics, then it is a villation of policy (no original research) to add the comparison yourself. Please inform me as to whether they make the comparison (and provide a URL to verify) or whether you added that comparison yourself. FuelWagon 16:09, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

FuelWagon. There are many sources that categorize and compare exactly with those other cults. You seem to be completely unwilling to face those sources. In fact most people would accept those associations without blinking an eye. Yes, NLP is exactly like those other groups! HeadleyDown 17:26, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Neuro-linguistic_programming&diff=27213266&oldid=27212963 Further removal of cited facts – not alteration, just blatant, ignorant, censorship. HeadleyDown 11:25, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

"amoral pseudoscientific psychocults" is blatant POV. If you cannot edit articles in compliance with NPOV, you will be reverted. I completely stand by me edit here. FuelWagon 16:11, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

FuelWagon. Unless you love NLP, those statements are completely unbiased. Moreover, they are the statements of experts and scholars. HeadleyDown 17:26, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Neuro-linguistic_programming&diff=27212963&oldid=27212824 the same research-shy ignorance. HeadleyDown 11:25, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

I got the three names wrong and I apologized for that. But the introduction, again, was written from the point of view of NLP critics. NPOV requires that advocates get to present their point of view, then critics get to present their point of view. This was written by a critic start to finish. You must allow the pro-NLP sources to present their view of NLP or you violate NPOV. FuelWagon 16:17, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Fuelwagon, your pov says the other stuff was for critics. The fact is, it also appears in other encyclopedias and online dictionaries that describe NLP. You have not done your homework. You do not care, and you just want to delete facts. HeadleyDown 17:26, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Neuro-linguistic_programming&diff=27126547&oldid=27126028 You claimed that the prior was a clear violation of NLP and even a criticism. But it was a clear statement written by the mediator for the most part, plus it is far clearer and more concise than your fuzzy hype. You also write that the methods are empirically untested. Why don’t you actually read the research before you try deleting it?HeadleyDown 11:25, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it was a clear NPOV violation. The earlier version explained NLP from the critical poitn of view only. I reverted to a verion that reported NLP from the pro-NLP side as well as the critical pov. If you'll note, my version says "NLP is defined by the NLP Seminars Group International as ...". This is clearly following NPOV policy. The article must report both views, supporters and critics, of NLP. If you insist on only reporting the critcal point of view, you are violating policy and will be reverted. FuelWagon 16:19, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

No FuelWagon. People asked for extra evidence, it was provided, and you then chose to delete it regardless. You are uncooperative. HeadleyDown 17:26, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Neuro-linguistic_programming&diff=27214615&oldid=27214427 Again, whittling away the pseudoscience evidence, even though you state you should write “Drenth and Lilienfeld state that it is pseudo---“ Why did you not do it yourself? And why should anyone else follow your demands when you do not comply with them yourself? HeadleyDown 11:25, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

I have told you numerous times that you must write "Smith says NLP is Pseudoscience" instead of "NLP is pseudoscience (smith)." Ed Poor did a drive by and said the same thing. I believe the mediator told you this as well. You have consistently failed to follow this simply policy requirement, ever. Now you fault me for not fixing your repeated NPOV violations? If that's how you intend to approach editing at wikipedia, then you are making more work for the other editors on this article than you are worth. I'm sorry, but you must learn NPOV policy, and you must edit according to it. If you repeatedly violate policy, I am not required to hand-hold you through the hurdles or correct your continuous mistakes. It becomes more work than it is worth. Why don't you edit according to NPOV, rather than inserting POV statements and complaining that all the other editors don't come in and happily fix your mistakes? FuelWagon 16:25, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

No FuelWagon, you do not live up to your own standards. You indeed are not to be taken seriously. If you want to edit on this well researched article, you must start to research before deleting facts that have been verified by others, by mediators - facts that are the general opinion of normal people. If you want to avoid being labeled as a fanatic, you must stop acting like one. HeadleyDown 17:26, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Hello FuelWagon. Here is just a brief search of some evidence for occult/psychic influence and NLP:

http://www.xtrememind.com/Books.htm Psychic Seduction melds the worlds of science and the occult, ranging from modern brainwave states, neurolinguistic anchoring and chakra/aura manipulation. Psychic Seduction is uni-sex, applicable to any situation and extremely powerful! Attract women.

http://www.servantsofthelight.org/events/sol-events.html Lectures on NLP for use in the occult

http://www.hypnovision.com/santeria.htm SANTERIA / VOODOO WHITE MAGICK Tapes use Alpha System NLP-10X to Create the Perfect Alpha Trance State of Mind Needed to... PROGRAM YOUR MIND FOR MAGICK SUCCESS!

http://www.deeptrancenow.com/imprints.htm Trance and occult in relation to NLP

http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Meadows/2360/tracts/newagefact.html some advice on occult and NLP (someone's geocite page)

There is tons more that you can find (not that you are even willing to look because you clearly would like to bury the stuff) but the evidence is indeed on the web, in the audio tapes, in seminars and in the NLP books.

Concerning lawsuits, you are really crying wolf there. Wikipedia wants (most importantly) a name attributed to a statement. There is no court in the world going to sue wikipedia for stating such verifiable information. I don't mind the lock, but we have managed quite well so far without it. If you are indeed a neutrally minded editor I do suggest you take another good long look in the mirror. Your edits are definitely biased towards NLP. Why do you not argue that the whole article has Mr Smith, mr Jones, Mr prat said blah, all the way through? If you are simply trying to promote NLP, then you should do it somewhere else. The only reason statements are harshly worded on this article is because NLP promoters demand full and extra evidence for the view (in the effort to have it removed), and that leads to the originally softly worded statement being worded exactly as it appears in the scientific paper - Harshly. And then of course they try to remove it anyway, as you have done yourself. The problem is we have so many people wanting to delete cited facts, and scientific views that NLPers obsessive fanaticism shoots them in the foot every time. Remember, scientific evidence shows that NLP is not effective for persuasion, and that is the case here also. HeadleyDown 10:19, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

I looked at your link of "occult" use of NLP. The question becomes one of proportion. Do the people who develop and teach and train NLP advocate that it be used for "occult" purposes? Or is saying in the introduction that "NLP is used for occult purposes" like mentioning "Eric Robert Rudolph is a follower of Christianity" in the christianity article. Do the people who developed NLP advocate its use for occult purposes? As "fringe therapy"? etc? Or is this going around and finding the equivalent of Eric Rudolph and using it in an attempt to condemn christianity? Until you have some sources that allow people to verify that the majority of NLP developers support occult uses of NLP, I think this "occult" link belongs in the criticism section. FuelWagon 18:47, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

The fact is, FuelWagon, NLP is applied to the occult. The evidence is in books and on the web, and there is a whole lot going on in newsgroups. One interesting development is the use of NLP in spiritual healing, which is mostly an occult activity (shamans and wicca etc). Bandler is a shaman, Grinder is a new ager, the structure of magic, the unconscious (used pseudoscientifically), and so on. To deny that NLP is used within the occult is pure censorship. Please remember that a huge amount of fact deletion has gone on here in the article. You are part of that and therefore, you are part of the fanatical censorship. HeadleyDown 01:49, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

HI FuelWagon. Does this fail the test for verifiability?:

Hall (2001) claims that NLP can be used to “create both positive (+) and negative (-) psychic energy which operate at polar opposites from each other”. Energy can be created by using the “right words” (Lakin 2000), and by using inner commitment (Andreas and Faulkner 1996), and rapport can create an alignment of energy levels in two different individuals regardless of physical state (Valentino, 1999). It is also claimed that by using NLP, energy can be directed outside of the body all the way to the very furthest reaches of the of the universe (James and Shephard, 2001).

You removed it from the article, you guilty as sin biased editory you:) You also want to lock this deletion so that nobody can put it back. You claim that you really "care" for NPOV policy, but you are a big fact deleter. You are so so bad. You are badder than Micheal Jackson:) I think you are not to be taken seriously. DaveRight 06:36, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Do you mean Headley's version of the article that makes reference to "amoral pseudoscientific psychocults"? I've addressed that sentence before, and it keeps getting pushed back in. Or do you mean DaveRight's version that says NLP is in fact "fringe", "psychic", "covert seduction", and "occult"? I've covered these issues before, but it keeps getting pushed back into the article, and it keeps getting put back in usually embedded inside of some massive reversion. That I reverted some blatant POV statements that has been covered before, and in the process I reverted some other change that you put in that was a sourced quote is an effect of an edit war and churn. The mediator has already asked a couple of times for people to just edit one section at a time, but editors are not following that request. I reverted an edit that contained POV statements and contained edits in multiple locations. Since the mediator is being ignored, and since the same POV problems keep getting reinserted, that qualifies as article "churn" and an edit war, and the appropriate response to that is to request the article be locked. FuelWagon 07:29, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi all. Its interesting that someone should lock the page when a biased editor (FuelWagon) has just made large and extremely biased edits to the article. All of the quotes there have been referenced at some point, but proNLPers have done so much messing around and removing stuff, those references have been removed. Moreover, most of those statements are completely undisputed. The evidence is all over the books and the web for the fact that NLP is new age, uses occult, psychic seduction and so on. To remove such facts is either due to complete ignorance, or to fanatical censorship. The same goes for the energy section. Novopashin (1994) was a reference for the view that NLP is a psychocult. That reference was actually there before, but NLPers have removed it. I reckon if anyone wants to lock the page, it should be done from a point of knowledge through scholarship, rather than a point of agreement with fanatical censors. Chirio AliceDeGrey 05:34, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Yay Alice. Actually, I think its really cool that someone froze the article. Its like a snapshot of FuelWagon caught red handed stealing something.

OK here's the picture. FuelWagon (and the others) claim that they know something about NPOV. Then they remove facts without any concern for researching them themselves. Not only that, but views were in the process of being discussed. Yesterday Comaze proposed one of his bits of irrelevance, and others disputed this. Without any regard for cooperation, Comaze pasted it up regardless, and removed facts in the process (stuff he doesn't like because it is not narrow enough). Then his friend and co-promoter, FuelWagon, comes along and agrees with Comaze (the biggest fact deleter in the history of this article with more than 10 deletes and reverts for weeks on end).

So, Fuelwagon has his hand in the burglary, removing common knowledge from the article page.

In addition, here we all are with a lot of facts on the page, that the proNLP people are trying to remove. They have been trying extremely hard for months. They've been using NLP language, pseudoscientific argument, all to no avail. The fact is, NLP is scientifically unsupported and there is a significant scientific view is that it is just pseudoscientific new age salespitch (Lilienfeld and lots of other folk).

One interesting point is that sometimes ProNLPers claim that "well, we don't want to remove fact, we just want to balance it properly". Then, as can be seen in our incriminating snapshot of Comaze and Fuelwagon doing the dodgy, we see them removing facts:) Now here's some submodality stuff: Take that picture of Comaze and Fuelwagon sweeping dirt under the carpet, make it bigger, brighten the colours, make their facial expressions more caught-in-the-act and guilty, notice FT2 and GregA praying whiteknuckled that they don't go to prison, and swish it right into your memory circuits. You can remember this image whenever you see biased editors removing previously cited fact that is common knowledge anyhow:) Many cheers DaveRight 06:27, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

I was caught in the act of dealing with this version of the article that makes reference to "amoral pseudoscientific psychocults" and this version that says NLP is in fact "fringe", "psychic", "covert seduction", and "occult". Both of these versions are POV. And the mediator has asked you guys to edit one section at a time. That you reinsert blatantly POV stuff like the above and then mix in edits in other sections against the mediators instructions is not my problem. You guys are churning the article, reinserting the above POV statements even after you've been informed multiple times of how they violate NPOV policy. FuelWagon 07:33, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

No FuelWagon, your edit is consistent with Comaze's and all the other fact censor's edits. Look at the reference and you will find all the information there (Novopashin 2004), and represented quite briefly. Your solution is to doubt first, with complete disregard for good research and delete the information completely (in addition to deleting whole paragraphs that have been cited from NLP books). Read a few NLP books and you will find, occult, psychic phenomena, and so on all over the place and that is consistent with the internet. Any requests from the mediator about POV have been dealt with as well as possible by nonProNLpers. However, any compromises through mediation have always been dismissed by FT2 and others only days after the agreement. Comaze and yourself present information that read's "Grinder strongly disagrees with" and "there is great disagreement between.." That is against NPOV. I repeat, your edits are completely consistent with those of NLP fanatics - to deny that research exists, to delete it, and to put the blame on neutral editors while placing your own POV. Any churning going on is due to people such as yourself deleting facts that should definitely be in the article. Sorry, but that is clear from the way you are behaving. Chiao AliceDeGrey 07:59, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

No, AliceDeGrey, you fail to grasp the difference between "NLP is pseudoscience (Smith)" and "Smith states that NLP is pseudoscience". That is where NPOV is being violated. You want to state as fact that NLP is pseudoscience and then give someone's name in parenthesis as some sort of irrefutable proof that it is indeed a fact. That does not satisfy wikipedia requirements for NPOV. If you can't grasp the difference, then I don't know what to tell you. Personally, I don't care what Smith said or didn't say, but I do care how it is reported in the article. "NLP is pseudoscience (smith)" is a violation of NPOV policy and needs to be rewritten to "Smith states that NLP is pseudoscience". If you cannot abide by that policy, you will continue to be reverted. FuelWagon 16:31, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Headley's helpful suggestion

Headley wrote "So why did you not rewrite it? Because you wish to see the back of it, just as you wish to see the back of reasonable mediation. HeadleyDown 17:26, 17 November 2005 (UTC)"

Gee, that's a good idea, instead of deleting POV statements like "NLP is pseudoscientific (Smith)", why don't I just rewrite it to say "Smith states that NLP is pseudoscientific"? I wish I had thought of that. Oh, wait, I did...

[7] [8] edit summary: "Jan Damen describes NLP as occult" [9] [10] edit summary "Reporting the various points of view as being stated by their sources, rather than stateing them as fact." [11] Edit summary: "I'm rewriting the intro so that all POV statements are reported as someone's point of view, rather than reported as a "fact" followed by (name).)" [12] edit summary: "Attribute pro-NLP information to advocates and supporters." [13] edit summary "reporting the pro-NLP point of view from pro-NLP sources. including URL's so folks can verify.)" [14] edit summary "report the NLP point of view in NLP words," [15] edit summary "intro describes the pro-NLP point of view from pro-NLP sources. URL's to verify." [16] edit summary "attributing to Dilts" [17] edit summary "another source" [18] edit summary "source" [19] edit summary "introduce NLP using the words of NLP supporters. provide URL's so other's can verify accuracy."

So I've got 13 diffs that show me attempting to correct blatant POV statements into something that follows NPOV policy. And I believe all of my attempts have been reverted by the folks who claim to have the "facts". Tell me again how I'm just out to delete information? Tell me again how I haven't tried to fix your problems rather than just "bury" your version of "facts". You guys are creating more work than you are worth. That I decided to start deleting your POV violations after literally a dozen attempts by me that were reverted by you, does not strike me as being unreasonable. I tried many, many times. I even show a few diffs where I attribute some pro-NLP stuff to pro-NLP sources, because some of the POV warriors accuse me of just focusing on attributing the NLP criticism. I haven't been biased here. If it looks like I'm focused more on attributing the NLP criticism, it is probably because every attempt I've made to attribute NLP criticism to some specific source has been reverted. I have been neither unreasonable, nor unhelpful. But at some point you guys have shown yourselves to be unwilling to accept help in bringing criticism withing NPOV policy, that you find it more important to report your "facts" than you care about following policy. Your POV warring has created more work for other editors than you are worth. I've tried correcting your mistakes, but you keep reverting them back. At this point, it seems prudent to simply revert POV violations until you learn how to follow policy. I've tried to fix your violations, I've tried to teach you, I've tried to explain what you need to do, but you have reverted every single one of my attempts to do so. Enough is enough. FuelWagon 19:27, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

FuelWagon. You made most of these edits during a time when all the other editors were pulling away facts (as they continued to do even recently) plus all of these edits have other attributable citations. The fact is they are all the viewpoints of many people. Most people do not want to read 10 plus citations on every line. You made it seem that only one person had those views (that is the wish of the NLP fanatics here). If a reader wants to verify the view, they just look up a single ref. Placing a statement, and placing a name is completely reasonable. All of the edits you made were represented incorrectly. Considering you have also deleted massive amounts of facts also, it shows clearly your intention. You wish to promote NLP. HeadleyDown 01:44, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Convenient how you charge me with laziness in one sentence, telling me to rewrite "NLP is pseudoscience (Smith)" to "Smith states NLP is pseudoscience" on the one hand. And then when I give you cold hard facts (and I know how you love facts) that I did indeed do as you had so conveniently accused me of not doing, that suddenly "Why did you not rewrite it?" quickly becomes irrelevant and you tell me how you bore of hearing "citations". Nice that you get to decide which rules to apply and when. You have directly violated NPOV policy so many times I've lost count. In response, you charge me with deleting rather than fixing. When I show you literally a dozen examples where I fixed your NPOV violations rather than delete, you suddenly change focus again, and how I wish to "promote NLP". How convenient. It must be nice to decide arbitrarily what is and is not appropriate, rather than sticking to, say, wikipedia policy, for example, as I have. FuelWagon 03:42, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

"The fact is they are all the viewpoints of many people." This is exactly the problem. Until you provide verifiable sources (and for someone who is so quick to charge others with laziness, I'll assume you have the vim and vigor to take it upon yourself to figure out what exactly wikipedia policy is on "verifiable sources", rather than simply rely on what you might think is verifiable. Here's a hint, I've told you numerous times that a name in parentehsis is not verifiable according to wikipedia) until you provide verifiable sources that says something is "the viewpoints of many people", you cannot, in fact, report that in the article. FuelWagon 03:48, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Protected page

Hello. So the page has been protected. I must admit I haven't been watching what goes on on the main page... I've considered posting there pointless due to reversions. What is the way forward? Do we propose a modification here, get some discussion, and then have it merged by someone? I'm really not sure of "procedure" (and freezing seems a good idea). GregA 10:02, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

The irony of the situation -- which clearly escapes you, Comaze and FT2 -- is that NLP master practitioners invariably promote themselves as experts in persuasion and belief modification. Where then are the persuasion skills and belief modification techniques? Why can't you magically disolve all objections? Surely you three NLP super beings can shift the beliefs of a simpleton like me. The inability of you, Comaze and FT2 to persuade in this instance is itself a demonstration of the ineffectiveness of NLP. In the process of attempting to persuade others of the efficacy of NLP -- and in failing abysmally -- you have inadvertantly demonstrated its ineffectiveness. Delicious irony. flavius 11:42, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Please remind yourself with avoid personal remarks policy. Thanks. --Comaze 11:55, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

You keep setting up the strawmen. Sure there are people who make wild claims, there is NLP taught in cults, etc - but it's a minority. The principle of ecology is very important within NLP too, a fundamental respect for others - suggesting that I don't respect others is an insult. GregA 12:00, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Flavius, thats a straw man. Since Wikipedia isn't about coercion and persuasion but about neutrality, since NLP as I have found it isnt about unethical persuasion (ever read up on "ecology"?), and since Im not about changing people that way, I have no interest in playing games that way. So when you come along saying "You're intrerested in NLP so by the stereotype I have you ought to be trying to do magic and persuade me so why arent you", thats not the standard of mature discussion I look for from you. Why not try the other approach... that we are reasonable humans trying to work jointly on an encyclopedia, and take it from there, instead of insulting condescention? FT2 23:17, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

The most obvious conclusion a scientist would draw from my failure to state that I am an "expert in persuasion" is that the null hypothesis "NLP master practitioners invariably promote themselves as experts in persuasion" is false. A good scientist would question that word "invariably" too, which you don't. Now turn the spotlight around: what term would you use to describe someone like Bookmain who gives an untrue credential to a source (Morgan) to bolster his own preferred view? Or Headley who tries to retain the "scientific feel" of it anyhow even though he knows it's untrue, because it helps his case. Or JPLogan who removes the founders of the field's cited definition on the mind-boggling basis that it's "POV" to cite it? Just curious your view on those, while we're discuss editor integrity. FT2 00:54, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

It seems that Mysekurity protected the page. While I would have tallies on what should be changed, there are likely too many sockpuppets. Unfortunetely, it looks like I am the only one here who can edit the page.Voice of All^T|@|ESP 02:26, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Research pre 1987 vs Research post 1987

I think the search on the medline stuff is really illuminating of research.

7 studies pre 1987 all antiNLP, but all testing representation systems (testing in a way NLP people often say was not effective)
7 studies post 1987 all proNLP, only one testing a small aspect of rep systems (testing in a way Flavius says does not prove that NLP was the cause of the successful treatments, since controls and placebos were not used enough*).

There are many more experiments, but Flavius says that Medline really identifies the better research.

Now we know that Druckman & Swets (88) and Heap (89) reviewed existing NLP research (39 and 70? articles respectively?)... and the were evaluating representation systems, specifically PREFERRED rep systems. Druckman also says that Bandler met with them and said that preferred rep systems was no longer an important component (though rep systems remains in NLP). This gives us the basis for discussing the research of NLP.

Druckman & Swets, and Heap, were very good reviews.
I don't know of any other reviews of their calibre. Platt summarised 70 abstracts from a website and the skeptics dictionary (and these were all Rep System studies!), and Morgan cited Heap.

Remaining recent sources that review NLP negatively are pretty well summarised by your line summaries. "Writings by Eisner (2000), Lilienfeld et al (2003), Helisch (2004), Williams (2000), and Drenth (2003) also state that NLP is a pseudoscience."

Eisner - "The death of psychotherapy: From Freud to alien abductions.",
Lilienfeld - "Science and Pseudoscience in Clinical Psychology",
Helisch - a single article on business and NLP,
Williams - "Encyclopedia of pseudoscience",
Drenth - "Growing anti-intellectualism in Europe; a menace to science" (paper in Studia Psychologica which Medline didn't index for some reason).

Most of these references I would call biased, and I think that together they represent one viewpoint which is probably shared by Flavius* on science+NLP. The other viewpoint being all post 1987 medline research on NLP, plus the 20 or so recommendations for NLP in medline texts, plus all the research on FT2's Research subpage.

I'm interested in comments on this. I wrote something similar to this a month back on the "alternate" page, but with less references to back it up [20] but maybe this is a way of representing it all. Thoughts? GregA 12:00, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Hello Greg. My thoughts are that you have just labeled these refs as biased. Of course you wish yourself or any other NLPpromoter will remove them from the article asap, or write lines saying they are clearly biased. That just about sums up your attitude. Don't state NLP books as biased, but place bodies of independent researchers and psychotherapists as clearly biased. All you have presented is your desire to boost NLP and demote science. HeadleyDown 02:00, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

I just said those books represent a POV, I don't treat them as neutral sources. Non-neutral = POV = bias. NLP books ABSOLUTELY ARE BIASED to NLP's POV, I never said otherwise. Ever. Please read before you post. GregA 05:38, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Science Vs. Claims not supported by science

At Wikipedia, and every other good encyclopedia, representing all sides worthy of mentions is required by NPOV. These are further bounded by Notablility(merit, or sometimes just popularity), Credability, and even Gradiant of Arbitrary Nature and Redundancy. If you read Earth you will notice a small section at the end with more pseudoscience/religion ideas, but science takes precedence. We cannot list every religion's view of earth here or all kinds of random mythology because:

A)Not all of it is notable
B)Such statement's have little backing and logical support
C)You would have a huge list of arbitrary and contradictory beliefs

The difference between Credability and Gradiant of Arbitrary Nature is that arbitrary nature for articles about expression/art/music ect...does not cause a credibility loss to the ideas of those mentioned in the article. Credability in such articles can be very hard to even give a value to for certain ideas; the value of credibilty will often be undefined. In articles where logic has greater influence, the two begin to merge, as one is inversly proportional to the other.

How does this relate to NLP? Well, NLP applies exclusively to psychology and neuronics(and perhaps you can break it down further). According to Science, the human brain and the mind have an order to them, and are related, as millions of scientists/psychologist would tell you, that fact is just Common Knowledge by now. NLP is mixture of several ideas, some with overlap of more solid ideas, and others are speculative. Some of the core views of its founders are questionable, as are many off-the wall claims by a minority of supporters.

Okay...so we need to checklist credability and notablility. True science takes precedent over less supported ideas, and off-the wall ideas likely are not mentioned period. However, "scientific studies" have varying gradients of scientific nature no matter what, as the degree of assumtions they make will necessarily vary. High credibility research will take precedence, so it will have more weight that unsupported ideas, but those ideas must still be mentioned unless they are non-notable. But what about are friend Redundancy? Well, Wikipedia is not an unabridged list of complements and criticism; once you get the point across, then you need not continue to add more. If you are just adding unabridged/excessive complements or just criticism, then that is POV. If you put Science on equal footing as nonsense, then you will have a huge article of arbitrary ideas with no credibility. If you see a study and categorize it a science for the sake of giving it "black and white" precedence over non-scientifically supported idead, then that is POV, as Credibility is the main issue. It is just that things that are truly scientific have more credibility than things that are not when logic applies, because science is the child of Logic applied to uncontradicted Working Assumptions.Voice of All^T|@|ESP 03:02, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Ho VoA. That was exactly what I was going to say! You must be psychic:) Well, ignoring the fact that you have just stolen my thunder, the fact remains that we must reiterate exactly how credible the scienfic findings are.

OK, here is one way: Sharpley and Druckman are seriously rigorous. They are quoted by Eisner 2000, Lilienfeld 2003, Singer and Lalich 1999, Carroll 2003, Morgan 1991, Winkin 1991, Drenth 2003, VonBergen 1997 and I know there are others. Anyway, the all state (based on either Sharpley or Druckman et al, or both, plus other sources) that NLP is scientifically unsupported.

Here are some of the folk that I have who state NLP is pseudoscience or pseudoscientific:

Novopashin 2004 Prof of psych
Lilienfeld 2003 Prof of psych
Carroll 2003 and in his latter book on critical thinking (he is a PhD and lecturer/writer/and instructs phsychology students on the dangers of placing pseudoscience in your undergraduate research projects and essays and the level of failure you will achieve in your degree if you do so:)
Beyerstein 2001 PhD and critical thinking writer
Drenth 2003 Prof of Organizational Studies and Psychology
Drs williams, Conway, Dalton, Dolby, Duval, Mcmillan, Melton. 2000 (encyclopedia of pseudoscience. These are all big Docs or Profs.
Eisner 2000 PhD, writer and practicing psychotherapist
Levelt 1995 Professor of Psycholinguistics (Seriously world renowned with tons of papers and big exemplar tomes) Seriously critical of NLP linguistics and pseudoscince.
Krugman et al 1995 PhD and well published
Griffin and Goldsmith 1985 PhDs and well published
Sala 1999 Lots of PhDs in this tome also. All say NLP uses psuedoscientific promotional concepts.
Devilly 2004 Australian PhD and well published. NLP is pseudo
sanghera 2005 Financial times, and well published - good researcher.
Sollee. N. (2000) Reviews NLP pseudoscience.

We also have some refs that Hans sent us that state NLP is pseudoscience and even anti-science. Once translated they can be provided.

I would like also to re-state that NLP and lots of other dubious subjects are promoted in psychotherapy, business and other similar fields. I think this is a mitigating factor that should be better represented. Trouble is, the promoters don't like it. They keep wanting to delete the fact. If non proNLP editors are actually allowed to make concessions things would go a bit smoother. Onwards and upwards! DaveRight 03:47, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes Dave. My NLP teacher did EMDR and EFT and made money from doing that. Wave your fingers in patient's eyes and tap in a mystery way and you get money. Like a joke:) I think you should make the connection in the article. It shows NLP as bad, but is also shows psychotherapist are stupid for opening the door. Sincerely. HansAntel 02:21, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi Dave. Yes, I have most of those references and concur that they all check out. I will get a move on with the translations. ATB AliceDeGrey 05:15, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't know what you might think this means, but it does not mean that you can ignore what NLP advocates say about NLP. The article must still present the view of pro-NLP using the words of pro-NLP sources, and then the view of anti-NLP in the words of anti-NLP sources. And these sources need be verifiable. Note those who like to call others lazy, a name in parenthesis is a lazy source. A name, book title, ISBN, page number is a verifiable source. So is a URL, and a URL is preferable since it can be verified immediately by anyone. None of this suddenly means that an editor gets to say that "everyone says this" when they only have a source for one name. And while some editors are also quick to point out how they've taken it "easy" on NLP, I'll just point out that I've been taking it "easy" on sources, letting names in parenthesis fly. If you want to take this down to brass tacks then fine, start providing proper sources or it will get stripped out of the article. That's the bottom line. If it is disputed, the only way you can put it in is if you provide a verifiable source to back it up. Clearly some of the editors are getting restless, I've now been accused of being lazy for not fixing someone else's NPOV violations, then when that is proven wrong with a dozen diffs, I'm told that they are bored of all teh citations, with the kicker of "original research" that really, it isn't just the one name in parens that supports it. I've been accused of deleting facts for stripping out completely unsourced statements from the article. I ask the mediator to rein in all these accusers, and inform them that following NPOV policy and citing sources is not "boring citations" and that deleting highly biased and unsourced statements is a proper action according to policy, because I'm growing tired of this. Maybe we just need to wait until arbcom can settle some questions about NPOV policy, because nothing else seems to be putting certain editors in check to follow policy. FuelWagon 04:08, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi FuelWagon. Now I don't wish to seem uncharitable, but you must understand that the more neutral editors here are doing a great deal of work - research/translation/verification/triangulation/corroboration and so on. If you are getting tired just have a nap and a coffee, check the references and get on with accepting the fact that NLP is scientifically unsupported, and a significant scientific view states that it is pseudoscience, based on pseudoscience, and uses pseudoscientific arguments to try to excuse itself. AliceDeGrey 05:15, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi FuelWagon. Its interesting also, that proNLPers will try to delete the clarifying words of NLP developers if it does not suit them, but will promote any vague wishywashy promotional nonsense that NLP promoters place in the text and on the covers of their books - because it makes NLP sound respectable and scientific. Again you are really trying to demand one thing, but reluctant to follow your own rules. AliceDeGrey 05:15, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi FuelWagon... regarding your statement that some editors accused you of a violation, which you defended against, then they say they're bored of the defence.... etc..

I was trying to find an example from about 2 months back (to put in Arbcom)... unfortunately I couldn't find it. Anyway, I corrected a statement, had it reverted, corrected again and explained reasoning again plus some references, had it accepted, then it got cut back, then removed as it was irrelevant to NLP (which was true), only to reappear in its original form a few weeks later (I think it was the piece on Psych models being different to NLP models... but there's been so much!). Anyway, I don't know how to avoid that kind of attack long term but if you've got any thoughts let me know. GregA 05:59, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

DavedRight, we are in agreement that science takes precedent, but not on all of the specifics. I haven't followed the article in the last two days(due to 2nd Midterms/homework), but I believe that too much anti-NLP was being poured into the article, past redundancy, so I removed much of it about a week ago. There is not enough pro-NLP either. We have anti-NLP, what NLP says, and that is it. I would add pro-NLP mainly to the intro, and that should do.

Also, not all studies are as rigirous as others; there are level of precedence varies. You are more black and white with your precedences than me; precedence does not mean that pro-NLP is almost stamped out, it just gets less mentioning, but not none. I do believe that much of the criticism is fairly solid, but not all of it is concrete, Heap admitted it himself.Voice of All^T|@|ESP 06:55, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Sure VoiceOfAll. I know you understand why this article got into its present condition. It is evolving, but the size has doubled since the insistance of proNLPers to provide extra sources for the critical views, plus their own addition of "how tos" and anything that makes NLP look positive. FT2 added some stuff about applications and support in business and that is fine, as long as he realizes that the hype will be removed, and it will be balanced with views of business and social scientists. I am all for making it more brief, and the views do not have to be deleted at all. They can be prioritised and condensed. That is - if neutral editors don't have to spend all our time arguing for science to remain in the article, or wrestling with Comaze and co with stuff to keep/delete off the face of the earth forever and so on. AliceDeGrey 07:31, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Alice - that would be lousy science. Maybe for once, instead of trying to attack with vague generalizations that are mere meaningless text (and what else is "hype"?) you would cite some specific texts I have added, and evidence to support your view on it? Or don't you think that the more than 20 mentions of the word "pseudoscience" and 8 repetitions of "dubious", alone are sufficient to get the point? THAT is part of what makes this article non-neutral right now. The other thing that might make an article non-neutral is citation fraud. Not that anyone here has ever done that, but maybe to avoid doubt, you could comment on two edits you made that I am sure you have good explanations for: the way you deleted the fact Carroll's quote actually came from the Skeptics dictionary, specifically deleting just that part of the citation to make it look like a research paper line 143, and the way you stated that Morgan was a "scientific assesssment" when you knew it was a mere opinion article discussing one paper, and unreviewed by academic peers [21]? FT2 08:58, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

OK, FT2, lets dispense with the attacks for now. We can take it for granted you are a pseudoscientific technoshaman and amoral psychocult promoter:) Anyway! Here is a suggestion that even the non-proNLP editors may take offense to (Alice, Bookman and JP didn't like it in the last email communication anyhow). The problem in terms of getting things done seems to me to be the fact that the scientists want to place science at the end of the zealous fanatic's promotional paragraphs, and that tends to lead to the zealots crying: "OH MUMMY! I DON"T LIKE IT, MAKE IT GO AWAY". And they remove it or turn it into more promotion:)

So, the solution would be to be smart about territory. Not complete segregation, but simply to give good weight to science above pseudo (actually place science spatially just below pseudo on the page), put the NLP crap in the opening (of course) but no more than a couple or three paras. Give good weight to science and place a scientific paragraph at the end with an additional criticism line or so. (pretty much as it is).

Then the zealots such as FT2, Comaze, Justin, Greg, FuelWagon and any other spirits of Hubbard can really let rip in their own section with absolutely no sign of scientific logic or evidence for efficacy. Within their own warped perceptions of NPOV they can write anything about Turing machines, unconscious paraliminal learning, submodality shifts within their own paradigm busting NLP language, and how fabulously successful NLP has been in producing legions of new Perls/Satirs/Einsteins/Jesus's and so on.

Then we can have a criticism section with science first (because it is negative), pseudoscience, NLP as a cult/within cults, and how NLP is just a pseudoscientific psychocult that is adopted for the sole reason to take money from sick and insecure people while pretending to be a new science and so on.

Anyway, I think this would solve a lot of problems. Especially as the scientists do complement the zealots to some degree. The zealots will write tons of dodgy nonsense, and the scientists are pretty good at condensing things. Of course, the only problem is some zealot such as Comaze, FuelWagon or FT2 will remove the whole criticism section at once, but I'm sure some diligent scientist will zip it back pretty quick.

So all parties: What do you think? DaveRight 09:33, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Hello Dave. Personally, I think it is actually worth a try. A change may be as good as a rest, and I notice plenty of other articles are handled in the same way ie with an opening that shows the main claims with a criticism/science section, and the main body showing claims with the lower half showing the findings/criticisms. I also think it will help to sort out the weight problem. It may end up looking like pseudoscience comes first, and that has always been a problem with me, but I am flexible. The scientists seem to be good at finding reputable sources for science and the NLPers are good at representing the pseudoscientific thinking aspects. From the science presented, it is overwhelmingly negative towards NLP(in findings and in view), so indeed it can go into a criticism section and the pseudoscience clarification section also. It'll certainly be an easier way to condense things down (for the scientists part anyhow). Well, I'm all for it, as long as our good mediator is OK with it and is happy to stick around for a while. Best regards HeadleyDown 10:48, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Actually Dave, I think thats what they call a "cop-out". Its highly unscientific. After 2 months of name-calling - mostly by yourself, Headley, Logan, and Alice, someone is asked directly to explain what is by all accounts a curious edit, and this gets two responses: You post a reply that says the question shouldn't be asked, and Alice is silent. I'm still waiting, Alice, for an explanation. FT2 20:11, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Hello FT2. I'd love to know which question you are talking about. I have heard the statement - you have not answered my question - so many times from people who do nothing but ask different questions all the time. I have to admit, that I have started to ignore the statement because it is such a vague complaint. If you would restate the question briefly when you make that complaint, it would help. Otherwise I will simply ignore it. Regards HeadleyDown 00:35, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

My question was to Dave, not you. My question to Alice still stands though... unanswered. However, if you want a question, here's one. What does it mean that I ask clearly a question to DaveRight, and you answer me saying "Hello FT2. I'd love to know which question you are talking about". FT2 02:21, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Cooperation is required here, FT2. Now YOU have not answered my question. What was your question?:) Basically it gives you a very fanatical image to accuse non-proNLP editors of not answering questions, when you do not specify which question out of a multitude, and especially when non-proNLP editors have discussed and consistently provided ample evidence for all views already. HeadleyDown 05:48, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

"some zealot such as Comaze, FuelWagon" hey, look, I'm a zealot for enforcing policy. Nice. Anyway, policy, and I know I'll get called a zealot for using the "P" word, but policy would generally require that sections generally present the pro-Topic view first followed by critism for areas that are presenting what a topic is. For sections that are generally criticising some specific thing about the topic, the policy is generally to list the criticisms and then the rebuttal. That's a rough guide anyway. FuelWagon 20:23, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Hey FuelWagon. Tell me about it! I have just discovered that I have had a compained of being a sockpuppet:):) Just for providing evidence against NLP. Well, I hope that is not mean I can not point out my side of the story.

I read the last weeks comments and I think freezing the article is ok. There are two sides here also. Arbitration looks very early to me. There are the team who don't want mediation/co-operation. It looks like we can definitely put them together. They all voted together and agree to delete science or show science in a wrong way. They dont like co-operating and want to kick the mediator because rational thinker doesnt suit them. Yes it is true you can see that antimediator group does the same kind of arguments and editings.

The antimediator group want to say science supports NLP, and that they can write anything they like about NLP being non pseudoscience. Some say that they are NPOVers but evidence points the other way.

DaveRight showed in his sarcasm that positive/negative placing was a good idea. What does it mean? The only thing needed to do is moving the endings of the applications paragraphs to criticism section. And to put science in criticisms because science is skeptical already and science shows the negative conclusion. Scientists say it.

I have more information (lots) about NLP being cult/unsupported/crazy and I can email it.

So mostly, you get some antimediation people who delete and delete or ask and ask for more fact, and then delete, and annoy scientists because the scientists have taken time to provide facts. Like Vanilius I see that there is nowhere to hide from this. The best to do is to give the antimediator/deleters their own NLP advert, and put the facts in the criticism section - just like it is on the other articles. Sincerely HansAntel 02:17, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Hans - there is a note on your user page to help explain. But no, its not "Just for providing evidence". That's straw man. If you don't know why, ask. As it is, I have explained why for you. FT2 09:34, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] General views of pseudoscience/psychobabble/salespitch

Perhaps this is just a job for the imagination, but I think it is worth keeping in mind in order to foster a world view. From my perspective as a science major, I straight away got the impression that NLP is pseudoscience. I noticed that VoiceOfAll also stated that "NLP looks pretty pseudoscientific", and a lot of the new age/self help section gets a lot of sideways glances of disapproval from most people. Even the American public talk about it like some kind of "fortune cookie tripe". Anyway, if something comes with outrageous claims (as NLP does in the majority of cases) it is generally seen as flimflam. I had a good hunt around for opinion on newsgroups and so on (outside of all the psychic energy groups who talk pure NLP), and that opinion seems to be fairly widespread. I believe that is very significant. I do recommend that this should be taken into account when considering the scientists who write long chapters on the pseudoscientific nature of NLP and it's connection with other pseudosciences. ATB AliceDeGrey 07:31, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

I've been trained as a scientist and make a living at it, so you can save the Appeal to authority arguments, they won't work on me. At issue here isn't a question of "science", it is a question of wikipedia policy. Wikipedia policy requires a neutral poitn of view, not a scientific poitn of view. All these appeals to "science" are secondary to wikipedia's requirement for neutrality. Report views from the sources who say them. Provide URL's for verifiability. Report the point of views of both sides. What you call "science" is actually only one point of view that is clearly "anti-NLP". Report the anti-NLP views from the point of view of the people who state those views. Provide URL's so that other editors can verify your work. If you insist on claiming that your appeal to "science" is the only thing that need be reported in this article, then the only solution I see is to wait for arbitration to rule you in complete violation of wikipedia policy and ban you from any NLP-related articles. Given the reaction to the request for arbitration with all the appeals to "facts" and given the reaction to having this page locked when POV pushing and an edit war erupted, and given the continued insistence on "science" being the only thing that deserves reporting, it would seem that arbcom is the only solution here. I'm growing tired of the partisanship and the NPOV violations and the advocacy and waiting for arbcom to lower the boom on some POV warriors is looking awfully appealing. Let someone else do the work. Clearly, you guys have absolutely no interest in policy. I've only tried to fix NPOV violations in the article a dozen times to be reverted. I've only been explaining NPOV policy on this talk page since I arrived a month or so ago, and you have no interest. Until I actually see a sea-change in the POV warriors who cite "science" over policy, I'm going to limit my time on this talk page. It is a waste of my time. As long as people contine to argue "science" and "facts" and ignore "Neutral Point Of View" and "verifiability" and "citing sources", it isn't worth repeating myself yet again. Further accusations about me deleting "facts" only proves you are ignoring that those "facts" were disputed and had no source and no means to verify them. Further accusations that I am "lazy" only proves that you are ignoring a dozen attempts by me to fix your NPOV violations. Further accustions that I am pro-NLP only proves that you view my attempts to enforce policy as getting in your anti-NLP way. Until I see the editors here give NPOV, verifiability, and cite sources higher priority than their claimed "science" and "facts", I see little point in continued exercises that do nothing but waste my time. If anyone wants to talk about how to report something that meets wikipedia policy, I will try to answer as best i can. If someone wants to tell me their "facts" override policy, do not expect a reply. FuelWagon 15:31, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

"NLP looks pretty pseudoscientific" does not mean that is is fairyland-psycho-magic or "psychobabble" ; While some pseudosciences are like that, NLP is usually not. What it means that many of NLP compenets are lacking scientfic support. Some of those ideas may still be useful, while others while just be nonsense. Overall, we do see quite a bit of pseudoscience, but not enough to say comfortably say "NLP is pseudoscience", leaving no room for any other possibilty. I would say that "Many aspects of NLP are considered to be pseudoscientific by psychologists and neurologists".

To back that up, one would need several credible citations(noteworthy journals/studies would be nice). We want to know what credible scientists think, not just some anti-NLP bloggers/humorists /editorialists.Voice of All^T|@|ESP 19:05, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Sure VoiceOfAll. Will do. Regards HeadleyDown 07:44, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

I'll start this off:

"In the therapeutic garden a host of pseudo-scientific horsefeathers can be found...what brings some of these therapeutic approaches into the category of pseudo-science is the claim that their presumptions are predicated on scientific understanding and scientific evidence. Often we see that these therapies are presented and justified by such scientific pretensions. Again, I will illustrate this by discussing a fairly recent and popular movement known by the name NLP, an acronym which stands for neuro-linguistic programming" Drenth, J.D. (2003) Growing anti-intellectualism in Europe; a menace to science. Studia Psychologica, 2003, 45, 5-13 (reproduced in http://www.allea.org/pdf/17.pdf)

PJD Drenth is Professor (Emeritus) of the Department of Work and Organizational Psychology at Vrije Universiteit (Amsterdam) (see http://www.psy.vu.nl/fpp.php/departments/workandorganizationalpsychology/people/details.html?id=61). Professor Drenth's published works are cited by approximately 180 other works (see http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&q=PJD+Drenth&btnG=Search).

Drenth (2003) paraphrases Levelt, W.J.M. (1995). Hoedt u voor neuro-linguistische programmering [Beware of neuro-linguistic programming]. Intermediair, 17/11:

"The psycholinguist Levelt (1995) passed devastating judgment on NLP: It is not informed about the literature, it starts from insights that have been rendered out of date long ago, concepts are not apprehended or are a mere fabrication, conclusions are based upon wrong presumptions. NLP theory and practice have nothing to do with neuroscientific insights, nor with linguistics, nor with informatics and theory of programming. NLP is not interested in the question as to how neurological processes take place, neither in serious research."

WJM Levelt is a preeminent scholar and psycholinguist. Professor Levelt is the director of the Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics (see http://www.mpi.nl/Members/PimLevelt). Professor Levelt's publications number in the hundreds (see http://www.mpi.nl/Members/PimLevelt/Publications) and he is cited thousands of times (see http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=WJM+Levelt&hl=en&lr=&start=0&sa=N).flavius 10:00, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

"PSEUDOSCIENCE IN PSYCHOLOGY [Sub-heading]...The human potential movement and the fringe areas of psychotherapy also harbor a number of other scientifically questionable panaceas. Among these are Scientology, Neurolinguistic Programming, Re-birthing, and Primal Scream Therapy which have never provided a scientifically acceptable rationale or evidence to support their therapeutic claims"

Barry L. Beyerstein (1995) "Distinguishing Science from Pseudoscience" prepared for The Centre for Curriculum and Professional Development (Victoria, B.C., Canada) (reproduced at http://www.sfu.ca/~beyerste/research/articles/02SciencevsPseudoscience.pdf)

Barry L. Beyerstein is Professor of Psychology at Simon Fraser University. Professor Beyerstein is an prominent psyhcologist that specializes in "Critical assessment of claims of the paranormal and pseudoscience (e.g., ESP, mediums, astrology, handwriting analysis, faith healing, medical and psychological quackery, etc.)" (see http://www.sfu.ca/psyc/faculty/beyerstein/CV2.htm). Professor Beyerstein has published over 40 journal articles and has over 100 other publications (books, technical reports, book reviews, editorial comments) (http://www.sfu.ca/psyc/faculty/beyerstein/CV2.htm). Professor Beyerstein's published works are cited by over 100 other works (http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=BL+Beyerstein+&hl=en&lr=&start=0&sa=N) flavius 13:24, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Science in support of NLP, and pseudoscience characteristics

Some people are talking as though there aren't scientific studies supporting NLP. Lets remember the medline research on NLP and its implications for how we can represent this debate.

medline-cited psych studies of rep system studies have had variable results (mostly <1987) (summarised by Druckman, and by Heap). The research has flaws but is summarised as unsupportive of NLP's claims (...of PRS/Rep systems)
NLP practitioners say that psychologists have misunderstood rep systems (eg: don't calibrate eye movements, don't ask the right questions, seek 1 preferred rep system)
medline-cited psych outcome-based studies have showed a clear effectiveness when NLP processes are used (from non-specific processes) (mostly >87)
Flavius says that the outcome-based studies show an effect but they don't prove the effect is from NLP processes (ie the subjects might have gotten better by themselves - which does happen)
books on 'crazy therapies', pseudoscience, and skeptics dictionary say that NLP is scientifically unsupported, citing mainly (afaik) the early US Army (Druckman) studies and Heap (both reviewing Rep System studies!).
NLP is now taught and recommended by MANY different respected groups (as shown on the Research subpage.

Although the research for and against is restricted to Medline cited research articles, it at least clarifies the differences in research (#1 and #3 above). It is also consistent with the other sources we have read (except for #5 above). We have an opportunity of representing this clearly. GregA 23:48, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, Greg, it doesn't matter how many of these small studies supported NLP, the fact is the scientists have taken them into account, and the verdict is NLP is scientifically unsupported overall, and they do give plenty of reasoning. Regards HeadleyDown 00:40, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Headley... you say you've studied NLP. Heres a term for you: "Generalization". In your case that's a big problem you have. Remember it? It means when you say something like "the fact is the scientists have taken them into account" people like me come right back to ask "which scientists?" And "what about the ones who didn't, or haven't, or didn't do it properly?". Let's translate your sentence from headley rhetoric to scientific language, and show you what science means:

HeadleySpeak: "the fact is the scientists have taken them into account, and the verdict is NLP is scientifically unsupported overall"
Scientific interpretation: "a number of scientists, who I am not identifying, state that they have taken them into account. We don't know if its many, most, some or a few comparatively, as the standard of 'taking into account' is never specified by me. I assert that their verdict is in fact shared by every serious scientist and that verdict is one of failure. however I am aware that in saying this I have not checked how many or what proportiopn it represents, nor am I taking any account of caveats, experimental criticisms, or people who say that unsupported doesn't mean 'doesn't work'."

See the difference? The latter is what your words actually translate as. Your own wording is mostly "puff" (rhetoric, hype, exaggeration for effect).

FT2 02:21, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

FT2. Again, you seem to be arguing for the removal of scientific fact. The statements I make on the article are quite encyclopedic and neutral. You are interpreting the NPOV aricle in the most fussy way possible. The fact is, there is a significant view that NLP is unsupported, that there is no reliable evidence for the normal effectiveness of NLP, and of course there is no evidence whatsoever that NLP is the theraputic magic that Bandler et al claim. If you would like to look at the article, there are many scientists there who have stated that NLP is scientifically unsupported. What's more, generalization is not a problem. It is not even a problem in linguistics or psychology. It is a normal speech phenomenon, and a normal way of thinking. I understand that overgeneralization is a problem. So instead of analysing me using NLP insecurity boosters, why don't you go and do something useful, like provide evidence for the fact that NLP is scientifically unsupported. You have done so much demanding, but you offered not one bit of effort to searching for the information yourself (it is abundant). I notice also that when the mediator asked for information about use of RS and PRS in recent books, there was no effort on your part to pick up any of the NLP books you have access to and show the mediator that it is commonly used. Your promotional agenda is completely obvious. But I should be fair, Comaze, GregA, FuelWagon and Justin are just as reluctant to face or show the obvious facts that NLP is unsupported and pseudoscientific. HeadleyDown 06:06, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

No headley. The statements above show exactlky why your wording is unscientific. Its "puff". if you write like a scientist you'll be received like one. But you rarely do. You cite science to make a WP:POINT, not because you are a scientist.

FT2. Show me exactly what you mean. I have no idea what you are talking about. I present evidence that shows the views of scientists and that their views are - NLP is scientifically unsupported, or that NLP is ineffective, and that is is pseudoscientific - and I have written them exactly as they would be received and published in a grade A journal in psychology. I understand that Wikipedia has slightly different criteria (but only when people such as you become unreasonable), and I am quite happy to write "Mr Professor says NLP is just lots of wind that leads to negative results" as long as that is what will satisfy the wikipedia criteria for encyclopaedic writing under circumstances of fusspotical scrutiny. HeadleyDown 14:08, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Headley, you're making stuff up. What about my clarification of PRS vs Primary Rep System vs Rep Systems (with quotes from Frogs?). Perhaps if you didn't accuse so much you'd have time to answer some questions. Eg: Please respond to the pseudoscience questions I've asked for each pseudoscientific point. GregA 10:46, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Greg. You have not presented any questions as regards pseudoscience in this section. If you would ask some questions, perhaps I could respond. HeadleyDown 13:59, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pseudoscientific characteristics

Now there are many indicators of a pseudoscience, and Lilienfeld do say science differs from pseudoscience in DEGREE, not in kind, with fuzzy boundaries ([22] pg 5). So a quick look at Lilienfelds classifications of a pseudoscience (which I'll discuss with reference to NLP):

An overuse of ad hoc hypotheses designed to immunize claims from falsification.

Note the word "overuse". Naturally it's not our job to analyse the research and whether the NLP response to Rep System studies is correct or not... so I'll simply say we can only represent what they say (if they're correct it's a justified ad hoc response, if they're making excuses it isn't). Lilienfeld note that such responses should enhance the theory.

Absence of self-correction

This isn't listed on our page, I assume headley et al see that NLP does self correct (eg Bandler changed the teaching of PRS/Rep Systems in 86, as he said to Druckman&Swets). Also self correction is a fundamental principle of NLP ("if what you're doing isn't working, do something -anything- different")

Evasion of Peer Review

(If claims were true, why were they not properly documented and presented to the scientific community? - Eisner 2000). A good question. For one, the rep system claims were documented but misread by many in the scientific community, part of that is probably the focus on live teaching vs books (or transcripts of seminars)... either way not good! Secondly, they're doing peer review in their own way... the NLP focus is on modeling and working with individuals on patterns of excellence, teaching people new patterns and getting feedback from practitioners - However NLP clearly does not teach the scientific method, and with regards to peer review of the applicability of processes they modeled it is lacking. Note also the goal is to duplicate an expert's patterns not to validate the expert's way of doing something. I tend to agree with this criticism of NLP's reaction to research on rep system processes (as distinct from NLP)... I think many users don't care, generalise all the research as incorrect when some will have gotten it totally right (NLP should make those clear, even when they disprove!).

Emphasis on confirmation rather than refutation

Our page says "eg reliance on asking how rather than why", which seems to be quite different to this pseudoscience characteristic as it's unrelated to trying to disprove or confirm something. A principle of NLP modeling is getting all the elements of a pattern, and then removing each and every element to determine which elements actually affect the performance (ie part of the pattern) and which elements are unnecessary. This is a different approach to psychology, but has a similar goal. I agree that many NLP practitioners don't bother with questioning a processes' research backing, though again practitioners look at what they're doing during a process for evidence that they should do something different (rather than assuming it's working)

Reversed burden of proof

NLP used their own version of proof, and I agree they should have responded better to the psychological testing of NLP processes by doing their own research (which some did). The lack of communication between NLP proponents and Psychologists to do research that both agreed was correct has hobbled psychological acceptance of NLP.

Absence of connectivity (inventing somethign new instead of developing on well-established stuff

NLP builds on the shoulders of others by modeling an expert in a field. It's a different approach to psychology and both have value. An NLP process is often connected LATER to existing theory. If it was connected before modeling then it wouldn't be NLP.

Over-reliance on testimonial and anecdotal evidence.

NLP modeling does measure things on a personal/qualitative level, and it measures against a single model (which statistical analysis can't do). Once again the modeled process can be tested but NLP vs Psychology methodology and training has been an issue. I think this criticism of NLP processes applied to therapy is a fair one from a scientific viewpoint - and is true of many psychotherapies.

Use of obscurantist language (our page says: eg meta programs, parapragmatics, sub-modalities etc)

Never heard of parapragmatics... try a google search :). Any field will make terms where necessary for what they are teaching, the criticism is if they're overused. Some NLP terms are taken from linguistics and other areas. Anchoring is different to conditioning. I'm not sure what else you'd call sub-modalities (can anyone help there?). Metaprograms I'm not trained in but perhaps they could be called personality traits. Anyway, most NLP terms are descriptive and defined.

An absence of boundary conditions

Lilienfeld says: "Most scientific theories are clear on the contexts of application (where pseudosciences say it works over an exceedingly wide range of conditions)". Headley has been pushing the idea that NLP says it is "universally applicable"... perhaps this is related. An NLP process is context specific (and Grinder requests that any NLP model description include context descriptions), though modeling can be applied to many contexts, and NLP communication processes can be applied to communication (which is in many contexts). NLP also teaches to alter the process used depending on the context and feedback from a subject (ie a process is not universally applicable), and this is one NLP criticism of PRS studies which ignore the context and don't allow the use of a different process for subjects not responsive to rep systems).

The mantra of holism

Now, in my answer to "absence of boundary conditions" my statement along the lines of "NLP is about calibrating whether something is working, and if it isn't working use something different", may sound like the 'mantra of holism'. I agree. It's also one of the criticisms of psychologists in the field to the control exerted by research psychologists. I'm not sure how to present this here, I do know that the scientist-practitioner gap is an issue (see page 2 (1st paragraph on the gap), and page 3 (1st full paragraph) of Lilienfelds book online [23]). The criticism includes psychologists, it is a generic problem with research on psychotherapies. GregA 23:48, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Again, Greg, it doesn't matter how much essay writing you do, the fact is, many scientists and profs have classed NLP as a pseudoscience. HeadleyDown 00:40, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

"many scientists"... see WP:WEASEL. The problem is, we don't know if that "many" is representative, or accurate. It could be many, and many not. or many, but including many that are inaccurate. What we do know is, reviews of literature keep including that awkward comment that it isnt proven, but it isnt disproven. It's still "jury out". FT2 02:21, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Hello FT2. "Many" is not what I wrote in the article. It is a fact though. I can and will specifically state that all the scientists or experts mentioned (eg Drenth and 20 or so others) state that NLP is pseudoscience. And I will explain, as per wikipedia policy, why they think that. Now, I would like to keep the article brief and only have to write a couple of refs to back up the fact that an increasingly significant scientific view is that NLP is pseudoscience. However, your constant harassment will lead to many many references being cited in order to satisfy your ridiculous objection. It doesn't have to be like this, but you will push things in that direction. Then of course you will complain again. I am sure most neutrally minded editors here will just have to accept that, and tolerate your unreasonable whinges with a due sense of humour. HeadleyDown 06:28, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Naturally Headley it doesn't matter how much writing I do! :) It's what's in the writing. Any responses to the above pseudoscientific characteristics (which have largely been identified by yourself) would be interesting to take this discussion forward GregA 06:11, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes Greg. There are many pseudoscientific characteristics of NLP. I would like to hilight those in the article to enhance the educational and consumer protection value of Wikipedia. HeadleyDown 06:28, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Are you unable to respond to my comments here and discuss what you see as characteristics? GregA 09:23, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Medline supporting research

I mentioned 7 research papers in medline supporting NLP (there were many more review and tutorial papers in support). There were also 7 papers NOT supporting NLP and all were Rep System papers. Anyway, I realise most people won't have read everything Flavius posted, so these are the supporting papers with Flavius's and my comments:

31 Psychotherapy impact on effectiveness of in-hospital physical rehabilitation in patients with acute coronary syndrome

Sumin AN, Khairedinova OP, Sumina LIu, Variushkina EV, Doronin DV, Galimzianov DM, Masin AN, Gol'dberg GA. Klin Med (Mosk). 2000;78(6):16-20. Russian. PMID: 10900863 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

COMMENTS Flavius: Findings confounded by the administration of multiple, simultaneous psychotherapies.
COMMENTS Greg: Yes - they used muscular relaxing, NLP, hypnosis, and metaphors. The thing is that physiology (muscles), ericksonian hypnosis (erickson was NLP's 3rd model!), and metaphors are all standard part of NLP too.

36 Treatment outcome in tobacco dependence after nicotine replacement therapy and group therapy

Gorecka D, Borak J, Goljan A, Gorzelak K, Mankowski M, Zgierska A. Pneumonol Alergol Pol. 1999;67(3-4):95-102. Polish. PMID: 10497441 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

COMMENT Flavius: No control (no treatment) or placebo group.
COMMENT Greg: They compared against a nicotine patch and found NLP Group Therapy far more effective. Agreed they did not compare against non-NLP group therapy.

37 Impact of the application of neurolinguistic programming to mothers of children enrolled in a day care center of a shantytown.

de Miranda CT, de Paula CS, Palma D, da Silva EM, Martin D, de Nobrega FJ. Sao Paulo Med J. 1999 Mar 4;117(2):63-71. PMID: 10488603 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

ABSTRACT:

COMMENT Flavius: Randomized control trial with an apparently sound design. The design incorporated a control group with no intervention but no placebo group. The study tells us that something is better than nothing but it fails to tell us if NLP was better than placebo.
COMMENT Greg: Agreed. It shows that an NLP intervention helped them, but it doesn't say whether just chatting would have helped (would "just chatting" be a placebo? How exactly do you do a placebo in this context?)

39 Social anxiety and training in neurolinguistic programming.

Konefal J, Duncan RC. Psychol Rep. 1998 Dec;83(3 Pt 1):1115-22. PMID: 9923190 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

COMMENT Flavius: No control group.
COMMENT Greg: Agreed. NLP was used and even after 6 months the social phobia was far reduced from initial scores, but doesn't compare social phobia changes after no treatment.

43 Neurolinguistic programming training, trait anxiety, and locus of control.

Konefal J, Duncan RC, Reese MA. Psychol Rep. 1992 Jun;70(3 Pt 1):819-32. PMID: 1620774 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

COMMENT Flavius: No control group.
COMMENT Greg: Agreed just like above. They found significant changes from a 21 day course but didn't compare that against people who didn't do a course.

49 Effect of neurolinguistic programming training on self-actualization as

measured by the Personal Orientation Inventory. Duncan RC, Konefal J, Spechler MM. Psychol Rep. 1990 Jun;66(3 Pt 2):1323-30. PMID: 2385721 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

COMMENT Flavius: No control group.
COMMENT Greg: Yes it showed 24 day NLP training significantly changed self actualisation, but didn't compare against people who didn't do any course.

51 Comparison for aphasic and control subjects of eye movements hypothesized in neurolinguistic programming.

Dooley KO, Farmer A. Percept Mot Skills. 1988 Aug;67(1):233-4. PMID: 3211676 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

COMMENT Flavius: Weak conclusion, doesn't demonstrate the validity of eye accessing cues.
COMMENT Greg: Agreed. It shows differences between aphasic and control and the abstract doesn't say whether there were consistent directions etc.

In summary....

There was much research on NLP considered of sufficient quality to report in medline indexed journals but that lacked some of the controls and placebos that can make research that much more definitive. These findings are still significant, the treatments did help people, and doing the NLP as described will make a positive difference - we just can't say how it fairs in terms of other choices. This is important to represent. Note still the absence of any non-supportive findings in Medline research other than representation systems research (6 studies pre 87, one post 87) GregA 06:11, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Eisner's summary: These kind of studies are fatally flawed.(Eisner 2000). Lilienfeld says the evidence is overwhelmingly unsupportive of NLP (Lilienfeld 2003) and many others are similar or more harsh. It doesn't matter what research you do, the fact is, the view is that NLP is scientifically unsupported. Moreover, many of these scientists say that NLP is ineffective or does not work. Plus, many business scientists and sociologists and business people in general say NLP does not work. I can see now that by phrasing "NLP is scientifically unsupported" will simply lead to FT2 claiming that "we don't know yet". Whereas the fact is a very significant view is that NLP does not work. Perhaps it should be stated that way in order to clarify things for editors such as FT2 who will make any desperate language contortion in order to promote his beloved NLP. HeadleyDown 06:40, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Lilienfeld uses Druckman & Swets as his source for NLP being a pseudoscience - that's Rep System research from 88 - which puts Lilienfelds whole Pseudoscience comments in quite a different perspective. And these studies quoted above are the NLP studies in journals deemed by Flavius to be the best of peer-reviewed journals (since they are referenced by Medline). Some of Eisner's criticisms aren't relevant - eg: If 6 months after treatment social phobia was still reduced - then the social phobia is reduced (you can't argue they're just ACTING like they're no longer phobic - it's in their behaviour!). GregA 09:30, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi Greg. To respond to your question; The whole new perspective you talk about seems to be your perspective alone. Again, do we quote you? Also, though he demonstrates clear scientific thinking, Flavius does not profess to be a quotable expert in NLP research. Eisner, on the other hand is an expert in psychotherapy and well known writer. His views have already been expressed by other writers in quotations and corroborated. So Eisner is eminently quotable. Sorry Flavius, I am not allowed to quote you in the article:) Damn! HeadleyDown 09:10, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

HeadleyDown. I was going to reply to GregA just as you have. GregA I'm not quotable nor do I pretend to be. I'm not the arbiter of good quality research. I merely directed your attention to the stature and indexing policy of MEDLINE. My statement regarding MEDLINE was prompted by FT2s citation of numerous unpublished dissertations and an article in Anchor Point. It is true to say that if a journal is indexed by MEDLINE then it is reputable. However, due to the broad coverage of MEDLINE it is not true to say that all reputable behavioral science journals are indexed by MEDLINE, i.e. there are reputable behavioural sciences journals that are not indexed or more usually partially indexed (eg. Studia Psychologica) by MEDLINE. The point is that the experts HeadleyDown et al have cited are quotable, they have performed literature searches and they are well-placed to judge the quality of research. We should defer to the expert opinions of Lilienfeld, Eisner, Drenth, Levelt, et al rather than attempt to perform our own literature survey. The relevant literature could perhaps be compiled and summarised for educational purposes but it shouldn't serve as the basis for second-guessing expert opinion (that would be original research perhaps of dubious quality). flavius 01:41, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Hello Flavius. Yes, clearly the proNLPers have made moves to try to get any old research project in order to create their own reality. But I also think that could go both ways. For example, if you got a whole lot of research piled up on a subpage, it would be guaranteed to have the majority with a negative result and some showing some support, then you would need comments on each from reputable sources (who generally say the negative result is overwhelming, and the small support is flawed). Looks like another opportunity for a war. It goes both ways. It would be very easy for a troll to go in and overemphasize the negative results and stir up a lot of trouble. A set of data like that would be subject to all kinds of struggles that would only end in disruption. It would be too much in favour of the critics for the proNLPers to withstand the situation. As you can see from this discussion page, it tends to take up a lot of space, and is generally just a distraction. Just trying to guess what the experts see as relevant or important takes far too much of anyone's time. I can also see that people are already making unnecessary subpages for the purpose of promoting NLP. They look to be fit for deletion already. Anyway, for the purposes of stability, I would rule out subpages on for now. Best regards JPLogan 02:19, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Tony Robbins

Sure, when you try to explain NLP to people they are often highly suspicious. All that pseudospeak sounds too much like a sales line. Actually here is something for the weekend: http://www.lynxfeather.net/nest/humor/2002/alteredstates.html

Dave Barry attended a Tony Robbins seminar. Pretty funny and a fairly common attitude. Regards HeadleyDown 10:52, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Skeptics dictionary http://skepdic.com/neurolin.html says, 'Robbins is probably the most successful "graduate" of NLP"'. Question about wikipedia policy: Given that this statement is not referenced, nor does the author provide any evidence for the statement -- are we to assume that this is a personal opinion of the author? If so, is it relevant? Just as an example, what factors determine the weight given to this reference? --Comaze 12:59, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Comaze, I can't find anything on the Robbin's link that says he is an actual proponent of NLP. Wikipedia can report that "skeptics dictionary describes Robbins as a successful graduate of NLP", but we would have to report Robbins point of view if he does not associate himself with NLP. The skeptics dictionary article on NLP varies between neutral reporting of facts to editorializing and advocating against NLP, so it should be treated as a disputed source, meaning any statements that we report from them should clearly be attributed to them. The way the playing field around NLP looks, I think that's pretty much the standard rule. people either love it or hate it, so any statements about NLP needs to be attributed to the source it came from (regardless of how "boring" some might find the citations). FuelWagon 15:11, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi FuelWagon. I'm with you that Robbins doesn't associate himself with NLP. We know he applies NLP to his work and that he's very popular, but most people don't realise that. He's also not representative of NLP. Perhaps we need to clearly explain Robbins as a subsection, he's used as an NLP example in several places (including wild claims) and I think equating him with NLP confuses this article. GregA 22:09, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi Greg. Again in response to your point. Robbins still talks about NLP and I have evidence that he still works in cooperation with Grinder. He used to be a close partner with Grinder and still has business connections. But the most telling evidence is in Robbin's books and in how Robbins is represented in articles about him. Authors, journalists, scientists and others relate him directly to NLP and attribute his success to NLP. He is still the biggest representitive/promoter of NLP in the world (according to lots of recent literature). Regards HeadleyDown 09:20, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Wow, can someone please take a look at Dave Barry's website and show me how Dave's assessment of a Tony Robbins seminar has any relevance from the wikipedia requirement that sources be "notable"? The guy is a humorist, not a journalist. His page announces on the very front "if you leave this webpage, I will kill this defenseless toilet". All this talk about "facts" and "science" and whatnot, and suddenly we're taking advice from a guy who is the newspaper equivalent of Gallagher and his smashing watermelon shtick. Barry may qualify for a subsection at the end of teh article titled "public opinion" but that's about it. Science indeed. This has been a mud slinging contest from the beginning, and enlisting the likes of Dave Barry is only more proof of that. FuelWagon 15:11, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Hello FuelWagon. Wikipedia is not a butcher's shop. The cold scalpel of surgery is only the metaphor of war. What we have here is a landscape of viewpoints. The highpoints represent the most independent and clearest freely moving views. The clouded and brambled valleys involve the narrow views of doctrine and beurocracy. If you are willing to take the high view you will be more likely to see which views are the most appropriate and representitive. Barry does represent some view. I am not saying that he is gospel. But if his view does not resonate with you, I would say you are deaf and blind to multiple viewpoints. By criticising my decision to present Dave Barry on a Friday evening, you seem to want to take the life out of wikipedia. Your scientific training can dull your senses. If all you want to do is work by numbers, you are not doing the work of an encyclopedist. We are here to cooperate. I am quite content to be a wanker, if all you want to do is play with mud, I am willing to put up with your behaviour. Wikipedia can be lively. You want to heckle from the wings? Or do you take particular offence at Barry's perspective? HeadleyDown 15:51, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

In response to your numerous allegations, I repeat what I said about Barry earlier: " Barry may qualify for a subsection at the end of teh article titled "public opinion" but that's about it." If you see a violation of policy, please let me know. Your sudden appeal to humor, that I'm just "working by numbers", falls flat given all the imaginary policy violations you continue to accuse me of. You accuse me of being lazy for not fixing your NPOV violations. When I show a dozen diffs that prove your accusation wrong, you don't apologize, or retract, you come at me with a new accusation. Sorry, but I do not find you funny at all. FuelWagon 16:02, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

FuelWagon, your lack of perspective is very telling. I suggest you keep your insecurities and biases under closer raps. HeadleyDown 16:19, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Headley, whatever the rights and wrongs of FuelWagon may be, these are yours: You are (apparently and judging you by your multiple posts on Wikipedia NLP) incapable of scientific self-criticism, unable to master the idea of neutrality, and lacking in respect for authority of formal policies. You seem (again judging you by your editing) to have a belief that somehow rules do not apply to you, you are rude, hostile, you are an amateur gamesman who uses rhetoric instead of honest debate when questioned, and you are a fanatic and a vandal. Such attitudes have no place in editing an encyclopedia, because an encyclopedia is neutral. Their place is on an opinion ebsite, such as a skeptics forum, discussing with others how much evidence can be found regardless of provenance and quality, so long as someone can be quoted saying words that support the desired view, and preening on one's mastery of the subject and clear sightedness. In truth, judging you by your time here, my view is that you are not clear sighted. My opinion is that you are tunnel visioned. Or, as you would doubtless phrase it, you are tunnel visioned (eg FT2, 2005) FT2 21:59, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

The accusation made ("If all you want to do is work by numbers, you are not doing the work of an encyclopedist."), a quote to disprove ("Barry may qualify for a subsection at the end of teh article"), and a response that changes the subject ("keep your insecurities and biases under closer raps"). Oh, I've got perspective all right, I can see right through you. Now it's my turn for a suggestion: I suggest you keep your accusations to yourself. FuelWagon 16:28, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi FuelWagon. Funny thing is: I never intended to include Barry as a citation. Now it seems that we have a very good reason to. HeadleyDown 17:20, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Barry's article never mentions NLP. By itself, it is off topic. FuelWagon 17:24, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

"The guy is a humorist, not a journalist." I warned everyone that this can happen, not all of the criticism has high precedence, it varies; not all of the studies are as solid as the others. If Dave Barry is popular enough, then he is notable, but either way has limited merit and minimal credibility. Therefore his claims have low precedence, they are as unsuported as some of the claims by NLP practicitioners. Which brings up another idea...NLP=/=NLP practitioners. While several of them have made ridiculous claims and associated them with NLP, lets be careful how much we word that to reflect on NLP. I could say "I killed this girl who rejected my because I am Aethiest!", but how much is that really criticism of Athiesm unless it is commonplace(and that is not)?. I encourage everyone to think about the pretty blue text here and above before editing, especialy since you can't actually edit the article yet anyway, so you might as well do it. Do not just see what things you agree with me on, but look at the rest. This should avoid much of the past edit warring.Voice of All^T|@|ESP 18:40, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

DaveRight: "some zealot such as Comaze, FuelWagon or FT2".

I really don't think that comment was necessary. For the sake of progress, I suggest that you refrain from using Personal Attacks on this page. Thank you.Voice of All^T|@|ESP 20:40, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, thanks VoiceOfAll. I realize Barry is not necessarily going into the article. As per Alice's comment, perhaps this is just a job for the imagination. I have noticed a tendency for the NLP promoters to skip over the general view that NLP is regarded quite suspiciously by much of the public. I am not going to give a survey, but I suppose I do have a few refs to back up this point. I may present them. Otherwise, it is just food for thought. Regards HeadleyDown 00:44, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

I read some joke articles in France, and they say the same like the Dave Barry one. It is more common opinion in France. French business people hate NLP and straight away see the pseudoscience. French people are very antisecte and antiscientologie. I will look for them. Sincerely HansAntel 02:26, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Science

(this is a draft I've been putting together for my POV on the NPOV portrayal of NLP and science. It has some bits I'm quite happy with, and some bits that are incomplete or useless... I ran out of time and I'm going to bed!... I'm putting this here anyway and if anyone can help clarify or expand (without removing) please do) GregA 13:41, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

NLP began outside the academic mainstream. Many trainers describe NLP as a science, or as an art and a science (John Grinder), though there are also many NLP practitioners and trainers who don't refer to science at all. NLP is often described as "the study of the structure of subject experience", which fits the informal definition of science as "any systematic field of study, or the knowledge gained from it". However NLP's principles and epistemology differ from typical scientific studies - NLP does not teach or use the scientific method, nor does it use psychological statistical methods. Psychological testing of NLP processes has been done (and continues to be done) with varied results, and some responses from the NLP community to this research have lead some researchers to describe NLP as pseudoscientific (Lilienfeld et al 2003).

[edit] Comments

Hello Greg. Firstly, you will have to state exactly what is not a science, and who says NLP is not a science. As it stands, NLP presents itself as a science and that is how it is sold according to the literature. HeadleyDown 17:01, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] NLP and Psychology

NLP and Psychology have different approaches to people. When working with subjects, psychologists wish to ensure that any interventions have been researched and validated to ensure appropriate use and application (regardless of how the intervention was created). In contrast, NLP processes are taught as modeled on effective therapists, with the principle of constantly communicating with a client and adjusting what is being done to ensure appropriate use and application. These approaches can be combined (eg: NLP could model a process from an effective therapist, train multiple therapists, and Psychology could research whether the new process is effective), but the training and background of a Psychologist is quite different to an NLP practitioner's - and research has suffered.

Further differences exist between NLP Modeling and Psychological reseach - including:

NLP attempts to avoid having any beliefs or expectations (a priori knowledge) during the initial stages of modeling (or while working with a subject). Psychological research uses the scientific method which includes making a hypothesis - which is a proposed explanation to be researched to determine its validity - and NLP classifies this as a filter on our experience, something which may mask or distort what is being studied.
NLP models individuals to study the way they do what they do (to find individual examples of excellent processes), Psychological research uses representative sample groups combined with statistical analyses to determine overall effects and their significance.

Many Psychotherapies lack research support and there is a strong argument from the Psychology community to only use researched and validated techniques. Many therapists argue that the strict controlling manner in which psychologists study a therapy actually negates the therapies effectiveness (by isolating 1 or 2 variables of the therapy from all other associated factors).

NLP is not a type of Psychology

NLP can model a therapist, but it can also model a golf pro (for instance). NLP would model the golf pro, teach the new "golf" process to multiple people - and THEN the new golfer's performance can be measured (by playing multiple games).

[edit] Comments

Greg, you have to take into account that NLP claims that many things are models, and therefore NLP modeling is vaguely defined. For example it states that the SMART goals setting standard is a model. If so, then NLP modeling claims to be far more than the method you describe. Quite frankly, the less you mention about NLP modeling, the better for you. Otherwise, there is plenty of criticism that can make your lines look really stupid. HeadleyDown 17:01, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi Headley. I had no idea you didn't understand NLP's definition of modeling. 6 weeks back there was a criticism on the site implying that NLP models were of low quality and referencing Michie's info on Psychological models .. but it totally misunderstood NLP modeling. I wrote a section at the time, but JP criticised it (iirc) as irrelevant to NLP modeling (which it was), so it was removed. If there is still this confusion perhaps something must be said. [24] GregA 11:03, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Hello Greg. I certainly understand NLP does not like to give good definitions, and this follows with their use of the term "model". This has been criticised and NLP modeling has been criticised by Carroll (PHD) and others. I remember that someone asked what it meant that NLP models were different from psych models, and so an explanation was provided (Psych models show statistically measured associations between constructs, and the constructs themselves are subjected to thorought factor analysis and such). I think I still have that explanation stored away somewhere, though it needs to be shortened, it could provide useful in explaining Carroll and other's view (an option somewhere down the list of priorities). Regards HeadleyDown 11:44, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Scientific Testing

NLP processes have been tested and the results are inconsistent. Several psychologists interpret the mixed results as indicative against all NLP.

"NLP has been empirically tested over many years, and it has been found to be largely ineffective (Thaler Singer & Lalich, 1996)."
"A review of research showed that NLP is scientifically unsupported (Heap 1988)."

Early NLP research (pre 1987) was almost exclusively on representation systems (such as Eye Accessing Cues & Preferred Representation Systems) and largely found these to be unsupported. Later research expanded to other NLP processes (but less research), and there has been some more recent outcome-based research showing significant effects.

[edit] Comments

Sorry, Greg, but as we have many requests for exact quotes and citations, the line will read, NLP is scientifically unsupported, it's principles are unsupported, its's effectiveness is unsupported, and it is considered ineffective by Mr, blah blah etc.HeadleyDown 17:01, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Representation System Research

Prior to 1987, most research of NLP focussed on the primary representation systems (VAKGO)- particularly the theory that we have a Preferred Representation System (PRS - a system used in preference to all others). These studies have mostly failed to find any evidence to support the existence of a preferred system, and have also rarely found a correlation between the words used with an eye movement (eg: saying "It looked promising" should correspond to a unique eye movement, often up to the left) - (Reviews include Druckman & Swets, 1988; Heap, 1989). Platt (2003) cites 1/3 of studies supporting representation systems theories.

Druckman & Swets (1988) note that Richard Bandler (NLP co-creator) approached them during the government review and said that the Preferred Representation System was no longer an important component of NLP. It is not stated whether this came about through internal NLP development or was the result of the psychological research results.

[edit] Comments

Greg, here you are editing selectively. We have a great deal of views that state after 1990 that NLP modeling is highly suspect, if not pseudoscientific. HeadleyDown 17:01, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

That's nice. This section is on Rep System Research. BTW, since you aren't clear on modeling which do you mean here? GregA 11:17, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Hello Greg. Modeling draws a lot of background from Dilts, Bandler, and Grinder and their BAGEL "model". This was developed early on and is still used. They claim that it is a model in itself. As above, it is used to model geniuses as can be read about in Dilt's and other's books about Einstein, Jesus of Nazareth, Sherlock Holmes:) and others. Its not that I am unclear on modeling, its just that NLP is both particularly vague and unclear on modeling and erroneous/pseudoscientific according to basic tennets and claimed efficacy (according to critics). Regards HeadleyDown 11:53, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Comments

Greg, again, you are delving into discussion. If you want to do this, the article will be far bigger than necessary, and I notice that there is far more negative than positive in Druckman's paper (look at the section on the background concepts for instance). You will be wise to keep it breif. HeadleyDown 17:01, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

The representation system research has been criticisd by the NLP community as not effectively testing the actual NLP processes. This criticism includes the practitioner not being trained by NLP trainers, confusion between primary representation systems and preferred representation systems, inappropriate contexts to study representation systems, poor questions used to elicit these behaviours, and lack of calibration to each individual.

[edit] Comments

Greg, here you are overrepresenting a paper (Einspruch, that has since then been completely found to be wrong, including the addition of further empirical evidence. With further corroborating triangulation with recent authors. HeadleyDown 17:01, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Yeah Einspruch is one criticism. Andy Bradbury is another. More than either of them though is Druckman & Swets comments on problems in all the PRS studies. (Yes, ALL). GregA 11:17, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Research on other NLP processes

NLP contains many different processes for change work, though the great majority of research is on the Representation Systems. The first and principle NLP process is the metamodel (a pattern for linguistic intervention) and there is little research on the metamodel at all.

There is other minor research supporting various processes - V/K Synaesthesia patterns, Spelling strategies, Rapport, submodalities, swish pattern, and metaprograms [25]. Platt (2001) cites 9 studies of the phobia reduction process, of which 5 supported the process. No research on individual patterns is published in journals indexed by Medline, whether supporting or not supporting their efficacy.

(this section needs fleshing out considerably, and correction. There are multiple studies on specific processes though none indexed in Medline. I'm also assuming there will be some studies which show no support for various patterns. I'd like to identify these). I'd say the Research subpage also has more which I'll add asap (if someone else doesn't first)

[edit] Comments

Greg. It does not matter how much you flesh it out. The conclusions will make the whole circular extremely stupid looking. Again, the wise move would be to keep it brief. HeadleyDown 17:01, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

I was hoping you would provide some counter to the Research subpage stuff. I'm clear on PRS studies but this less so. GregA 11:17, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Moved headley's comments to the right place!GregA 11:17, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

OK, Greg, I have done some more work on the research you presented (the small positive support). I can find at least double the amount of research that looks at those NLP areas and shows negative findings, plus it points to the above research as being flawed or explainable by other means (not NLP). Now, I believe I am quite a mild reviewer and I generally pass PhD candidates on the first review as long as the hypotheses and arguments are sound, and pass conference papers on the first or second round after corrections. But to present your own research to this article is strictly against NPOV and you will end up with wars over each and every paper you present. That is going to be extremely antagonistic to the goals of wikipedia. Just picture the amount of dispute that you and other proNLPers have given others over the reviews, and apply that to each of the single research papers you present. That's going to be totally against normal wikipedia policy and convention, and a complete waste of time for all. Regards HeadleyDown 04:57, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

That's excellent, you've found lots I assume you have some links? I don't want to make this section big but I do want to read your proof that you're not making up stuff GregA 11:17, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi Greg. I have no weblinks, but plently of papers. However, similar to your thesis, that is my thesis. I have no place presenting it here or on the article. You can assume what you wish about my comments. You already seem to assume that highly respected professors are biased and should not be represented, and you and others have already removed those views at times and on multiple occasions. The fact remains, the views of scientists are highly relevant, especially in cases where you present pseudoscientific claims and argument. Regards HeadleyDown 11:30, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Outcome based Research

Once again... this needs more info.. anyone want to fill in some more?

There are several quality outcome-based studies, which don't define which NLP processes are used or in what combination, but study NLP practitioners in real world situations (actual clients), to achieve a given outcome.

Of the 6 outcome based studies cited in Medline, all showed a significant positive effect for the NLP test cases. Other outcome based studies show similar support for the NLP processes as a whole. Studies show results such as more effective physical rehabilitation for patients, greater success in quitting smoking, positive effects on the home environment, reductions in social anxiety, and increased self actualisation.

These studies are criticised for their lack of controls and/or placebo treatment. Although positive changes were found in the NLP treatment, the research mostly leaves some room to attribute the changes to something other than NLP specifically (Eisner 2000). For instance, the change may have occurred over time anyway, or be related to subject expectations or some other aspect of the therapy (eg just meeting and talking).

The positive results, while not conclusive, have been noticed by the business and government sector, with endorsements for NLP training in police and law enforcement, many management and staff training programs, and by various health services.

[edit] Comments

Greg, there is no outcome based research that supercedes the empirical results of controlled pre-clinical experiments. You need to get back into those research tomes and start to look into issues of academic rigour. HeadleyDown 17:01, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Mmm, GregA!..... You do seem to be proposing all out war. Your suggestions go against every neutral editor including VoiceOfAll's suggestion that redundancy be reduced. Furthermore, your suggestion would lead to disputes on all of those articles plus the only way we could properly represent the arrangement is by presenting a 500 kb article of mostly negative articles and by stating "GregA states that these particular articles are really cool, but Drenth, Lilienfeld, Heap, Sharpley, Eisner, Singer and all the others have used their expert judgment to conclude that the evidence shows NLP is unsupported and/or ineffective or erroneously based and pseudoscientific and so on". I believe your suggestion will lead to long and difficult editing trouble plus all the flaming you could take. JPLogan 07:50, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Sorry Headley and JPLogan. Are you both saying you have no outcome based research that shows NLP to be ineffective? It is not our place to judge whether Outcome based research is applicable - there are certainly those who say it's the ONLY thing that matters, and there are empirical researchers who want to control all variables. Medline considered these studies to be valid. So back to the point - do you have ANY outcome based research counter-examples? GregA 11:17, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Pseudosciences

NLP is considered to be a pseudoscience by several authors. NLP has no central control. They see it as having an over-reliance on anecdotal evidence, and linked to this an absence of self correction (practitioners will continue to use a process based on their own experience in preference to a psychological study). NLP has no scientific research program and approaches new processes quite differently to Psychology - the lack of a scientific research program within NLP is seen by some psychologists as a lack of connectivity with past studies to do systematic research, and also as an avoidance of peer review. The NLP community has criticised psychological research of NLP processes, and this is seen by some as NLP making ad hoc hypotheses, and a refusal to accept contrary evidence. The lack of apparent effort to research NLP processes is also seen as a reversed burden of proof.

Part of this is NLP's fundamentally different approach to psychology. Also, the lack of central control (or widely accepted standards bodies) within NLP means that when a process is changed, practitioners may not learn of the change. There is no academic community within NLP to encourage a research program, and the goals of NLP are quite different to Psychology. NLP may be a pseudoscience, or a new way of studying people (a protoscience), or it may not be a science at all.

[edit] Comments

Greg, there is a strong desire within the promotional editors such as yourself to skirt around issues of effectiveness (that has already been falsified). Your overall effort has been one of presenting your own thesis, rather than the views of academics who present the science surrounding NLP. I am happy with you writing as many of these essays as you like. If anything, it just shows how desperate you are. You want to take a simple scientific statement - (NLP is scientifically unsupported, or NLP has received no reliable evidence for effectiveness and so on, plus an increasingly significant scientific view is that NLP is pseudoscientific) and turn it into a 1000 word essay in order for it to mean something else. The fact is, you are not working encyclopaedically. You are just trying to use wikipedia to promote your business. HeadleyDown 17:07, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Just a last quick reply I'm very short on time. We are discussing effectiveness.... you are skirting the issue. I would much rather present a review, I do not consider books on cults, skeptics dictionary, or pseudoscience to be unbiased reviews. This article has bloomed for many reasons - one thing I've noticed is an editor sees a NLP perspective mangled and doesn't want to delete since there are reverts, so they add an NLP perspective... it grows, repeats, gets changed. If you allowed an NLP perspective the article would shorten considerably - and I note you've just suggested that this week, almost identical to many other editor's suggestions (I know I said it too)... I agree. JP doesn't. Oh well. GregA 11:17, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

There is a fundamental misunderstanding going on:

Writing for an encyclopedia is not the same as writing for an academic paper. It's more like writing the bibliography for an academic paper. We aren't trying to decide what is "true" and what isn't. To be honest, we don't care what "the truth" is, in that sense, because it's not what an encyclopedia is. An encyclopedia is a collation of multiple perspectives and views. It's more like the bibliography of a paper (listing all kinds of sources so long as they bear on the topic) than the paper and its conclusion itself. Every view of note is in there, represented neutrally. Theres no decision to make, few opinions to form, other than to observe which views seem to be more or less common views of note, and to understand each (and its sources) well enough to document.

We care that we document each view fully and with understanding. That is the "truth" we work to here. That, and that alone. Our truth is the truth of the bibliography, and the measure is, have we represented the various more noteable multiple different views. Drawing conclusions from all of them is a use of an encyclopedia, not the work of encyclopaedists.

FT2 01:18, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

This is an erroeneous and objectionable view which does not reflect the content of artcicles on Wikipedia that are concerned with scientific matters. Consider Wikipedia's article on Earth. Coverage of "fruitcake" theories such as the earth being flat or hollow is reduced to a solitary sentence: 'In the past there were varying levels of belief in a flat Earth because of this'. Thus in an article of many hundreds of words, the view that the Earth is flat -- because it is unsupported by science -- is merely mentioned in passing. That is not to say that there are not people that contend that the Earth is flat (see http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/fe-scidi.htm), or that the Earth is hollow (see http://www.v-j-enterprises.com/holearth.html), or that the earth was colonised by space aliens (see http://www.rael.org/download.php?view.1). If what you were contending were true we would find the Wikipedia Earth article giving coverage to not only every nutty idea about the earth but equal coverage to every nutty idea and the scientific view. The Flat Earth Society's conception of the Earth as flat and the Hollow Earth advocates view that the Earth has a habitable hollow core would stand as peers to the scientific view that earth is spherical and solid. If your reading of Wikipedia policy is sound then it would be appropriate for you to explain the absence of pseudoscientific theories from the Earth article (for example). You aren't advocating Wikipedia policy but instead a post-modernist worldview with its associated epistemological relativism, eclecticism and the zealotry about not "privileging" one view above another. If your and FuelWagon's editorial intention -- which is dissociated from Wikipedia policy and content -- were fulfilled, the usefulness, reliability and credibility of Wikipedia would be severely damaged. A cursory survey of Wikipedia content makes it evident that Wikipedia does indeed privilege science above pseudoscience, superstition, speculation and conjecture. This is true irrespective of the quantity of people advocating a non-scientific view or the passion with which they advocate their non-scientfic views. The consensus of scientific opinion is that NLP is empirically unsupported, theoretically unsound and pseudoscientific. flavius 02:57, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

The reasons that flat earth is not heavily represented here is as best I can work out:

It is not a widely held view

Neither is NLP relative to the worldwide population of psychiatrists, psychologists, neurologists, linguists, philosophers, and computer scientists. flavius 03:54, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Unlike psychology, it is a view that can be proven or disproven rather than opinioned.

Modern psychology is experimental psychology not armchair (or barstool in the case of Bandler and Grinder) theorising. Matters of psychology are no more "opinioned" than matters of geology. flavius 03:54, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

There is a lot to say about earth. There probably isn't much to say about it being round, either. Its shape is noted in passing, and gets little space regardless.

That is incorrect. The implications of the Earth being flat are profound and widespread. flavius 03:54, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia privileges notable views, not just the one most notable view.

On matters of science (versus religion or aesthetics) there is only one notable view, namely that of the scientific community. flavius 03:54, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia describes each honestly in its own light, regardless of which one may be thought true.

"Fruit Loop" opinions are typically distinguished by a qualification that there is no evidence to support the view. They are not erected upon stilts and marched around in a surreal parade. flavius 03:54, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia lists evidence where appropriate but it does not advocate.

I see no demands for advocacy from the critical editors. The problem here appears to be that you would like the actual position of numerous prominent (and in some cases preeminent eg. Levelt) scientists regarding NLP censored or placed on equal footing with the baseless opinions of NLP promoters. This is perverse. The NLP article would achieve NPOV by reflecting the status of NLP amongst scientists and clinicians. flavius 03:54, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

In addition,

The word "objectionable" is personal opinion and not of value here.

No it isn't. In so far as your editorial intentions conflict with NPOV policy then they are objectionable. flavius 03:54, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia has its own perspective. It's not post modern or relative. It's called NPOV and while you edit here, it's the water you and I both swim in. Read it carefully, again -- all of it. Especially the bits about writing for the enemy.
Last, did you do as I suggested long ago and look up how genuine pseudosciences such as Homeopathy are represented in Wikipedia? I think you should. Try to understand why they are written as they are.

What of the Homeopathy article? How did you distinguish Homeopathy as a "genuine pseudoscience" and NLP -- by implication -- as non-genuine psuedoscience? Using what criteria? Drenth and Levelt both regard NLP as a pseudoscience. Don't you think Levelt -- the director of the Max Planck Institute of Psycholingusitics -- can distinguish genuine science from bunkum? flavius 03:54, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

FT2 03:20, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

OK, FT2, I think we should start talking about how people write on the article, rather than how they present their findings on the discussion page.

Perhaps I can give my own view on pseudoscience (for what its worth) Yes, genuine pseudosciences are treated exactly as they have been presented within science. Homeopathy is a really interesting one as it does have some close similarities with NLP (placebo and so on) and yet it is far less measurable by scientists. NLP, in contrast has undergone a lot more testing, and the conclusion was that for effectiveness sake, the US army (and it's director, plus the 14 or so profs who did the research) decided it was not effective. They rejected NLP as it is not effective. In line with providing explanation for pseudosciences, they did present other methods that were scientifically explained and showed efficacy. I believe that this article may be slightly better if chosen alternatives (by scientists) were presented. Anyway, NLP is more genuinely pseudo due to having more characteristics of pseudoscience, plus it has been well tested and has been falsified to an overwhelming level (Lilienfeld 2003) yet it is still promoted using scientific terms but in a grossly misleading way (Winkin 1991). We do have a duty (according to wikipedia) to briefly explain why there is a view that NLP is pseudoscientific. HeadleyDown 04:14, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

As far as presentation goes, stating that "Scientists such as Smith, Jones and 30 others said ......." seems to be doable, as long as you are willing to apply that format to the rest of the article. HeadleyDown 04:14, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Headley, I'm going to point you one last time to WP:NPOV. Specifically to the very first section:

"Articles should be written without bias, representing all majority and significant minority views fairly. This is the neutral point of view policy."

"It [NPOV] says to fairly represent all sides of a dispute by not making articles state, imply, or insinuate that only one side is correct."

Read that and think about it. You, and flavius, and Logan, and everyone else involved. Here, on Wikipedia, you learn to edit neutrally rather than advocating, and thats a bottom line. That is the definition of wikipedia "neutral". You are a scientist. You understand the concept "laws of nature". On wikipedia, NPOV is a law of nature. Laws of nature are ignored at one's own risk, since they do not stop existing and impacting you just because you think they should be different.

Let me apply this directly and impersonally to your situation and editing. You probably see yourself equivalent to a scientist pushing back misinformation. I see you as equivalent to a a man who goes to an airport and shouts "I've got a bomb" and is confused why you get to play the follow-up by police rules (prison, fine etc) ratheer than yours (treat as a joke). An NLP practitioner like Greg would probably see you as someone stuck in 1st position. All three of these views probably have some truth to them. As with the rest of wikipedia, I am not advocating any. I'm describing the various views that seem to exist, characterizing the debate, and letting the facts speak for themselves. Some facts that are speaking right now are, that you find yourself unaccountably referred by more experienced wikipedians to Arbcom. FT2 16:38, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

OK FT2. Some really highly experienced wikipedians who are totally in agreement with our highly rational mediator make absolutely no personal attacks towards me ever, and who never gang up with editors who spend months blanket removing all nonproNLP facts or recruit vandals, and have never ever done any selective editing, who know everything there is to know about NLP research, and never post their own views on the article, and who have never spent any time trying to post their own work, and who never remove negative facts from the article, and who are in no way hypocritical, have told me to look at the NPOV page again:) Now it is time for me to ask you; Can you answer my question? Do you have any comments regarding you being allowed to write about NLP in its own main section without any criticism whatsoever? HeadleyDown 01:03, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, I'm glad its the last time, FT2. I have had so many irate pointings towards the NPOV page, or pointing out edits I made during mass NLP censorship sessions as if the whole thing were completely my fault:) I and others have made some suggestions to help this neutrality process along, specifically regarding giving you room to represent NLP without early criticisms. Any comments? Regards HeadleyDown 17:20, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, one comment. At least one other user (GregA) has stated: "In general I have no problem with what Headley et al says he'll do - they often seem very reasonable. His actions are quite different". [26]. Take a moment and ask yourself, why you imagine wikipedians keep pointing you to WP:NPOV in this manner? FT2 17:30, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Presentation of Criticism

I was looking through the reviews of research again, and noticed that the scientific papers are really very critical of NLP. They use words such as - cult, banal, fad, trite, infantile (they use these in a neutral "citation" fashion) in addition to their findings that the results show prior studies were simply a statistical illusion, and can be explained by factors other than NLP, and so on.

Anyway as those papers are so damningly critical, it does seem to be a bit of a nonsense to have 2 criticism sections. I think it was GregA who said, why don't we change the criticism section to "more criticisms". That is a valid point. I notice also that a lot of other pseudoscience articles have the same format. - criticisms, the overall scientific findings, and further ramifications of the pseudoscience with critique from other sources.

Clearly that would also put the pseudoscience section within the criticism section also.

This would solve a great many problems and be beneficial for both scientists and proNLPers. It would also be both "sides" complying cooperatively with VoiceOfAll's recommendations;

the scientific results should show less redundancy in the article
the NLP can have more chance to show it's promotion without the science dismissing NLP immediately.

It would also be easier to briefly add more research (without the constant reverts) within that whole seperate criticism section. Additionally, the proNLPers would benefit from a good deal of primacy within the article to explain NLP using NLP terms (which are on the whole promotional terms). Yet, the scientists would be able to make the appropriate scientific clarifications within the criticism section just as in other similar articles.

From a reader perspective, I know there are a lot of NLP fans who want to look up NLP. It would be presented in its own top section so as not to shake the NLP fan's beliefs or views (they can simply ignore the criticism section). NLP fans look down on criticism in general because they are generally new agers. The scientific minded would be able to check out the actual scientific findings for themselves out of sight in the lower section.

This would lead to NLP being presented much more fairly, and brevifying would be far easier for all.

VoiceOfAll, would there be any other benefits you could envision with this arrangement? Regards HeadleyDown 04:38, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] JP's response

Well, now that the antiNPOV accusations have died down somewhat, it is time to assess recommendations.

Firstly here are my objections to Headley's suggestion.

Science should get priority here. I don't really care how other articles are presented, the fact is, NLP is largely pseudoscience, and significant authors state that NLP is fully pseudoscience. Therefore, I find it extremely offensive to have NLP described in vague and woolly pseudoscientific salespitch terms as it is in the opening and the first part of the article. Science comes first and that is the clearest way to describe and define NLP.
If any section on the article needs reduction and brevifying, it is the NLP promotion sections. They babble like dirty water down the drain.
All NLP terms that have been unscientifically applied should be highlighted in a way as to show they are erroneously termed from the outset.

Here is reality though:

There is no way NLP promoters are going to term NLP in a scientific way. They will constantly resist science or play dumb just as they have always done.
Other wikipedia articles have been presented with the pseudoscience claims first, and with scientific explanations afterwards. I blame the editors for not being strong enough in sticking to their guns and using NPOV policy properly. That negative trend will probably continue on this article.

Therefore, I believe we will just have to put up with wikipedia convention (as distinct from NPOV policy) and give a couple of paragraphs to NLP claims, and a paragraph of brief explanation and criticism from the skeptical/critical science perspective. Then allow NLP promoters to present NLP with whatever claims they like as long as they are presented within a reasonable format (as close to NPOV policy as possible). Then contain the findings of science within the criticisms section just has been done according to wikipedia convention on other similar articles.

I do feel that this is completely unfair to scientists who have spent time and funding in order to successfuly falsify NLP according to scientific rigor. It is also unfair to the more neutral editors here who have presented science and wide world views of NLP with the general conclusion that it does not work. Whereas, proNLPers have constantly striven for NLP to be restricted to their own POV. Fairness is perhaps less important now though, as a solution is needed. You can guarantee this article will be subject to more attacks from fanatics in future. If those deletions are restricted to a particular section, then they are easier to deal with. Equally, if people write "NLP promoters are scum of the earth" on the proNLP section, then that also can be dealt with more easily when the conventional arrangement is followed.

One very big benefit that I see from that practical arrangement is that it should help the mediator and his requirement that people stop spreading edits to multiple sections. It will be less likely to happen when criticisms are kept within their own section, and NLP claims are kept as a starting point. So there are things I don't like about it, but practicality definitely comes first now. I want this article to look more encyclopedic and I definitely want the file size closer to recommended levels fairly pronto. Its all possible if we find a way to avoid the war of attrition that has occurred and that threatens to continue for months. The most realistic way for a long term arrangement to work is to follow wikipedia convention. JPLogan 07:32, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

JPLogan, What do you mean by NLP terms that have been unscientifically applied? Do you mean scientific terms that NLP has applied incorrectly (unscientifically)? If so I think these should be made clear in a section (under science or criticism, whatever). Particularly common NLP terms (uncommon terms aren't necessary?). What terms do you have in mind. GregA 05:41, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

OK JP--- I see where you are coming from. I think your perspective may be more in alignment with Flavius' than mine. However, I do think that the views of science you and Flavius have noted can be well represented in the criticism/science sections as they are both scientific and both well supported in the literature. There are plenty of scientific references building up that we still havn't added that state NLP is daft and dangerous, or is a desctructive cult. I dare say we could even find evidence of the term "fruit loop" somewhere:) and even make a neutral presentation of that view. But lets put that stuff aside for now and focus on containing the problems, reducing redundancy, and as you say... being practically conventional. More neutral editors have shown a lot of tolerance towards the proNLPers' attacks over the months, as is evident in the rather foggy presentation of NLP indefinitions in the opening and the months of unreasonable deletions, and I'm sure we can tolerate it for a while longer while we get the article back into stablizing and concise shape. Regards HeadleyDown 09:01, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Headley, I daresay you could find evidence of any term you want. And we could find evidence of anything we wanted. The challenge is to represent what's actually said, believed, etc - and to use the best quality of sources we can find for that representation... I'm surprised you think you could use "Fruit loop" do describe NLP neutrally...? GregA 05:41, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Informing the public; Cults and NLP consumption

Yes perhaps on the right track Headley although I disagree with being able to quote a scientist evaluation of NLP as being Daft, or fruit loop it sounds more like a personal representation than a scientific argument or explanation. What I am concerned with is that people (the general public) wanting to know about NLP or happen across the page will come away none the wiser as to the reasonning of the accusations of NLP being "Daft" or "Fruit loop". After all where does the scientist criticism stop and the personal criticism begin? Daft and Fruit Loop dont sound very scientific to me and lack vital information. I'd rather the public were informed. As for being dangerous or being a destructive cult that would contradict your research which says NLP is inneffective. How could it be dangerous if it is inneffective? Clarity of defining which group of scientists said what and seperating them because they are clearly two seperate points of view would clarify that, and be more NPOV, letting the general public know that scientists are divided on the subject and not all comments on the page are a scientific general view. Justin.

Hi Justin. Terms and phrases such as daft and "Fruit Loop" should be confined to the discussion unless they are used by a reviewing scientist (which is highly unlikely so you need not worry). As for the tension beteween danger/ineffective, this is more apparent than real. NLP has been characterised as a destructive cult by some scientists not because it gives the "cult leader" some supernatural power over his/her subjects via the application of banal NLP techniques but rather because it exploits vulnerable individuals, charging exhorbitant amounts for worthless training (that does nothing more than make one a member of the NLP granfalloon), it prevents people from seeking professional help from psychologists and psychiatrists, it produces a dependence between the NLP "guru" and the "disciple" such that the "disciples" mental health actually deteriorates (as a consequence of the dependence) and the "disciple" returns for more and more seminars. The techniques used by NLP cult leaders are not peculiar to NLP cult leaders nor even predicated on NLP, they predate NLP (see Robert Lifton's "Thought Reform and the Psychology of Totalism: A Study of 'Brainwashing' in China"). NLP cult mind control techniques are non-NLP for two principal reasons: (i) if they were were NLP techniques they would be ineffective; and (ii) the shrewd NLP cult leader knows better than to reveal the tecgiques (s)he is using to produce blind obedience, dedication and slavish dependence in his/her subjects. I'll see to producing some references regarding the cult aspects of some schools of NLP. flavius 11:26, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Flavius, There are no "NLP cult leaders", the very term is biased. And you imply someone says NLP gives a cult leader supernatural power? Where do you get this? GregA 05:41, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes there are NLP cult leaders. Richard Bandler, Carmine Baffa, Tad James and Kenrick Cleveland are cult leader-like if not outright cult leaders. These cult leaders claim to have supernatural power. I have heard on more than one occassion Bandler claim he can induce a phobia in someone and that he's actually done that. Carmine Baffa runs off at the mouth and pen about his supernatural abilities:

Now there are many things that I can do, fly an airplane, build electronic systems from scratch, design and build jewelry from scratch, run a machine shop, use my communication skills to help anybody change any behavior quickly, effectively keep track of the multiple levels of communication coming at me from -- up to 100 people -- inside of a group -- while effectively tracking how my communication is being received by each and every one or them, I can explain and perform over a hundred different medical surgical procedures. (http://carmine.net/articles/genius/IQHypnosisandGeniu.htm)

Flying an airplane doesn't sound "supernatural" to me. Either he can or he can't, but if he can, it isn't a supernatural act. I will ask that you stick to quoting criticism rather than paraphrasing into your own words, because your own words usually qualify as original research. i.e. unless the word "supernatural" is in the quote, you can't put it in your paraphrased version. FuelWagon 14:22, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

It seems you are now assuming a contradictory position reflexively and on principal (as if this demonstrates your purported neutrality). Is Baffa's claim about "effectively keep[ing] track of the multiple levels of communication coming at me from -- up to 100 people -- inside of a group -- while effectively tracking how my communication is being received by each and every one or them" not supernatural? Baffa claims he "can explain and perform over a hundred different medical surgical procedures". He hasn't actually performed any surgery yet he somehow claims he can perform it. Would this not be a supernatural ability equivalent to some sort of sci-fi skill implantation? Furthermore this is a discussion not the body of the article so I'm not certain what the relevance of your injunctions and admonitions are. flavius 00:28, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Tad James claims to be a "Kahuna" and has assumed the traditional adornments of a Kahuna as well as a Kahuna title (http://www.cancerlynx.com/huna.html, http://www.nlp.com/Huna_Chapter1.pdf). Kenrick Cleveland claims in his "Advanced Hypnosis" tape set that using his NLP(?) skills he can evade detection by traffic police even when speeding by imagining a missile filled with bad feeling (IIRC) being launched from his vehicle and striking the police car ahead. Kenrick Cleveland is also a high-priest in Santeria. flavius 06:49, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

The term "NLP cult leaders" is biased, it presupposes that NLP is a cult, NLP processes can certainly be applied in cults, that's irrelevant. There are some POVs that NLP is a cult. Anyway I don't know Baffa and I would doubt his claims - but his claims aren't supernatural, just highly complex and certainly beyond most people. Which claim did you think was supernatural? As for Tad - Kahuna means "wise man"....? oh.. I see it includes spiritual in the meaning... yeah it doesn't belong in NLP (though he doesn't call it NLP, he teaches it separately afaik). Cleveland sounds weird - who's he and how does he relate to NLP? GregA 12:21, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Regarding Baffa, his claim that he can effectively track the concurrent communications of 100 people and that he has somehow perform over 100 surgical procuedures even though he hasn't actually ever performed surgery (which implies some sort of direct to brain/muscle skill stransfer) are both supernatural. Regarding Tad James, his NLP instruction is tinged with his New Age concerns. If you attend an NLP training from someone that appends "Kiaina'auaomaikalani" to his name (to demonstrate his Huna lineage) and wears a floral necklace and other Huna accoutrements then it is to be expected that his Kahuna teaching will find there way into his NLP seminars. Regarding Kenrick Cleveland, he's from the Bandler school of NLP and made his money teaching NLP-based persuasion courses. He's well-known amongst North American Bandler NLPers. flavius 00:28, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi Justin. Remember that NLP was developed at a time when Scientology and EST were making people into gurus and multimillionaires. It uses the same marketing formulas and methods that are instilled into the very words and obscurantisms of NLP. It doesn't mean that NLP is effective, but it does show that NLP has adopted some very dubious and unethical social psychology tricks to get people to behave themselves while the gurus sell them their potions.

Dianetics is ineffective and just as ineffective and pseudoscientific as NLP, yet it is still used in cults in a dangerous or harmful way.

So what you're admitting here is that Dianetics and NLP has some sort of psychological influence. Justin

Cults also mix NLP with other therapies such as drinking urine. Urine drinking is just the same kind of leap of faith as firewalking, and within cults it is useful to control people. It is also just as pseudoscientific and potentially dangerous as NLP. If someone starts to dissent, you can publicly accuse them of dubious behaviour (Drinking pee).

I listened to a Bandler CD from the library the other day (seminar form) and he uses a lot of highly dubious methods dressed up as "provokative therapy". In fact provocative is synonymous with aggressive or attack therapy. He swears and uses expletives throughout. This is a method often used in cults in order to dissuade questioning or dissent from the crowd. Nobody will question him because they are going to assume he will tear them appart or hex them with his magic persuasion. The social pressure is enormously strong in these situations.

Bandler also uses quasi-religious overtones. He states "Thou shalt not steal" when trying to dissuade people from using NLP for their own financial gain. So his audience is warned off teaching NLP to others. He backs this up with trying to sue people. The Scientologists use this method throughout their own organization also. In fact some NLP fans have accused Bandler of acting just like Scientology in his restriction of freedom. Of course he has no right to NLP intellectual property at all in those situations.

So, if my employer requires that I sign a non-disclosure agreement before they'll hire me, and they will sue me if I go to another company and pass along what I know, does that make my company a cult? Your methods of criticizing NLP have nothing to do with science and everything to do with anecdotal evidence. If Pat Robertson says on TV that "Thou shalt not steal" is he "quasi religious"? Clearly, everything you are saying here is original research based on your own personal anecdotal evidence. If you were criticizing christianity, you'd be talking about how Eric Rudolph is christian and used christian arguments to bomb multiple abortion clinics and justify killing people. That's anecdotal evidence. Rather than damn christianity based on some fringe knucklehead, how about looking at the core of christianity. What do the founders of NLP say about NLP, rather than ranting about what some witchdoctor-on-tape says about NLP for $9.95. FuelWagon 14:22, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi FuelWagon. I understand what you are saying. I do think that we are trying to make sense of this whole subject though while walking the tightrope. Remember that you have changed sentences that were originally quotes, but you decided to make them your own (perhaps inadvertently). This whole article is not easy to handle. Concerning core: Remember that originally B and G wrote the structure of magic as a way to be a theraputic wizard. They may have been metaphoric to some extent, but they did also talk about eyes and brain right and left, and photographic memory, and quite a lot of remote views. Regards HeadleyDown 16:10, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

FuelWagon. You are fragmenting an argument and constructing straw men from the shards which you are then processing to despatch with aplomb. Bandler has triumphalist music played when he enters stage at some of his Western European seminars -- he expects to be greeted like a cult leader. I've listened to many Bandler seminars and have heard Bandler repeat all sorts of New Age and Crowley Magick doctrine. Bandler -- not unlike a witchdoctor which claims (s)he can place hexes on enemies -- claims he can give someone a phobia. The cover art of Frogs, Magic, and Tranceformations is distinctively New Age and the metaphors of the wizard and magical change recur in the early Bandler and Grinder seminars. Carlos Castaneda -- a seminal New Age writer -- was a major influence on B&G (especially Grinder) during th time when NLP was being formulated. One of the Magic volumes (I don't have it with me) contains a lengthy quotation from one of Carlos Castaneda's writings. flavius 00:28, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

So yes, even at its core, NLP proponents are using highly dubious and extreme cult characteristics and techniques in order to control things for their own benefit. Many other cults have also used the techniques in this way, plus the very new age aspects of NLP in order to do what scientologists do (claim you have enormous resources and can do the impossible and charge lots of money while providing ineffective solutions under conditions of social pressure) ATB AliceDeGrey 04:12, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

again, taking the worst of some topic and using it to condemn the whole concept. Do the main developers of NLP advocate drinking urine? Or is this simply yet another example of Eric Rudolph? FuelWagon 14:22, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Alice, Would you be able to give any references to your accusations against Bandler.. what CD?. I've personally heard some bad things about Bandler that I believe, but your exagerrations suprise me. And "Cults also mix NLP with other therapies such as drinking urine."... I'm amazed you think this is even remotely relevant... "urine drinking is as pseudoscientific as NLP"... GregA

"Bandler Doing Bandler" is one such example. It from the mid-80s (IIRC) when Bandler was still using cocaine. Between his constant nose sniffing (which he tells his audience is due to an allergy -- yeah right) he swears profusely, antagonizes his audience, tells all manner of apocryphal stories and bold lies. flavius 06:50, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

I haven't heard it, I appreciate you giving a name though. So lots of accusations against bandler. To stay on track here - would you care to show ANY relevance to Alice relating NLP and urine drinking? GregA 12:21, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

FYI "Bandler Doing Bandler" is subtitled "An NLP Perspective on Ericksonian Hypnosis" (IIRC). Bandler's NeuroHypnotic Repatterning (which is just old wine in new bottles that Bandler could trademark) tape set is also quite "instructive". I'm suprised that someone that has decided to fly the NLP flag is unfamiliar with Bandler's body of work. I'll allow Alice to explain her post. The relevance of the urine drinking -- as I understand it -- is that it is an act of commitment that prompts subsequent behavioural consistency and alters self-identity in such a way that adherence to the "cult" is reinforced. If you spent 10 years and tens of thousands of dollars on NLP seminars and have made NLP a part of (or perhaps the totality of) your world-view discovering that it doesn't work will not necessarily cause you to exit the NLP granfalloon. The cost -- in terms of dollars, time, cognitive dissonance and self-identity -- may be too great, making it easier to stay (see Robert Cialdini's Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion). Thus if you have drunk the bath water of Asahara Shoko (Aum Shinrikyo see http://religiousmovements.lib.virginia.edu/nrms/aums.html and http://www.cdi.org/terrorism/AumShinrikyo.cfm) for example, there is a good reason to continue beliving he is god incarnate, otherwise the consequences are personally devastating. flavius 00:55, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Flavius, Correction: "Bandler doing Bandler" is subtitled: Hypnosis and Submodalities. Notice that this is not core NLP, but an application NLP patterns. NHR is also not NLP. They are both influenced by NLP. Bandler does recommend people read Cialdini's book on this web site. All that stuff about cults is not relevant. --Comaze 01:18, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

It IS interesting that you say Bandler sues people, and so do Scientologists.... and that NLP fans consider them to be similar based on this restriction of freedom? That's a pretty loose reason to associate 2 things together... stronger than both groups speaking English, but really... your bias is extreme. GregA 05:41, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Bandler's troubled existence is well documented (see Richard Bandler). I have one of Bandler's DHE seminars on CD and at many times it descends into pure New Age bunkum. For example, Bandler alludes to the Akashic record and he claims he can attain telescopic vision by "hallucinating" a pair of binoculars. Also John Grinder sprinkles his seminars with references to Carlos Castaneda. flavius 06:49, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Flavius, you are failing to make the distinction between pattern and content (structure and story). --Comaze 00:47, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

How so? flavius 01:17, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Ask yourself what Bateson-NLP patterns have been identified by Grinder in Castenda, a few examples to get you started... Bateson's Multiple descriptions (see Whispering), Erickson's Double inductions (see Transformations p.83), what else? --Comaze 01:26, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Just deleted a paragraph of my response... since you still didn't address your association of "Bandler sues people, scientologists sue people, therefore Bandler is a scientologist"... you've just brought up more claims without addressing the first ones which I was replying to.

This is more NLP bunkum. I appreciate the difference between form and content and that conceptual distinction is not relevant here. The notion that there is a "pure NLP" on the one hand and "NLP applications" on the other is a false dichotomy that is promulgated for the purpose of product differentiation. There is no such thing as "pure NLP", there are no such things as "pure" patterns or structures. Are the Meta-Model or the Milton Model patterns without content? flavius 03:22, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Patterns contain content, of course. And our content, the stuff we do, often forms in patterns. Content that repeats itself, where you can have something happen at the beginning and you know (from past experience) what's likely to happen at the end. The trick is to identify which parts of what you're seeing are not part of the pattern. For example - if every time you eat a chocolate icecream you get sick - this is a pattern (one we haven't explored much). We may use various techniques to explore this. If we learn that every time you eat ANY icecream you get sick, then this is a more accurate pattern (the "chocolate" part of "chocolate icecream" was 'content'... since it didn't matter in the 'pattern'!). It really comes down to the basic modeling goals - finding the necessary and sufficient elements of the pattern, such that all of the elements are part of the pattern and removing one element (eg icecream) stops the pattern from occurring. This is where the talk of occams razor came in a few months back.

So to your question - is the meta-model a pattern without content? Since pattern is a specific type of content, removing all content will remove all patterns. Does the meta-model have unnecessary content for eliciting the patterns? Well, John Grinder has been arguing that some of the meta-model pattern is infact unnecessary (hence 'content'), and that the meta-model can be reduced to asking "what specifically" and "how specifically". GregA 04:46, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Further to my previous remark, Grinder appears to be haunted by the academic trends and fashions in the humanities that were dominant at the time he was lecturing at UC Santa Cruz. Structuralism was the dominant school of thought/mode of analysis in the humanities in the 70s (when Grinder was teaching) in partcular in lingusitics (which is what Grinder lectured in). The influence of Structuralism on NLP is evident. The notion of "pure NLP" versus "applications/patterns" is very Structuralist. Unfortunately the concepts of Structuralism (along with the concepts of many other disciplines and schools of thought) were pilfered by B&G to give NLP a thin veneer of conceptual sophistication and apparently deep intellectual antecedent. B&Gs use of Structuralist theory is as superficial and simplistic as their use of Transformational Grammar, Automata Theory and epistemological theory. The distinction between (pure) NLP and NLP patterns is mere marketing. flavius 03:52, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

flavius, I gave you page reference to connect Castaneda to Grinder and you seem to ignore it. Anyway, I'm attempting to collaborate with you (flavius) here. What are you thoughts on the meta model and milton model and being based on formal mathematics (see 4-tuple and 6-tuple as presented by Bandler & Grinder between 1975-1978). According to Grinder and Bandler this is pattern --- pure and simple.. --Comaze 03:41, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Comaze, the notion that the Meta-Model and Milton Model are predicated on automata theory -- I think (since you've asked me) -- is nonsense. B&G knew that most of the readers of Magic and Patterns won't have had any exposure to computer science theory and discrete mathematics so they put it in their as a means of "blinding their readers with (pseudo-)science". The automata theory adds nothing to their presentation so I can't conceive of any reason -- other than semiotic trickery -- to include it. I defer my opinion to experts that know more about linguistics than I do. NLP has had no impact on linguistic theory or psycholinguistics. Levelt -- a preeminent psycholinguist -- regards NLP to be total bunkum. Also, there is nothing "pure" about the Meta-Model or the Milton Model they are both techniques. As models they are lacking because they are incorrect (i.e. the map has no relation to the territory). The Meta-Model and the Milton model are merely a collection of speech idioms used by two clinicians. flavius 04:12, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong... it's a great strategy for confusing stuff... it is just useless. GregA 12:21, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Oh I listened to one of his tapes a while back, and Bandler talks about the ultrasonic or whatever background he uses. He actually said that he recorded the sound of cheering and overlaid the sound with the frequency of an orgasm:) This is really quite wierd. Now I don't know the frequency of his orgasm, but I don't see how it can be a constant.

There are also some parts of Bandler's audio that are supposed to talk directly to the subconscious and result in effortless learning. Now this is something to be explored, as there is just about zero evidence for practical effortless subconscious learning. This is similar to superlearning or suggestopedia or sleep learning that went on in the 70s and simply did not work. I will do my best to present the research on that one. I remember now that there was some criticism on this point. Regards HeadleyDown 11:38, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

HeadleyDown, What you describe here is NOT NLP. You are failing to make the distinction between pattern and content. --Comaze 12:17, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

This is a conceptual distinction which is part of the NLP metaphysical baggage. Why would someone that is critical of NLP take on board a fundamental plank of NLP dogma? flavius 03:22, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

The following pages are illuminating (Warning: Both of these are thick with psychobable):

http://nlpschedule.com/reviews/rb-la-97-1.html

http://www.paulmckenna.com/article19.htm

The first makes it plain that Bandler's teaching of NLP incorporates elements of Crowley's Magick and other New Age themes. It also makes reference to Bandler's process of "unconcious installation" in which he magically installs complex skills directly into the "unconscious mind" of his students. The second devotes much space to explaining the wonders of "Accelerated Unconscious Installation"(TM-of course) and how it makes it possible to condense 21 days of training in 7 days (with better outcomes!). flavius 01:14, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Yow Flavius! Look at all those amazing clinical skills: "Practitioner: Multi-level communication; form, content, form of content, tacking multiple patterns, modal operators and sequences, strategy elicitation and chaining, using submodalities to drive strategies. Tonal and kinesthetic anchoring, state-chains, propulsion systems through posthypnotic sug. Hypnosis, mixed-state communication, eliciting trance phenomena, integrating Milton model with basic techniques of NLP, stacking presuppositions to create change,

Magick, receiving and projecting energy / states, seeing auras, meditation and deep trance Strategies." multilevel communcation

Let me explain:

Look, clearly they meant to say "stage magic" you know, with magic wands and sawing ladies in half, just like they do in clinical psychology
Seeing auras is also a highly respected medical training as is taught by most respected alcoholic doctors.
And of course, meditation is what we all do during clinical psychotherapy sessions. You know, when the psychotherapist has eyes closed and goes, MMMMMMM, MMMMMMM, during the session
Multilevel communication is simply a way of telling truth whilst fibbing through your teeth. Just like when a surgeon tells you - "oh, yes you will be absolutely fine" when you are in fact going to die slowly and horribly within the fortnight. Or when you get knocked down in the street, and the doctors tell the media you are in a "comfortable condition" when in fact you are laying in agony covered in plaster with pins sticking out of every limb. The secret to this technique is to tell the fib and rub your finger and arm along the philtrum of your nose in long side to side sawing actions.
Form, content and form of content, are actually intermediate level. If you are lucky they will also teach content of form.
Tacking multiple patterns is actually a useful sewing technique that is also probably used in brain surgery, either way it is useful for stitching people up Cheers DaveRight 03:51, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Very good ;-) What is taught in NLP seminars is often more questionable than what is published in NLP books. You will find similar New Age and occult themes in Tad James', Carmine Baffa's and Kenrick Clevelands's seminars. flavius 04:25, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

No Comaze. NLP talks of speaking directly to the unconscious. So far, even hypnotherapists say that is pseudoscience. And to claim effortless learning is also against the nature of learning according to more than one theory of learning. These criticisms have been made by more people than me. HeadleyDown 16:15, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, and none of this addresses my response to flavius which related NLP to scientology based on Bandler suing people. Anyway, yeah, unconscious learning probably has a place in the article.... NLP is a big field. GregA 12:21, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

GregA. I think you are confusing me with AliceDeGrey. Alice posted the rematrk about urine and about litigation and Scientology. Your uptime anchor may not be firing ;-) flavius 01:17, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

I feel I should remind people, this is a discussion page. We can be speculative. Part of the reason for this is corroboration, and for sense making, and for verification as a reality check. There has been quite a lot of accusation of bias from proNLPers towards the language of nonproNLPers. I have noticed that the language of nonproNLPers is consistent with that of the scientific papers that review NLP. They use words such as flake, fad, cult, psychopablum, pseudoscience, and so on, as do we. We are only reflecting what science is saying. Of course it will be offensive to proNLPers, but we should not shy away from offensive material on Wikipedia. Stand back and realize why Drenth and others have been so critical. The fact is, the books are incriminating enough in terms of pseudoscience. But what goes on in seminars, meetings, therapies, audio recordings and such is far more damning. This does rather support the fact that the scientific reviewers, and the journalists, and even the bloggers, are being quite fair and neutral about NLP when they make their criticisms. Regards HeadleyDown 16:26, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] My response (OK its me DaveRight 02:24, 21 November 2005 (UTC))

Yo Headley. It sounds much more reasonable the way you tell it:) I think this'll give everyone a better chance for all to completely assess what each other writes. The chances are, we will be better able to judge the sections for what they are. Actually one think I read on the NPOV page the last time I read it (about 2million years BC) was that it doesn't matter so much if an article looks like total propaganda. Deletion isn't necessary, but balancing with science will help. So we can always keep it balanced. I think that is fair. Anyway, that looks like another benefit. Is it me or do the proNLPers seem to be deliberately ignoring this point? DaveRight 02:24, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Hallo again. I reckon you are right about the reader's view. It doesn't matter whether its a flake or a scientist, whoever reads the current page is going to be phased by having "science that shows NLP doesn't work, Claims to science (as if NLP is really doing its best job to be fraudulent, and then the pseudoscience section. A reader'll look at those three as if they are a big boot up the arse for NLP. And then come the criticisms! Wierd! This'll also be made worse if you have actually read other similar articles, who do actually put all the criticisms (including science) into a single section. Thats confusing AND inconsistent. I also reckon we could take those 3 sections, put them into the criticisms section and cut them down to about a couple of paras each while applying them properly to the criticisms without any extra underlining, repeating, or undue emphasis or reiterations that make the proNLPers so sleepless at night tossing and turning and gnashing their teeth and pulling out their hair as they do. This should work well. I still think the best thing will be the lower section is generally out of sight. Most flakes will be blinkered towards the shining example of post-modernist psychotechnololgy in the above section, that they will not even notice the criticisms section. Or they'll just see the word "criticisms" and go "Yuk! What a bunch of skeptical uncool and heavy negative looooosers"(Just as some of Greg's recruits did:) and they'll just turn their noses up and drift off on their righteously mellow way. Cheers DaveRight 02:45, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Dave - you're calling NLP supporters "Most flakes ..."? Mentioning Headley's allegations of my "recruiting?. It's a good thing we don't do personal attacks. GregA 05:41, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Hey Greg, are you trying to start a fight?:) I was just explaining what the odd situations are as they stand and what is likely to happen in future. And proposing solutions. Cheers DaveRight 03:33, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Sure Dave, it does seem to be a reasonable arrangement. I also rankle at the thought that NLP gets primacy, but needs must when the devil keeps deleting science just because a couple of words are out of place. Basically, allow NLP to have it's say and then put the concise section on science within criticisms to explain the criticisms for the sake of clarity and to keep all the nasties in one section. AliceDeGrey 03:20, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

~~Dave~~... The bias increases! Are you saying we are "devils"? GregA 05:41, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi Greg. You are calling Alice Dave, and really I think you have accused far too many people of bias when in fact they seem to be explaining their points pretty constructively and clearly. HeadleyDown 11:33, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Each accusation of bias is specifically stated,

[27]., it's a pity the replies don't address them. I don't care who I'm accusing, each made some pretty strong assertions and presuppositions. The points are one thing, the implicit messages are biased. Though yes I called Alice Dave in the last paragraph - sorry Alice, sorry Dave. GregA 12:21, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Hello Greg. I must say, you have often provided hope that we can work together, no matter what you have done previously. Like a lot of people are saying, the fact remains, there must be some kind of cooperation. You have provided the most honest and authentic voice amongsts the proNLP team, in a way that distinguishes you from the others. I expect no compromise from you. The fact is, NLP perspective is different from scientific or clinical psychology perspective. This can work. Your devotion to the science is a sign of your persistance. There is no hope of finding NLP scientifically supported, though I understand your persistance. However, your willingness to represent editor's views honestly puts you in quite a position of power. Like I said, you are in a position to voice the views of NLP proponents, and you have the credentials. What I would like to do is give a full hearing to all sides. I realise it is impractical to discuss and disrupt a monologue full flow. It is time for science to listen and give full space to NLP in a prime position. Whatever science does afterwards will do it's best (according to my effort(I don't know about others)) to match and balance your view. Then, of course, you/you all will make adjustments, and I/we will make adjustments, and the dance will go on and refine itself until it stabilizes somehow. I believe this is a good way to go. I am open to suggestion, as I feel, are others. HeadleyDown 14:44, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Headley, as usual your words seem fair and reasonable and it even sounds like we might work something out without arbitration. As I said to arbcom though, I often have no problem with your words, just with your actions. As you know from my other replies, I support NLP proponents clearly representing NLP (with the proviso of being realistic and representative of what NLP is), and though you say you support this you continue to insist NLP is something it's not (you have no grasp of the fundamental tenets/principles, and keep insisting spiritual linkages). It is also unfortunate that you can't even consider that there is supporting psychological research on NLP.

The article as it stands does not say everything you say you want represented, nor does it say what I want represented. However, it does offer a sometimes contradictory stance and misrepresents NLP in several ways - it will successfully mislead a reader who wants to know what NLP is. If a cynical editor wanted to achieve that, they would likely be quite pleased with the article as it stands - and quite frankly I believe this may be your goal. Both representing NLP as a pseudoscience, or ensuring the page is confusing, achieve the same ends of detering a reader from investigating NLP. Anyway, hopefully Arbcom will have something to say about that.

Lastly, I note your implication here that I've done something wrong. "you... provide hope that we can work together, no matter what you have done previously". If you wish to accuse, say it blatantly (again?). GregA 22:11, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Space for balance

Hello Everyone, Just reading the article and it still lacks balance. The NLP section that describes processes does not state a true statement of intention. It is technical and the general public might not see it's purpose for being there. Could there be a section before the scientific and criticism sections that states that NLP is taught with the intention of improving the quality of life and self esteem of individuals and applied in business fields for optimum performance and gaining new skills etc...which is the nature of any therapeutic art or business training. A lot of the other stuff that is mentioned seems to be the misuse of NLP by individuals. Richard Bandler is not NLP Nor are some of the others that use NLP "Dubiously". I think this is NPOV NLP trainings generally do undertake this role and as so it is fact. Oh, And I'm hardly ripping my hair out Dave but thanks for the concern. Cheers everyone. Justin

Hello Justin. Glad we are getting back to practicalities. I believe there are many aspects of the article that are not balanced, but that will improve when we get a chance to make it briefer and better prioritised. Some information can be assumed. Of course therapies are not intended to harm people. There are other sections that do state that is not what NLP is about though. For example a significant view states that NLP is only beneficial for the NLP salesman or NLP therapist. You may think that Bandler is not NLP, but there are sources placing him as central to NLP and central to dubious practices. In the end it doesn't matter what your view is, the facts are clear from the literature.

I do think the present solution will work though. Giving full space for each view will help. If the views are uninterrupted by critique on one hand or excuse on the other, then we can really get all the most important facts down. Balance will be a matter of adding or condensing items that are lower down on our respective priority lists, according to how much weight the respective subject areas have. JPLogan 02:30, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Well guys, how come all the proNLPers are completely against the idea of having a - NLP first, critics second - article? Is there something going on there? Are they waiting for arbitrators to delete all the accounts of nonpronlp editors because they are uncool enough to not constantly promote NLP? I will be generous and put it down to FT2 and others being worn out from writing extra wikilinked subpages for promoting NLP. Cheers DaveRight 03:31, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

When an article is stating what something is, then it usually follows the format of stating what the pro-view says it is, followed by what the anti-view says it is. When a section is strictly to criticize something outside of what it "is", then it is usually in the form of anti-view criticism followed by pro-view rebuttal. FuelWagon 04:30, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Greetings FuelWagon. Well that sounds a bit confusing and ripe for disagreement building. I'd also like to talk about practical measures to stop people attacking each other or changing quoted text and a lot of the other problems we seem to be having here. I noticed you stated you were tired of various negative activities, and I also suffer from the same exasperation. If a rebuttal is to be made after a criticism, there is almost guaranteed for another criticism of that rebuttal. Should that be disallowed and where do we stop? And just imagine how the text would look. Yes no yes no yes no all the way. People would be editing each others crits and rebuts and really getting in each other's way and causing a lot of grevous agro. However, if the sections were there to balance each other, there would be a general balancing act going on, but there would be far less chance of people deleting each other's work or changing it subtly to rehash or reframe things their way and so on. I also know that you are proNLP and would love to make the engram stuff in the opening disappear as well as other quite incriminating information, and this is pretty much going to happen under the pro-crit arrangement. I can only see you winning under such an arrangement. Less work to do, less hastle, and a relatively out of sight set of criticisms. Remember also, that a rebuttal after the criticisms will draw attention to the criticisms, rather than explain NLP from an NLP view, and from what I see, all the NLP rebuttals are lame and after reading the pseudoscience section, they will seem even worse. Also, a lot of the rebuttals in NLP are preemptive or similar to cop out clauses. So if you have people wanting to add more and more to the rebuttal (guaranteed), you will end up with another war. I believe the NPOV page (or is it the tutorial?) states that if you come to an article and see it is not balanced, don't delete or start a war, just balance it using facts. The solution to the NLP article will be to tackle the problems specific to NLP and the NLP editors. That'll be far easier (less work) with the proNLP and the crits clearly distinguished and not treading on each other's toes all the time. Bookmain 06:27, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

It does sound a bit confusing... I think the spirit of what you suggest is useful - somewhere to write what NLP claims. Somewhere to criticise. We are in a position where a skeptic doesn't need to "write for the enemy", nor does an NLP practitioner need to "write for the enemy" - since we have those 2 sides. I believe this article would be far shorter if we didn't rewrite each other until neither side is represented in a paragraph, after which we subsequently add more info. Now I don't think that has to be represented by "pro then con" - but the separation into 2 sections would be valuable for our editing sanity. I suggest that both a pro and con section has to talk about the other section to some degree, and ultimately we need to set it out in whatever way makes most sense, and is readable, with the goal of fairly representing both sides (through either mutual agreement, or some editor such as voice-of-all that we agree to).

There is a flaw to this. It's not as simple as "NLP works great" vs "it's a pseudoscience". There are differences in the NLP claims (see the Bandler discussion that's starting). And if Rep Systems were the only processes of NLP it'd make the science easily a criticism - however there are studies of other NLP processes, and there are outcome-based studies (which lack appropriate controls mainly) which need to be represented as well. Some psychologists seem to equate NLP with Rep Systems still, and the reviews of NLP studies seem to be heavily Rep System based, though you may have some other sources.

I'm just saying it's not black and white, but I think representing like this is possibly the only way in a collaborative edit with 2 strong views. However, we are now in arbitration - arbcom can take a look at what's going on and who is doing what - and help to make this article work. My words (or yours) here may make sense but it's actions that matter, so I ask them to judge the actions. When I suggested representing Pro and Con a month ago I got no comments and when I attempted to do it for one section I was constantly reverted - I no longer trust that this idea would actually be followed, the proof is in the actions... so we'll see what we see. GregA 07:44, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

There are also supporting scientific studies of some NLP processes (the rep system stuff is far less supported).

G'day Greg. I think we are getting somewhere. FT2 seems to be still off in a huff somewhere because his multitude of niggles on the request for arb page did not turn out to be so crushingly and diabolically illegal after all:)

Anyway, we could do without his sort for now. I understand your distrust of the situation, although we would be in quite a different situation with a fair amount more amused scrutiny from the Wiki Gods.

Though perhaps you are right to some extent, considering Comaze was deleting huge tracts of facts from the article even during the latter part of mediation. We may still have Comaze doing that, plus FuelWagon deleting science due to minor speeling misatkes, and FT2 adding comments such as "well actually NLP gets huge support from every psychoanalyst in the universe", or "Well, if NLP works for destructive doomesday cults, then it works for me":).

But I'm sure the Gods are on the side of reason in this case. I see your science project is still on the go, though it is clear also that you are trying to Frankenstein a dead horse. I couldn't imagine a more likely situation for war. Greg etal's research against Drenth/Lilienfeld/and so on's expert view.

It doesn't matter how you phrase it "Pubmed has these on their database and......um I can't say because I am not an expert, but these all say NLP is super, and those other negative stuck up snotty ones say NLP is demonworship". There will be constant deletion/reversion over how those various papers are presented or whether they are presented at all. It doesn't matter how you, I, Flavius, or anyone else presents those references, they will be incomplete, and will have a particular bias. They will also take up a huge amount of time and space, and lead to all kinds of problems in the article itself due to people making their own conclusions.

The expert view is that the NLP is scientifically unsupported overall, and I cannot see any area of NLP that gets support. PRS is a major part of NLP, but there are a great many other studies out there that neg it and diss it in many other nasty ways. What do the experts say? The few studies showing support for NLP are flawed, and the studies that falsify NLP assumptions and efficacy are fine(Lilenfeld, Drenth, and the others). That's the accepted encyclopedic way of doing it.

On the other hand, in reality to a great extent, NLP tends to distance itself from science in both philosophy and practice. It is quite definitely new age, and although it uses psychobabble it's also quite a dashing cavalier - a renegade. Why should NLP even bother itself with science? It certainly hasn't so far! If you seperate NLP totally from science, in the eyes of a lot of readers it gains higher ground. Science is crap! Hey dudes, science is so negative, lets just stick to our guns and go the way of eclecticsm and pragmatism. Scientific nitpicking can go hang. It works and we have a million anecdotes to prove it! With the pro-criticism organization you probably have space to post an exemplary testimonial of your choice. That's pretty much where NLP stands anyway. Teach through anecdote, and do what works.

I think one quite convincing excuse that can be stated in the opening is that, one higher value of NLP is to be non judgmental. Sounds great! Just emphasize that in the NLP section and you are well away. Science will be seen as a bunch of judgmental fusspot cynics who have not one practical hair on their heads, and all they do is try to squash the magic and rain on the parade. To me that looks like a win win. DaveRight 09:23, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Gday again. I had a vision of the NLP pro section as it might be. Basically remove all early criticism (there is a lot). Put your modeling/rs/principles in whatever way you like. Take all criticisms from the applications section. Probably remove the energy section altogether, you never liked it. So you have removed all those claims and removed early critical bitching, and emphasized the nature of NLP: A lovely postmodern view of life that makes you happier to be alive in this crazy world. You could even state that NLPers generally prefer to stay aloof to criticisms as they strive to be non-judgmental (as long as you could provide some evidence for that (I think Dilts does a lot of that stuff)).

Then we have our dastardly evil-scientist/Christian fundamentalist Communist-anti-cult/anti-freedom section labeled: CRITICISMS! KEEP OUT! Cheers DaveRight 09:45, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

I would have to agree, Dave. Perhaps JP and Flavius may have different ideas, but I say we can present all arguments and facts in seperate sections quite well using these popular perceptions. Certainly NLP is attractive to people more because of the magic/Derren Brown stage hypnosis/mesmerism/human potential/new age/open minded liberalism factors, more than the claims to science aspects. The fact is, NLP proponents do not precisely claim NLP to be science, they generally only infer it for promotion purposes in some circumstances. Some critics do complain that it pretends to be science and that can be handled later.

So NLP is elusive, magical, mystical, self-helpful, alternatively theraputic, gift from god, and is full of wild mavericks from Esalen institute who look like old progressive rockers. NLP proponents have managed to make that image attractive/fair, so I'm sure proponents can do that here in their own section. Science will always be the skeptic but that can be kept to its own skeptical section with all the other skeptics. Perhaps its just spiritual cavaliers vs puritanical roundheads. Best regards HeadleyDown 11:43, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Hello Headley, Dave and all. I think its our best option. NLP survives and even thrives on damage control. Look at the developers: Bandler doesn't give a hoot about science and just wants to do his charismatic change thing. Grinder focusses on epistemology to avoid the science trap, and he does is well. Tony Robbins is undeniably charismatic and successful, and promotes NLP all the time. Cavalier rebels? Maybe. In the therapy world, NLP is defititely alternative, business sees NLP as a motivational hypnosis seminar with a few whacky tricks thrown in and some self help wisdom.

So how about something like this?:

Opening = representitive of article
NLP goals and brief hint at where it is applied and who likes to apply it
Some principles and a bit about epistemology and how that helps
History to show where the principles came from and perhaps about the charismatic aspects
Some technique (mirroring/matching perhaps, and stuff about reading people and change)
Applications with a testimonial/example or two

Criticisms-- Science findings by experts (brief)
Pseudoscience section
Criticisms/worries from clinical psychologists/biz
New age dubious aspects (cultishness, associations with psi/emdr etc)
Dislike for commercial promotions/fads

[edit] Damage Control for NLP

I would say damage control would involve keeping the article brief (to avoid writing in too many obscurantisms) and that would restrict the size of the criticisms also. It doesn't really matter how that top section is arranged. The science and scientific conclusions and criticisms will always be the same. If the top section uses aspects of charisma/epistemology/and all the other things people like about NLP, then I think the article will be presented fairly. However, if you do an FT2 and write reams of unbalanced obscurantic info, then people are going to have to talk about Russian NLP mass suicide cults and so on, or give details of Bandler's more seedy existence. As the proNLPers have demanded so much from the scientists here, I think it is up to the proNLPers to make the first moves, and then we can follow suit.JPLogan 02:25, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Hello folks. The biggest problem on this article is resistance. The proNLPers, especially the likes of FuelWagon, flatly deny the facts. For example, the new age label is written all over NLP. Its completely undeniable. NLP is scientifically unsupported. There is still nonsense going on about providing anchor point articles to deny that. Also, instead of proNLPers just admitting that NLP prefers to use anecdote and exemplar, rather than science to support it's claims, they are still hoping for miracles, or demanding more facts (that get supplied and subsequently deleted). Following suggestions from the above, I did look at the Dilt's sites and they do seem to be pretty cool headed and zen. It does seem to be a significant view that NLP prefers to be non judgmental. This is also because it fosters new age philosophies (prayer is not enough, state change is necessary, and all religions and views are valid, and your resources are unlimited even to the degree where you can change reality/subjective reality to some extent). If these factors are presented in the proNLP section, plus the info about epistemology/NLP flexible views for self help and so on, then damage is indeed reduced. It may not reduce criticism, but it would put criticism in a whole new light. Any further ideas? Bookmain 05:48, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm afraid that your definition of what "proNLP" is is misguided. I mean, NLP did start at the same time as many New Age movements, and does share some characteristics. But it has no religious or spiritual belief associated with it. Those beliefs can be modeled, religious "experiences" can be modeled to - but this is more in line with saying the beliefs are actually physically replicable - you could well argue that NLP takes the spirit OUT of spirituality in some ways. Your comment

"This is also because it fosters new age philosophies (prayer is not enough, state change is necessary, and all religions and views are valid, and your resources are unlimited even to the degree where you can change reality/subjective reality to some extent)"

is off base. Prayer is not enough...? Not enough for what? State change is necessary... for what? NLP has no religious belief associated at all ... religion is a different field to NLP. It's like saying "electricians consider all religions and views to be valid"... it is probably reasonably true, you can have a light globe no matter what you believe. And you continue to misrepresent the presupposition that we have the resources we need - it never says this is true, just that people who believe they are able to change are actually more likely to be able to change. This is what concerns me about your saying "let the ProNLPers talk". If I expressed the above clearly, would you allow it? GregA 07:20, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Hello Greg. I think you should look up explanations for new age. New age does not recommend one religion, it is global and eclectic. NLP is the same. New age and NLP evolved together, and they were even together geographically surrounding Esalen institute. Both Bandler and Grinder attended and spoke there. Fritz Perls was quite influential there and got up to all sorts. He was also a strong proponent of Zen concepts and meditation (awareness). He did not invent gestalt psychology (which is mainstream) but he did more or less originate gestalt therapy (which is also fringe and often quite new age in it's approach). There are SO many authors/proponents/critics/websites who write about NLP and give it the new age label. Quite a lot of the research on NLP actually states that it is a new age therapy. But this is all advantageous for you. Firstly it makes it contemporary. It also makes it popular. Look at the self help/new age section of the bookstores, also take into account the ideas floating around in newspapers, women's and lad's magazines, in fact the whole of popular media including TV and film. It is full of new ager's looking quite glamorous in an earthy way. Richard Branson/Madonna/Angelina Jolie and many others have that new age view. Some of the ideas are even popular in business circles. The new age association really is indesputible, so make the most of it. There are plenty of benefits, and it does to a certain degree immunise/seperate NLP from science and convention. Regards HeadleyDown 14:03, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

NLP is New Age in terms of period of origin, influences, (post-modernist) worldview, implicit metaphysics, epistemology, participant "interest clusters" and even technique. It is not coicidental that most (perhaps all) of the pricipal NLP trainers (Bandler, Grinder, La Valle, McKenna, Breen, James, Dilts) incorporate mystical/spiritual/quasi-religious themese into their instruction. I can elaborate on the matter of NLP/New Age if necessary. flavius 23:54, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

HeadleyDown, Some trainers/practitioners (eg. Grinder) completely reject the New Age uncritical ideas about power, energy, forces, spirit, cosmic goals; see the work of Gregory Bateson (eg. Angels Fear) and Bertrand Russell's logical positivism. Using the same logic, some NLP practitioners are academics (eg. Tom Malloy); this does not classify NLP as an academic field. --Comaze 23:21, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Comaze, you do like to drop names but unfortunately your name dropping is entirely affectatious and without substance. Are you saying that (heaven forbid) Bertrand Russell (who wasn't a Logical Positivist by the way, Russell is termed an "analytic philosopher" by other philosophers) was somehow implicated in the NLP granfalloon (even though he died in 1970)! Bertrand Russell's entire life work is fundamentally at odds with the project of NLP. NLP promotes a form of idealism which Russell rejected absolutely. Russell was an epistemological realist. Russell was vehemently opposed to mystification and obscurantism (two features of NLP) and he was a strong supporter of the scientific method and the project of science. Grinder does what he has always done in "Whispering in the Wind", he name drops in a manner like you do. Russell's Theory of Types in Whispering serves the same semiotic role as Automata Theory in Magic I&II. It is intended to give Grinder's second-rate (amateur) philosophising a semblance of depth to non-philosophers. Also, the material in Whispering regarding the putative unreliability of the human senses is lifted from the first chapter of Russell's "Problems of Philosophy" (http://www.ditext.com/russell/rus1.html). "Problems of Philosophy" is used as a first year/first semester undergraduate introduction to philosophy. Russell's argument presented in the first chapter (and by implication Grinder's in Whispering) is easily refuted by most undergraduate students. Russell himself came to reject his notion of intermediate sense data. It appears though that Dr Grinder's (amateur) philosophical investigations did not extend beyond the first year/first semsester level. flavius 00:37, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Bertrand Russell influence dates back to the first book on NLP, Structure I (1975); see also Whispering (2002), Dilts Encyclopedia (online)... This may have entered via John Grinder's PhD in Chomsky's transformational grammar. I'll check Turtles for Grinder's 1986 epistemological positioning of NLP. Tom Malloy (university of utah) has joined John Grinder and Carmen Bostic St Clair as co-authors of their new book further explicating the epistemology of NLP. See Malloy's site a University of Utah for more info, see overarching framework. --Comaze 11:17, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Comaze. Bertrand Russell was not a Logical Positivist. Logical Positivists reject the branch of philosophy known as metaphysics as 'meaningless'. Russell wrote much on metaphysics. Dilts' Russell article in his Encyclopedia is ill-informed. Russell's Theory of Types was actually used to support refutations of Logical Positivism, specifically the "criterion of verifiability". Russell is categorised as an 'Analystic Philosopher' (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/russell/). Furthermore, Russell's Theory of Types does not enjoy much currency today, the elimination of self-reference also eliminates particular branches of abstract mathematics and cognitive theory. Russell himself came to reject the Theory. (See http://www.iep.utm.edu/p/par-russ.htm, http://www.cs.cornell.edu/Info/Projects/NuPrl/Intro/TypeSetDomain/typesetd.html, http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/russell-paradox/, http://www.steveandreas.com/whispering.html) Grinder's philosophising is not taken seriously by any respected philosopher. Grinder is entirely unremarkable and even uninteresting as a epistemologist. Grinder's triumph is to be able to present banality as profundity to a philosophically naive audience. Grinder and Bostic-St Calire's leisurely -- and they are leisurely its not serious scholarship -- excursions into undergraduate epistemology are best understood as an apologetic for barstool theorising. In response to the heavy empirical assault NLP has received from scientists and clinicians Grinder -- more scholarly than Bandler -- has retreated into introspection and philosophical musing. Bandler simply ignores all criticsm, the solipsist fish tank that he inhabits has been cleansed thoroughly of any criticism -- he is surrounded by sycophants (eg. La Valle, Breen, McKenna). Grinder -- on the other hand -- has decided to negate all criticism directed against NLP by formulating an epistemological position for NLP which will somehow, magically make all the criticism irrelevant. When he eventually publishes his "Red Tail Math" I expect that his followers will repeat the teachings contained therein as Gospel to anyone that will listen. flavius 03:42, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Regarding overarching framework.. I honestly can't see how any of this in any way substantiates or justifies NLP. Cellular Automata produce unexpected and sometimes complicated behaviour. So what? The site is incoherent, it is a motley collection of articles and Java applets relating to Cellular Automata without any apparent purpose or 'overarching framework'. This reminds me of the awful New Age film 'What the #$*! Do We (K)now!?'[[28]] that attempted to use Quantum Physics to substantiate and justify the New Age teachings of JZ Knight (who 'channels' the 30,000 year old spirit Ramtha that happens to speak English with a Hindi accent). What exactly are Grinder, Malloy and St. Clair trying to tell us? Cellular Automata can produce stripey patterns therefore we can dispense with the scientific method and just make stuff up in relation to human psychology? Please enlighten me? flavius 03:42, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't consider Richard Bandler to be the essence of NLP. Others have argued to me he is looked down upon by the NLP community so which way is it? It seems to me his more recent work puts a different spin on the original material. Besides the sectionI propose was about NLP noit what people have done with it. To write about what different people have done with it would be another sectionJustin

Your remark appears to presuppose that there is an "essence" of NLP. There is no such thing. NLP is not covered by any form of standards body, it is factionalised and each "school" takes on some aspects of the character of its proponent. In Lakatos' terms its research program is degenerating, i.e. it has data looking for a theory, so theories are grafted based on the peculiar interests of the proponent. NLP is what is taught as NLP in books, seminars, tapes and websites. This is self-referential but NLP has no clearly defined scope and limits nor fundamental principles that all proponents agree upon (consider Meta programs for example). flavius 04:39, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes Students are encouraged to choose presuppositions/beleif systems relevant to the way they want to grow. This is classic NLP too. Justin

Justin, Flavius, can we agree that the essense of NLP is referring to the classic or core NLP as defined between 1972-1979 (Structure 1&2, Patterns 1&2, Frogs into Princes, NLP vol.1, Reframing)? The core models are based patterns on Milton H. Erickson, Virginia Satir, Fritz Perls and Transformation syntax - all major schools of NLP agree that this is the base of NLP. Gregory Bateson was also very important in those years, but became more influential later. --Comaze 05:59, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Comaze... while NLP has changed considerably and there may not be an 'essence' of NLP (essence is a pretty loose word though!), perhaps the only thing that can be agreed on is the original goals (since others have taken it their own way). However, I would say the original goals are a start, but so are developments on those as agreed by most practitioners. This could be said to be "NLP", and we should also represent other significant views. GregA 07:44, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

GregA. Even the original goals of NLP are unclear. The only thing that I can find that unites all schools of NLP is the theory (and it is a theory) that memory and experience is encoded neurologically in terms of the Representational Systems (VAKOG) and their submodalities. Many of the other facets of NLP (PRS, cognitive strategies, submodality based patterns eg. Swish, eye accessing cues, sensory predicates) flow out of this central theory. This central theory remains untouched (and unchallenged) in Grinder's New Code and in Bandler's "Technologies" (NHR, DHE, NS). It is also present in Dilt's and James' conception of NLP. Stipulating that "NLP" refers to that NLP that existed between 1972-1979 (as Comaze has done) is entirely arbitrary. NLP is a post-modernist pastiche. As per post-modernism NLP is what people say is NLP. There is no set of scope defining principles within NLP that allow one to differentiate NLP from non-NLP. NLPs scope and limits are undefined. This is consistent with its categorisation as a pseudoscience by numerous experts. NLP practice is divorced from the practice of empirical verification, its theorising is not substantiated with reference to empirical evidence, it doesn't exploit the body of knowledge of established disciplines and its theoretical basis is actively denied to exist by many proponents. All of the means of discipline demarcation won't work. Grinder's pontification in Whispering, in his corerspondence to Hall regarding NueroSemantics, and on the Whispering forum regarding what is and isn't NLP is vacuous and predicated entirely on his authority. Grinder attempts by mere fiat to define NLP. flavius 01:11, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

You may not have looked enough Flavius. Firstly you're starting by defining a theory of NLP and that's the wrong place - theories are secondary. One aspect that unites NLP is the focus on communication both verbally AND non-verbally and the assumption that there is a rich information stream that's neither greatly understood nor deliberately used much - and that some people do use these other forms of communication effectively. Another is that people and groups often follow patterns of interaction and communication which we are often not aware of - we may not realise there's a pattern there at all, or we may focus on one aspect which actually is not part of the pattern (what NLP calls 'content'). There is also the belief that these communication methods can be detected, learned, and used... and that our ability to detect these things can be developed through experiential exercises and simple experience. This all leads to 2 aspects of NLP - one being that we can use our senses to model how someone does something, with the goal of replicating how they specifically do what they do. The other being that we can learn to more clearly work with someone by using this information (modeling or going 2nd position with them to gain more insight) rather than a focus only on what is being said. NLP doesn't teach the scientific method and there is another field that does that nicely. As you say, it doesn't exploit the theoretical body of knowledge, simply due to its focus on a specific individual's ability and skill (which psychology ignores) and the assumption that more goes on than we are consciously aware of. You say that the central theory remains in New Code NLP... well (aside from the above-mentioned problems with your 'theory') New Code has developed from the classic stuff, but it's still NLP. It has a greater focus on the impact of physiology and breathing on mental states, along with attention - and it uses these in modeling. It has added the concept of "content-free high performance states", and there is also more of a sounding out of consequences of change and an environmental metaphor rather than a mechanistic one. What Grinder says generally fits with the original NLP (imo), but often clarifies and contextualises it more (the lack of which was one of your criticisms). GregA 04:59, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

GregA, let me reword that, can we agree historically that between the years 1972-1980 that NLP was based on the work of Bandler & Grinder (Structure 1&2, Patterns 1&2, Frogs into Princes, NLP vol.1, Reframing)? According to Grinder & Bostic (2002) the core models are based patterns on Milton H. Erickson, Virginia Satir, Fritz Perls and Transformation syntax. Between 1978-1986, and 1986-2005 different schools formed, some to promote ecology, others with more concerned with commercialisation. Also, Greg, do you agree that that most of the criticism in this section is directed at the commercialisation? --Comaze 10:49, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes I'd say the core is the early stuff from Bandler and Grinder, after which it diverged in a few ways. Although different trainers took it in different ways, there are still commonalities - I'd add that to the 'core'. I'm not sure if I'd describe the split as ecology vs commercialisation ... but it's a start - unfortunately when we've tried to describe the various strands in the past we got nowhere (I still think describing these strands is required to fairly say what NLP is). GregA 21:48, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

GregA: "There is a flaw to this. It's not as simple as 'NLP works great" vs "it's a pseudoscience'. There are differences in the NLP claims (see the Bandler discussion that's starting)."

I have to agree with this. Lets simply keep in mind that while we have numerous claims from random NLP practitioners ranging from New Age, curing diseases, Huna, orgasims through sound, and subconscious learning; Other claims such as self-improvenment, sports/business applications are not so proposterous. Not all of these represent NLP. On the other hand, NLP has limited heirchy, no one group is really in charge; this likely explains the variance. We should first start out by focusing on Grinder et all, and then moving outward from there. The intro must mention NLP's variance, and the dubious nature of many, but not all, of its schools of though.

Some criticism will be re-worded to reflect this, as opposed to outright removed. Nevertheless, this article, as others have noted, still needs to be trimmed.Voice of All^T|@|ESP 15:05, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Hello VoiceOfAll and all. I have been working with the principles of NLP from the beginning. There is a center to this. Basically the flexible map they want to give people is to a large extent, a new age map. Eg. Your intentions are basically good (we are not fundamentally Catholic/protestant sinners). Your resources are abundant. Your map is not reality (life is a veil of tears/life is an illusion and so on), there are no failures (only philosophy of life), we all make the best choices (eastern/Buddhist view of fate), no substitute for good channels (awareness and meditation), and so on.

These are all sentiments from the new age and all the baggage that comes with it. On one hand you could say, B and G took all the most trendy and pleasant ideas from Perls/Satir/Erickson and made them popular for seminars/cults, or you could say B and G was making a fun to work with self help/therapy. It is impossible to seperate the new age from these core principles. From the beginning, it was the structure of magic, and that has been constant. The shamanism/lay healer part has been with NLP since Erickson. Erickson was mainly a therapist, and secondly a hypnotherapist. NLP is not hypnosis, but a method proposed for improving therapist skills (but the techniques have been falsified). The sidelines involve accelerated learning- business training and persuasion/negotiation and they are not core. NLP started as fringe and included all kinds of shamanism and occult. Then it became a theraputic fad. The fad dwindled as therapists became disenchanted in the 80s. It moved on far more to Robbins and motivation/self help, though the occult/new age aspects remained constant. The Robbins/biz aspects have increased, but only really as flavour of the month/empowerment/motivational seminars. So there are main areas: 1.Structure of magic (fringe therapy and hypnosis/lay/occult healing). 2 Theraputic fad of the early 80s (RIP or remains as a cult following). 3 Business motivational seminars and self help. Self help/self empowerment is actually the most popular now (the new age beliefs are to a large extent a substitute/booster for one's own "religion""beliefs").

This is basically the history and how it has changed. I think that is encyclopedic enough (with a few tone changes). Regards HeadleyDown 16:04, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

I believe you've atleast made our current impass clear. The suggestion that we could write the pro and you write the con is fairly good, but you disregard what we describe as NLP. It sets up NLP in the way you want it setup.

NLP doesn't say your intentions are fundamentally good - it's far closer to say your intentions are fundamentally selfish (ie interested in something good for yourself). Life is not an illusion. There are failures (though it is useful to use these as feedback in contrast to dwelling on them) - all of these you misunderstand or misrepresent and have done continually. "We all make the best choices", and "no substitute for good channels" are new from you, you'll have to clarify what you're saying before I can understand whether it's related to NLP in any way or not - your history is not encouraging. You say NLP related to Magic from the beginning, actually the original book was almost named "structure of madness" for its linguistic metamodel - a description of what people do wrong, and how they are helped. They were advised that it wouldn't sell so well (yes, commercial!) - the book explained in grounded linguistic terms (non-magic terms!) the "therapeutic magic" some practitioners were doing (who didn't know how or what they were doing). Anyway, you continue to misunderstand or misrepresent to your own ends. GregA 21:48, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi Greg. Your really do seem to be resisting solutions. The new age label is undeniable because it is sourced all over the place. It will certainly be in the criticism section even if it is not in the proNLP section. But it is actually a neutral label. There is nothing wrong with it. It is actually one of NLP's better excuses. Look at Bandler's attitude. He doesn't need NLP to be tested, and he doesn't need science's applause. He is the quintessential new ager - a shaman and guru! That does hold a lot of glamour in the eyes of a lot of people, and if I were you, I would represent NLP as distancing itself from objective science (because it does in fact), and because it makes the article more fair to the subject. It softens the blows of criticism. I cannot see why you would not want that. Regards HeadleyDown 02:49, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

You may be entirely right that associating with New Age has some positive aspects, but that you can't see why I wouldn't want that speaks volumes about your attitude towards me. I don't want NLP to be given positive coverage, I want to show NLP for what it is, including the misunderstandings, unsupported findings etc. You paint me as trying to make NLP something it's not, and to make it sound good - you really should consider that some of us here have a better idea of some aspects of NLP than you do!

Now, in light of that, do you have any comment about the multiple misunderstandings of NLP you had? I am willing to say that "New Age" is sufficiently vague that NLP has characteristics which fit... though my question is related to your mistaken notion of what NLP is anyway - you say it says we're fundamentally good, life is an illusion, that there is no failure, there is magic, etc. Any comments? Also would you be able to explain what you meant when you said NLP says "We all make the best choices", and "no substitute for good channels"? The other "neutral editors" & I (in contrast to "anti-NLP") want NLP to be clearly represented. (Notice how "neutral editors" has no meaning when it comes from an editor?). GregA 04:10, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi Greg. Headley looks to be consistent with the criticisms of NLP. I have also read those views in the literature. It doesn't matter how distant you think NLP is from new age. The literature makes those connections- that NLP and new age are connected inextricably. Your discussion is consistent with denial. Who really gives a toss about our views? The views of the experts are the priority. DaveRight 04:41, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

That's too vague Dave. NLP quite clearly defines positive-intention, map vs territory, failure vs feedback - though you attempt to misrepresent it. I do agree that there are many other people who don't understand it either, though our job is both to present what NLP says, and if there is a common different interpretation to show that. We've already argued through all this 6 weeks ago when writing the presuppositions and principles of NLP, are you now saying you don't agree with all that? And how does this fit in with your well worded idea of letting NLP say what it says, and THEN giving criticism? GregA 04:59, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Mmm, I think you are a little confused Greg. NLP defines those principles in their own way (some NLPers conflict also), but writers/anthropologists/scientists do make their own arguments for NLP to be classed as new age. Surely you can't argue for those views not to be heard? I don't see Headley or anyone wanting their own interpretation on the article. I do see you accusing people of being confused or not understanding though. The suggestion was simply to place the facts in the article as the experts see them. Not to write in your own interpretation.Bookmain 05:55, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

To be clear here Bookmain, are you saying that the section on principles and presuppositions discussed last month was wrong, and that the interpretation of the presuppositions given there should be what Headley is now saying? I think I've been quite clear that I want to represent all views fairly... which is exactly why I disagree with this most recent push. You don't see Headley wanting his own interpretation of NLP?... that is your view. I look at the misrepresentation and contradiction with our own agreed article and assume there's something else going on. Anyway - it's easy to agree with vague general statements, we're all happy there, but as soon as we nut it down we disagree - do you believe that NLP presents itself in the way that Headley implies, and if so have you got any new evidence? (we've been through this before... why don't you want to move forward?) GregA 06:24, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Greg, I have already stated I want to move forward. I have never seen Headley writing his own perspective in the article. I have seen FT2 do that though, and I have seen you and Justin argue for that in this discussion page(the inconsistency falacy). I personally think you can write whatever you like about presups in the upper section. You can call it postmodern wisdom with the support of formal logic and George Bush, if you like. I am resigned to the fact that you will restrict the views narrowly to the ones that make NLP look like rocket science. I personaly believe the rest of the world looks at you and all the other NLP promoters as a dianetics-like cult from your behaviour. There is new evidence being collected all the time. The new age evidence was abundant from the get go. I think you will just write your adverts, and the scientists can present the criticisms (as stated by scientists and other experts) in the lower section. Bookmain 06:46, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Okay, so you can't answer my questions. And your statements make it clear there is no room for discussion with you. The only question I have is what's "the inconsistency falacy"? If you don't want to answer please don't. GregA 08:37, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

No Greg Anderson, registered NLP practitioner/promoter. I have just written a reply to answer your question. I will clarify. I do not think the principles and presups passages are clear enough, and I do think Headley's/Flavius' account of scientists and anthropologists view is more correct and indeed more meta. However, I also know the best way forward is to allow you and the other promoters-with-vested-financial-interests to write whatever bullshit they like in that section without any interference from fact, logic, or balance. Then scientists and neutrally minded editors can clarify your twisted version of the NLP proponents view by presenting the facts of the matter within the criticisms section. Then of course, you can try to delete the criticism section in parts just as you have argued for for months, but it will be a lot easier for the wikipedians to restore that collection of facts when it is contained within a single section. Bookmain 09:08, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

The inconsistency fallacy is just as it sounds. You stated there was an inconsistency between NLP being ineffective, and NLP being used in cults. That is a fallacy because as you know, drinking urine is also used in cults, but it is just as dubious as NLP, and just like NLP it contains some associated hazards (as experts have stated). Bookmain 09:08, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi all. Well, yes Bookmain, I'm sure the proNLPers will write all kinds of nonsense, but that will be subject to some scrutiny. The main purpose of this section was to give them reasonable cop out clauses (that exist in the literature) instead of them filling the page with confusing psychobabble and obscurantisms that go against the very purpose of clear, concise and reasonable encyclopedic writing.

So; NLP claims to be about subjective experience, eclecticism, pragmatism, modeling rather than theory, do what works, and so on. The view of NLP being new age, occult or whatever else will also appear on the article somewhere as that is the view of both critics and proponents alike. Regards HeadleyDown 10:33, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Bookmain wrote 05:48, 23 November 2005 (UTC):

"The proNLPers, especially the likes of FuelWagon, flatly deny the facts."

I can only say that this is not encouraging me to believe that anything short of arbitration will solve this problem. I don't care about NLP either way. If I have deleted anything from the article it is because it is presented without a source, or worse, presented as a fact when it is actually someone's poitn of view. Wikipedia policies have certain requirements, and a number of editors are breaking those policies. The article must be written in accordance with wikipedia policy. Any piece that does not follow policy can be rewritten or deleted. Complaining that I'm deleting "facts" does not change wikipedia policy requirements. Even "facts" must be reported according to policy. And that has not been done in this article by a number of editors. FuelWagon 16:16, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Very officious, Fuelwagon. Here's some perspective: This article has been subject to months and months of NLP zealots deleting scientific facts and deleting cited expert views. It even went on during the mediation that the zealots demanded but hated because the mediator is not a certified NLPbrain. You decided to make edits to isolate general views to make those views look small. It didn't work so you became a full memberhip zealot and deleted using the same excuses as the multiple deletion per day zealots. You saw the nazis burning books and you decided to join. You used excuses such as "you cannot verify the sources using a single click". Well some people here do actually go to libraries occasionally and you have shown a reluctance to join them. Scared you may find some facts you don't want to face? Deletion is your solution even though that is not recommended in NPOV policy. If you want to join a rabble of fact denying thugs just to put the boot in, people are definitely going to notice. DaveRight 04:41, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, I see your point Dave. Perhaps a little harshly put:) I can balance my statement: I understand why FuelWagon and others gang up and vote for arbitration. In general the level of pressure they have applied is enormous (demaning facts and threatening to delete if there are only 9 citations rather than 10, and then deleting anyway, demanding explanations, denying they have been answered and deleting on that basis, demanding mediation and then demanding more than their fair share of compromise, then demanding arbitration, and demanding very specific wording although they don't apply it or citations to their own sanitised assertions). However, that pressure has never worked. Also, if fact supplying editors get annoyed, I can see why. OK, I will mitigate for FuelWagon. All proNLP editors flatly deny facts, including FuelWagon. Bookmain 06:05, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Sorry FuelWagon. You have always done it selectively in favour of NLP promotion. And you have always argued for NLP promotion. I can't see how you can honestly deny that. Regards HeadleyDown 02:41, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Much of this article does follow the pattern of how it started, and how it evolved out, altough the evolution and the criticism still need work in order to fit this idea.Voice of All^T|@|ESP 16:23, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes I fully agree, VoA. The upper section will show how NLP has been confusingly evolved, and the lower section of criticisms, will show the criticisms as they have evolved in response. Lets get on with it! Cheers DaveRight 04:27, 24 November 2005 (UTC) PS. Having two main sections does distance NLP from skeptical science anyway; NLPbrains can write whatever mindnumbingly banal tripe they like in the above section, the lower criticisms will always be distanced from it. DaveRight 04:44, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

That article structure seems promising. It is important though that a sanitised version of NLP -- without references to "energy", "genius", "unconscious installation" and the other bizarre aspects of NLP -- is not presented as NLP. NLP is occult in this regard in that books don't reveal all, the weirdest aspects of NLP are taught in seminars. A complete revelation of NLP would serve to properly depict it as post-modern pastiche and distance it even further from science. I have provided ample URLs (and can provide more) that demonstrate the New Age aspects of NLP. flavius 05:13, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Sure Flavius. Most definitely if the proNLPers were in any way neutral or NPOV friendly, then they would represent NLP with all it's oddments. However, they never have. Omitting the troublesome dirty laundry is what they have been fighting for all along, plus deleting criticism. I can't see how they are going to change. On the other hand, the criticisms section does require some explanatory text, and the unsanitized aspects can be placed there (the criticisms will have to be explained somehow). As it stands, the damage contol/balance/practicalities to stop NLPers censoring fact, will work to some extent with the pro-con arrangement. The proNLPers will love to present their own rosy view with ample cop out clauses, and the criticisms can be kept far away on another section. It perhaps should not be that way ideally, but it is a practical way of moving forward. Bookmain 05:49, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] What NLP is (applied to mostly)!

Hello all. OK we have suggested some damage reduction. Now lets look at what NLP primarily is. Here is the agreed view so far:

1 A self help system (books in the bookshops/websites/seminars for self help)
2 A how to for business people/persuasion/empowerment/
3 A fringe therapy as used mostly by NLPers, a mixed fringe such as prior life therapy and dancingmantra therapy and mixed with EFT, and
4 Accelerated learning technique
5 Used by some psychotherapists in a small way

What it is not:

it is not psychology
it is not linguistics
it is not neuroscience
it is not scientific
it is not religion

[edit] Is NLP Epistemology?

it is not epistemology (and it has nothing to do with epistemology, i.e. the branch of philosophy concerned with nature, sources and limits of knowledge) flavius 02:43, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

NLP is based on Cybernetic epistemology of Bateson (Grinder & Bandler 1975, Tossey & Mathison 2003)
"NLP was designed to be an epistemolgy from the very beginning" (Grinder & Deloizer, 1986) This is consistent with what is presented in Whispering (Grinder & Bostic 2001).
Grinder has offered refinements to Bateson's epistemology (Malloy 2005). --Comaze 12:25, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

If Grinder had anything serious to say about epistemology his name would appear in epistemology texts. I can find no such reference. What exactly is Grinder's contribution to epistemology? From my reading of Whispering he appears to be appealing to Representationalism or Idealism (which one is unclear). flavius 09:22, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Flavius, You raise some interesting questions about Representationalism and Idealism, I'll need to check Whispering to clarify things -- will get back to you on this. In Turtles, Grinder & Delozier state that they have attempt to bridge the gap between British empiricist usefully represented by Hume and by Kant in the German idealist tradition. Grinder & Delozier state (1986), "Hume and his troops are condemned to wander about, entertaining all and only experiences which are sensory-based while Kant and his band sit immobilized, locked into their (individual) neurologies. Hume and the empiricists have the task of freeing themselves from the tyranny of an exclusively sensory world, while Kant and his idealists, trapped in tmental categories, try to find a way back out to the real world. (p.xv)" They also say they attempt to do this "without appealing to mysticism". So this probably sums up the epistemological position. There are currently only a few published papers.

Redtail Math (working title) is primarily focused on "epistemology of everyday life".
Steps to ecology of emergence (Malloy, Grinder, Bostic-St Clair) is published is Cybernetic and Human Knowing (2005). You can view it online [29]. Malloy outlines Grinder's the contributions on this page [30],
Whispering and Grinder/Bostic St-Clair contributions are acknowledged and used in Malloy, T. E., Jensen, G. C., & Song, T. (2005). Mapping knowledge to Boolean dynamic systems in Bateson’s epistemology. Nonlinear Dynamics, Psychology, and Life Sciences, 9 , 37-60..
Bateson's foreward to Structure I or II is probably also important as it from memory vaguely supports the view that Bandler & Grinder contributed to the study of epistemology. --Comaze 10:24, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Comaze. I'll be frank with you. I can't take any of this seriously (and I'm in good company). Neither Grinder nor DeLozier have any philosophical maturity or sophistication. The stated project to reconcile Empiricism with Rationalism (in Turtles) reeks of the same imperialism that runs through Whispering. Furthermore, Grinder and Delozier have reduced Empiricism and Ratioanlism and the debate to caricature and parody. This is the sort of the thing Levelt was referring to when he writes of the absence of seriousness. The Empiricist/Rationalist debate has been running for hundreds of years and it has spawned much literature. This literature is part of our intellectual heritage. Where then is Grinder, DeLozier, Bostic-St Caires survey of this mountain of literature? Do they even mention the most salient philosophical positions in relation to the debate? Do they position their contribution in relation to all of the authors that have gone before them? The answer to all of these rhetorical questions is no. For this reason Grinder and his women can't be taken seriously as philosophers (and for the same reason psychologists, linguists, therapist). flavius 12:04, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] discussion

These are aspects we can talk about. Some critics have stated that NLP is like a religion, but they have not said it is a religion. All other issues here I am sure will be discussed. As far as world views goes, I am sure that NLP is more of a self help system than anything else nowadays. I know the amount of NLP going on within clinical psychology is small to non existent in practice because they have far more useful and empirically supported methods to use and there is evidence to back that up. It may be used by the pseudoscientific psychoanalysts to some small degree. Hypnotists do not take NLP seriously. Anyway, lets hear what you have to say about these issues. Regards HeadleyDown 13:33, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

For #1-3 you forgot again the whole difference between what NLP is, and what NLP can be applied to. Also, it is used in counselling or coaching very frequently (without past-life fringe stuff, and not necessarily by psychotherapists), it's one of the main places NLP is applied (many techniques can't be done effectively on yourself, you need to work with someone). Of course, we still have to say what it IS. GregA

ps. While NLP can be applied to many fields, some are sometimes still called NLP, others are not. This does need to be reflected. Coaching (for example) is field in which NLP can be applied and some NLP practitioners who coach simply call what they do "NLP". Law enforcement questioning can use NLP but it's not called NLP. GregA 21:46, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi Greg. Actually this bit doesn't bother me that much. I know its mostly self help/ARobbins. I'm just thinking of that hierarchy underneath in order to priorotise things (and make life simpler). I'm making the distinction between NLP therapists and normal (clinical psychologists with degrees). I know the latter generally don't take NLP seriously. You are probably right about coaching. It is about as popular as timeline/occult. Regards HeadleyDown 01:16, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

HeadleyDown says, "Here is the agreed view so far:" and then lists an extremely biased opinion of what NLP is. You have failed to make a distinction between NLP epistemology/NLP modeling, NLP Training, and NLP Application. These are important distinction if you want to enter an intelligent discussion about NLP (without going around in circle or confusing the subject). --Comaze 23:38, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Scientific research tends to come down on certain aspects of NLP a lot more than other aspects; this should be reflected in the article. Some areas where also researched more than others, which also must be noted.Voice of All^T|@|ESP 00:10, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Well you have to understand, Comaze. I'm just a dull wanker. Lets try to keep some kind of order to this thing for the sake of organization. HeadleyDown 01:16, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Comaze. I don't think its appropriate to describe NLP in terms of "epistemology". NLP is not a branch of epistemology (I've yet to find any reference to NLP in any epistemology text). Further, it does not have an epistomology. Grinder makes allusions to epistemological concepts but this is far from having an epistemology. NLP "modelling" cannot be justifiably characterised as an epistomology. It is a methodology with a set of epistemological assumptions and it is neither a unique method of inquiry or theory of knowledge. flavius 02:43, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

flavius, check the NLP text books (eg. Structure I&II, Patterns I&II) dating right back to the very beginning of NLP tends to agree stating that "NLP was designed from the very beginning to be an epistemology" (1986); Grinder makes this even more explict on Whispering, and more recent work with (2003-2005) Tom Malloy of University of Utah (Psych. Dept) also is consistent with this position. Several papers have been published that either cite Whispering directly or cite Steps to ecology of emergence that cites Whispering. As you probably already know most of the epistemological influence is directly from Gregory Bateson and "Steps to an ecology of mind" (1972) which is cited in Structure of Magic Volume I and most of the original NLP books. Bateson's double-bind theory of schizophrenia (see Bateson 1972, 1979) forms the base of many of the therpeutic pattens in NLP. Don't forget that John Grinder and Richard Bandler lived on the same plot of land as Gregory Bateson, and Grinder became to know Bateson very well, both as a friend and a mentor. More recently, I think Mathison (or Tossey) in the UK was one of the first to do an PhD in Neurolinguistic programming, see an example of their work here that supports that claim that NLP is based on Batesonian Cybernetic epistemology...[31]. As me if you need more references for this info. --Comaze 12:15, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Comaze. Just because Bandler, Grinder and Bateson all lived on the Alba Road commune doesn't entail that NLP contains a serious treatment of Bateson's "cybernetic epistemology" or that Bateson's "cybernetic epistemology" is theoretically sound and philisopsophically mature. Bateson's exprimental epistemology ("cybernetic epistemology") has no currency amongst contemporary epistemologists and it isn't even taught in undergraduate philosophy curricula. It isn't taken seriously as a contribution to epistemology. General Systems Theory -- which is one of its influences -- is dead. Bateson's Double-Bind Theory of Schizophrenia has been thoroughly refuted. NLP is conceptually and philosophically discordant and incoherent, this is what Levelt (1995) has written on. On the one hand NLP (superficially) incorporates a Structuralist orientation and terminology (Transformational Grammar, General Systems Theory, Cybernetics, "pattern", "content", "Overarching Framework", Meta-language etc.) and on the other hand it attempts to incorporate an entirely incompatible Post-Structuralst (Post-Modern) orientation and terminology ("the map is not the territory", "the territory is not even the territory" (Whispering), "nominalization", "reality" mediated by language, eclecticism, intuition as a legitimate method of inquiry, no privileged worldview etc.). NLP is not based on Batesonian Cybernetic Epistemology any more than it is based on Chomskyan Transformational Grammar. Most of the elements that NLP claims as its intellectual antecedents are irreconcilable. NLP theory doesn't work -- this is what Levelt and Drenth tell us. Bandler and Grinder's reference to Chomsky, Bateson, von Bertalanffy, Turing etc is just name dropping, that isn't just my opinion. An indicator that Grinder is not serious (and if he isn't serious at this stage of his life he most likely never will be) about epistemology is the imperialism evident in Whispering. Epistemology is literally thousands of years old, it is one of the most important branches of philosophy and it "belongs" to the community of philosophers (they do it the best and they are its custodians). Yet Grinder -- in true pseudoscientist fashion -- ignores our philosophical heritage. He doesn't use any standard philosophical nomenclature, he describes well-known (amongst philosophers) epistemological theories without bothering to label them as per the philosophy lexicon, and he doesn't justify his ostensibly novel theorising in terms of the existing epistemological literature and how his actvity relates to the existing field of epistemology. At the risk of offending you, my advice to you is to read some undergraduate texts on epistemology and perhaps social theory (if the Structuralist/Post-Structuralist tensions within NLP theory are not apparent to you). flavius 11:50, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Sure VoiceOfAll. Science came down really hard on NLP therapy back in the 80s and there was a mass ditching by original enthusiasts in psychotherapy. We have lots of evidence for it being a fad before the science falsified it. Since then it has been ridiculed further because some people could not ditch it, and it has gained further criticism due to some psychology bodies actually allowing non-degree NLP therapists to join them (and some mass exoduses of real psychologists to bodies who do not like NLP). Since the 90s internet boom and the widespread NLP/Tony Robbins stuff it has become far more a self help interest, and now attained a good deal more criticism for being banal pop psychology. So perhaps we only really need to work on those 2 aspects and it doesnt matter how we organize the rest.

1 Self help
2 Lay therapy
3 the rest

Regards HeadleyDown 01:16, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

HeadleyDown, did you just make up the lay therapy group. I have never heard term used to describe NLP. --Comaze 12:30, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Comaze, Lay therapy is another way of saying dubious or fringe or barefaced therapy. NLP therapy is more officially termed "dubious therapy". I think I am beginning to prefer the official term. HeadleyDown 16:36, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Sure NLP modeling can be applied to therapy but the effectiveness is dependant on the skills of the actual practitioner. Many practitioners will have other degrees and qualifications and use some NLP methods in their approach. Others think of NLP as a way of finding and learning from mentors with a focus on high achievers. An NLP practitioner would encourage a therapist to seek out the most skillful therapist and imitate to the best of her ability. The NLP focus is on the difference between a OK therapist and an excellent therapist -- it is really that simple. --Comaze 00:51, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Its actually simpler than that Comaze. The fact is not many NLPers have other qualifications, and they go into therapy completely unprepared for it (according to the literature). These are lay therapists. Apart from pretending to be a mesmerist and miming their poor unsuspecting client, they have no real ability when it comes to psychotherapy, they make unfounded claims (such as being able to help you liberate energy from your supposedly unlimited resources (such as your previous lives)), and properly qualified therapists don't like to be associated with them. NLPers are not just doing on the job training and copying well trained therapists. They are pretending to be real psychotherapists, but have not been any where near proper training. Note that proper training means attending courses rather than just pretending to know what you are talking about (acting as if). HeadleyDown 04:12, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

HeadleyDown, I agree that there are many these so-called psychotherapists who advertise themselves as having NLP practitioner qualifications without sufficient training or proper qualifications in NLP or for that matter psychotherapy. This problem is exagerated in that NLP or psychotherpist are not a registered terms or regulated properly in some countries. So someone with no training or qualifications could give themselves the title psychotherapist, NLP Master trainer, NLP practitioner... and start up a business offering related services. Some training organisation hand out NLP practitioner certificates after 20 days (or even less) training, without competency evaluation. Ie. they get qualified by paying the money and turing up. There are some professional organisation that are trying to clean up this problem by setting minimum standards and also offer services such as insurance for members. --Comaze 11:29, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Comaze. This begs the question. If NLP is without empirical or theoretical support and merely a form of "psycho shamanism" (as Tye (1994) describes it) then concepts of "NLP qualification", "proper NLP qualifications", "NLP Practitioner", "NLP competency", "NLP professional" are meaningless outside of the NLP granfalloon. Do you have any evidence that there is a difference in therapeutic results between "NLP Master Practotioners" from "good" schools versus those from "bad" schools? There is no such evidence. The NLP granfalloon is overloaded with conjcture and assertion. flavius 12:26, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Yay Headley. Actually, some of this sits under just self help and lay therapy. For example, the business stuff is under self help, as is occult (enneagrams, shamanic visualizations, and other such pseudos)

Lay therapy also includes occult (enneagrams, shamanic visualizations, and other such pseudos) as well as other debunked flimflam pseudosciences; EFT, EMDR, and so on. So on the article it can be represented that way.

These are just applications though.

NLP can be thought of as different. NLP is (according to NLPers) a wild stab in the dark at the structure of subjective experience. Using NLP principles (attitudes), NLP techniques, and other such tea leaf readings.

The criticisms can shine the light on NLP in general, then each application aspect (Self help and occult business pseudoscience, then fringe therapy with occult and mixed with other pseudosciences).

The stuff about use in police forces and governments is completely irellevant. It is seriously not used by the coppers in my district. They prefer straight talk and truncheons. I don't know how you could apply NLP to: "Oi! You're nicked!". Cheers DaveRight 02:44, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Talk:Neuro-linguistic programming/ archive6

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Accusation of POV

[edit] Research Subpage

[edit] NLP not a science? What about behavioral psychology? What about "Human Development", Social Science, and Medicine?

[edit] Meta Programs

[edit] Medline & PsycINFO

[edit] PsycINFO

[edit] Medline and existing references

[edit] Medline and NLP search

[edit] Back to science

[edit] Fuelwagon's Edit

[edit] Question about weight given to references

[edit] FuelWagon's notion of neutral

[edit] Headley's helpful suggestion

[edit] Protected page

[edit] Research pre 1987 vs Research post 1987

[edit] Science Vs. Claims not supported by science

[edit] General views of pseudoscience/psychobabble/salespitch

[edit] Science in support of NLP, and pseudoscience characteristics

[edit] Pseudoscientific characteristics

[edit] Medline supporting research

[edit] Tony Robbins

[edit] Science

[edit] Comments

[edit] NLP and Psychology

[edit] Comments

[edit] Scientific Testing

[edit] Comments

[edit] Representation System Research

[edit] Comments

[edit] Comments

[edit] Comments

[edit] Research on other NLP processes

[edit] Comments

[edit] Outcome based Research

[edit] Comments

[edit] The Pseudosciences

[edit] Comments

[edit] Presentation of Criticism

[edit] JP's response

[edit] Informing the public; Cults and NLP consumption

[edit] My response (OK its me DaveRight 02:24, 21 November 2005 (UTC))

[edit] Space for balance

[edit] Damage Control for NLP

[edit] What NLP is (applied to mostly)!

[edit] Is NLP Epistemology?

[edit] discussion

Views

Navigation

Interaction

Search