Talk:NLP Modeling

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of a WikiProject to complete the range of Wikipedia's articles related to fundamental Neuro-linguistic programming concepts and methods, and organize and improve those articles already created. For guidelines see WikiProject NLP concepts and methods and Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ.


[edit] Why was this article moved?

Note: This article was moved from Modeling (NLP) to Modelling (NLP). After the following discussion on Talk:Modelling (NLP), the article was moved back here, carrying its Talk page with it. JamesMLane 22:38, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Both modeling and modelling are used in the field. Wikipedia policy is that each particular article should be consistent as to whether it uses American or Commonwealth spellings; as to which one is chosen, preference is given to the one most obviously associated with the subject of the article. If either would be equally appropriate, the original author's use prevails.

In this instance, the original article was written in US style ("behavior"), so I've made the spelling consistent ("organizations"), but it seems to me that the article should be returned to where the original author placed it, unless there was some other reason for the move.

The same question would arise concerning the NLP article. It was written with references to modeling but now also includes references to modelling. It should be made consistent at the former. JamesMLane 22:35, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia contains a disambiguity item at modelling. It would be strange to have 6 items under "modelling" on that disambiguation page, and then, alone, the NLP spelt as "modeling" on a separate page of its own.
Moved for consistency as all other references to "modelling" have two "l"s and are referenced on the same common disambiguation page. FT2 05:38, Aug 3, 2004 (UTC)

Our software operates so smoothly that it fooled you. Wikipedia does not have a disambiguation page at modelling. What Wikipedia has at Modelling is a redirect to Model, which is the disambiguation page. In addition, what Wikipedia has at Modeling is also a redirect to Model, so this provides no basis to prefer one spelling over the other.

The smoothness I refer to is that you can enter one title and end up at a different article through the Redirect feature. Because Modelling redirects, if you click on that link you’ll automatically end up at Model. Here’s the way to see what’s really at Modelling: click on the link, and then, when you find yourself at Model, click on the Modelling link in the “(Redirected from Modelling)” notice at the top.

You’re right that there’ll be inconsistency as between articles. This is a consequence of Wikipedia’s decison to accommodate both predominant forms of English. (If you want consistency, go to H2G2, where they don’t tolerate any of our Colonial foolishness, even in entries about American subjects.) Inconsistencies between articles are OK, but not within an article (with a few exceptions). That’s why we have rules for deciding which spelling is appropriate in any particular article. So, it still seems to me that this article should be moved back to where the original author put it. JamesMLane 09:37, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Interesting, and thanks for the explanation. This is what happened: I wanted to add a reference to modelling to NLP, as it wasnt referred to in the main NLP article. I looked under "modelling", found the disambiguation page, no reference to it, so I assumed none existed.

It was only by total chance that I found a list of NLP topics and the cross reference to modeling (NLP) (one "l"). It seemed very weird that every other form of modelling is on a disambiguation page linked from "modelling" but to find the NLP one you had to look under "modeling".

Now that both redirects are fixed and modelling (NLP) is added to the list, I dont suppose it matters which way its spelt. My main issue was that it wasnt linked or found easily, and that now seems fixed :) FT2 14:49, Aug 3, 2004 (UTC)



[edit] Suggestions again: This “How to” should be moved to a wikibook.

Firstly, overall, there is absolutely no need for such a huge section on NLP modeling. The effect of this subpage is to turn the article in to a “how to”. Moreover, it is highly promotional and deliberately narrowing to a single vague view. NLP is full of self-promotional terms. That is it’s bread and butter. There is no actual result to any of this. NLP has been largely found to be ineffective according to empirical research.

You mention codifying excellence, but there is no mention of using excellence to measure if the model works or not. This can be achieved through empirical testing by scientists, but NLP proponents are not interested in this.

You wrote: The NLP theory behind modeling does not state that anyone can be Einstein. Rather it says that know-how can be separated from the person, documented and transferred experientially, and that the ability to perform the skills can be transferred subject to the modelers own limits, which can change, and improves with practice.

Nobody is expecting NLP to turn others into Einstein. The criticism is that NLP promotes modeling as if you can do the same skills as Einstein. There is no evidence that this is possible at all. That needs to be represented if you want a balanced sub article. At present, you are simply stating excuses or cop-outs before the objection is made.

You have not mentioned the basic terms that the core modelers use: For example the BAGEL model of Dilts. The major part of modeling involves accessing inner states and parts of the brain according to RS and PRS. According to PRS and RS research, that has been falsified already. It is not possible. That needs to be represented.

The criticisms of modeling could be expanded to include: Criticisms from hypnotists and other scientists about the complete lack of evidence that anyone has modeled successfully. Lack of normal cases (modeling policemen for example) and modeling excellent people such as Einstein has never had any testing at all. You need to state the criticism that NLP modeling is just about “doing Elvis impressions like with stage hypnosis” for example.

Again, as with the principles subarticle, you place excuses after criticisms but fail to point out the criticisms to those pseudoscientific excuses. For example, they are being deliberately vague. The core books are full of claims to perfectly model all kinds of excellent people, and to transfer those ways to whoever. Furthermore, the models that NLP claims include things that are not models anyway (for example the SMART model). Firstly they claim this is theirs, though it was invented before, and it was never modeled using NLP. You need to explain Bandura’s learning theory and how this relates. You have made none of these comparisons, and you simply present preemptive excuses, with tiny criticisms and then follow up with more excuses.

To balance this subarticle would also take too much time and space. Suggestion: Place it in your Wikibook and don’t have it cluttering up Wikipedia. Regards HeadleyDown 11:29, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

This question was raised in identical fashion at Principles of NLP and the current consensus is leaning towards keep the articles separate and in place. Peace. Metta Bubble 05:24, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] General info: HeadleyDown, and about 14 sockpuppets blocked on similar article to this

This post is just for the record in case anyone here has had issues with the named editor or others editing similarly on this article. The following editors are as of June 5 2006, blocked indefinitely under any name:

  • Finally, "Flavius vanillus (talk · contribs)" was also blocked, for breach of multiple policies (not a sock of HeadleyDown, but repeated major conduct and editorship issues)

It is not confirmed whether other editors are also in the same sockpuppet/meatpuppet group. They may be. It may also help to be alert in general, to new editors and repeat behavior. Reversion of heavy duty POV editing and forged cites added over many months (back to May 2005) has been needed in cleaning up that article.

Please see Talk:Neuro-linguistic programming for more, including summary of reasons and behaviors related to this.

Formal ban and block documentation at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Neuro-linguistic_programming#Documentation_of_bans.

FT2 (Talk) 14:51, 6 June 2006 (UTC)