Talk:Neuro-linguistic programming

Blatantly biased against NLP

This article is blatantly biased against NLP. This is Wikipedia, not the Skeptic's Dictionary. Are people being skeptical to the point of refusing to acknowledge the possibility it is real, or does someone know it is real and is trying to suppress it? --Frank Lofaro Jr. (talk) 15:37, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Could you explain in more detail what you mean. The article has been well sourced, and discussed at great length. Without some idea of what you think could be done to improve it, it is very difficult to know what to do. --Roxy the dog (quack quack) 15:39, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi Frank, the article accurately represents the existing evidence and the expert consensus. WP:NPOV is not about acknowledging the possibility of something, it is about reporting whatever evidence exists and reporting the expert consensus. Speculations about the possibility of something are the responsibility of subject matter experts not Wikipedia editors. Also you are presenting a false dichotomy: "skeptical to the point of refusing to acknowledge the possibility it is real" vs. "know it is real and is trying to suppress it". Neither. The article takes account of the most recent literature reviews of NLP and reports those as well as other subject expert reviews. There is simply no evidence for the efficacy of NLP nor of the validity of its fundamental premises so the article will necessarily assume a certain "shape". AnotherPseudonym (talk) 02:37, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

The page has resident skeptics who block any improvement to the page. I support the POV tag. WykiP (talk) 14:11, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

This, of course, does not substantiate a detailed claim, as the tag would require to stand. Please detail the problems, without repeating points already dealt with in the extensive archives to this talk page - David Gerard (talk) 14:49, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

For the tag to stand some evidence needs to be presented on the talk page to support it. Just saying that you think it is biased is not enough you have to show how the current sources have been improperly used or show other sources that give another view. Given that this has been debated many times before you also need to demonstrate something new. Otherwise it is just disruptive editing ----Snowded ^TALK 16:15, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

This seems a "Straw man" argument. Focussing in Witkowski [16] which is heavily cited in the summary and conveniently free (unlike a number of the both pro and anti references). Bandler has repeatedly described NLP as being "subjective" and `"inherently untestable" (also Witkowski). Witkowski's secondary research focussed on a third party base of data (315 article), from which he selected a subset (i.e. 63 publications on the "Master Journal List of the Institute for Scientific Information in Philadelphia"). He produces both quantitative and qualitative analyses.

The quantitative analysis found 33 out of 63 tested the tenets, 14 had no empirical worth, 16 had nothing in common with NLP. Of these remaining 33: 9 works were supportive. 18 non-supportive and 6 uncertain. Witkowski's conclusion is that "the NLP concept has not been developed on solid empirical foundations."

The qualitative analysis evaluates both the 9 supportive - which he finds lacking in control groups, and the 18 non-supportive - which from his report focus on evaluating Preferred Representation system

It would seem that his analysis demonstrates the poor quality of the database used (and I've not yet found better) and the lack of engagement of the NLP community with the scientific community. Summarising the summary Witkowski confirms at least one of Bandler's claims is true. Presenting NLP as unproven, and not scientifically verified would be balanced - for such a heavy emphasis on being pseudo scientific - the article would need to demonstrate that the NLP community as a whole, or some leading proponents of it, were making it out to be scientific in the first place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluesmany79 (talk • contribs) 16:57, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

why are these studies not mentioned: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2296919 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2385721 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1620774 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19505969 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17131608 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21283502 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10263094 this article is clearly extremely biased — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.22.162.21 (talk) 17:09, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Its not our place to dispute the validity of a third party reliable source, or to prevent our own synthesis of an editors selection of primary sources. ----Snowded ^TALK 23:25, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

What's the point of having an open encyclopedia if editors were to select whatever sources fit their bias? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.22.162.21 (talk) 07:55, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for drawing attention to this additional material. I suppose it may be worth summarizing some of the points made in the PubMed articles mentioned, but I think one should also probably look at other material that cites those articles, and then synthesize the information available in an overall context, as Snowded said. jxm (talk) 15:54, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

What do you mean it may be worth summarizing, why do you need articles to cite those findings when the findings speak for their own? The fact that they alone exist is enough to show there is scientific validity to the process, or do you just need another person with a wikipage to say that to in order to add it to the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.22.162.21 (talk) 19:28, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Imbalance in lede

The scientific criticism section of this article constitutes about 30% of the article length, but 50% of the intro. I propose cutting the criticism in the lede to two sentences to restore balance. Cla68 (talk) 00:16, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

I would suggest that the lede reflects the body of the article quite well, and does not need any alteration. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 00:39, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Could you explain why the intro of this particular article is exempt from the stipulations of WP:LEAD? Cla68 (talk) 00:44, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

It isn't. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 06:21, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Agree with Roxy, and there is another alternative, cut some of the padding in the article .... ----Snowded ^TALK 10:53, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

We want the article to be as informative as possible. The way the intro was written made it look like someone was trying to discourage people from reading the rest of the article. Any reason why this article does not have to comply with WP:NPOV like most of the rest of WP articles? Are pseudoscience articles somehow exempt? Cla68 (talk) 14:19, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

NPOV does not mean that we are neutral between pro and anti-NLP people, it means we are neutral in respect of what the sources say. ----Snowded ^TALK 14:22, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree Cla68 and will support those changes. NaturaNaturans (talk) 07:11, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Two editors for a change , two against hardly a consensus given the mass discussions around that text in the past. However, I've attempted a compromise by restoring one of the stronger criticisms but not everything. We went through multiple discussions on that before, so lets respect that. If we can't agree then it had best go back to the stable version until there is talk page consensus ----Snowded ^TALK 10:07, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

The current unstable version shows too little or unclear information on why it is discredited. One positive thing to clarify for the lede in terms of information, is NLP as a very useful example of pseudoscience. It appears to be even gaining the usefulness as such. There can also be issue of its cult nature that also helps to explain its current standing, that could be added to the lede for clarity. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 10:20, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Happy to support amendments to that effect ----Snowded ^TALK 04:21, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

"Scientific evaluation" section

Why is the section Neuro-linguistic programming#Scientific evaluation divided into two subsections, "Empirical validity" and "Scientific criticism"? As far as I can tell, these address the same topic (scientific criticism of NLP's lack of empirical validity) and most of the sources are saying essentially the same things. Just looking at the table of contents, a reader is given the false impression that the "Scientific evaluation" section is going to have one subsection talking about evidence for NLP and one subsection talking about evidence against.

If there aren't any objections, I can combine these subsections and also edit for length. Currently, the section is so bloated and meandering as to distract from the bottom line, which is that this is pseudoscience. A lot of the text there can be trimmed and distilled to make this point in a much clearer and more direct way (see e.g. Reverse speech#Rejection by the scientific community). rʨanaɢ (talk) 03:29, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree, the sections are a tale that grew in the telling to deal with multiple attempts to detract from that core message. A simplification would help ----Snowded ^TALK 07:28, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Here is an extremely condensed version: User:Rjanag/NLP rewrite. I hope to have pulled out the main points while removing the small details, overly specific arguments, and repetition. Feel free to make edits there.

Please note that I haven't looked closely at these sources, just organized them based on how the previous article text represented them—so if the existing text has misrepresented any of the sources or used inappropriately close paraphrasing, then I may have as well. Also, it is likely that if we replace the current section with this text, some refs will briefly get orphaned until the bot fixes them. rʨanaɢ (talk) 03:41, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm OK with that and other sections could do with similar tightening. We might want to make a note of the material which has been condenses - with a link to the current version - in the header to the talk page and ask editors to read that and seek agreement before changing. I only had time for a quick review, others may feel critical material has been left out so I would leave it a few days. But it looks to me like a good job well done. ----Snowded ^TALK 06:27, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Definitely in the right direction. Needs note that it's not just pseudoscience, but a standard example of a pseudoscience - David Gerard (talk) 16:16, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

POV in "NLP as quasi-religion"

I edited a paragraph of the section "NLP as quasi-religion" to remove strong POV while retaining the facts of the matter. It was reverted by Snowded with the comment: Hardly a POV when it reports court decisions. Note that information regarding the court decisions was retained, but the grouping of NLP as a "New Age" practice (along with yoga, meditation and other methods) was clarified to be the view of the plaintiffs - that was not a court decision.

Diff of reversion.

I am restoring this version as it is more accurate and less POV. I will not be editing into a further edit war on this change. --Chriswaterguy talk 02:20, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

You are in error here. The court decided for the plaintiffs; that is to say the court decided that NLP does contain substantive religious content and that an employer requiring employees to undergo NLP trainings as a condition of their employtment represents a breach of religious freedom. The act of deciding for the plaintiffs means that the court accepted their position. I am reinstating the original text. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 04:03, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

A court decision still, of course, represents a POV. Deciding for the plaintiffs in this particular case does not mean that the case can be generalised into some kind of objective "truth" that NLP is by its nature a quasi-religion. No courts can decide these kinds of things. Afterwriting (talk) 08:06, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

No, a court decision in a common law nation-state represents a precedent that becomes relevant for all other common law nation-states (by virtue of legal convention). Given that freedom of religion in the USA is enrishned in their Constitution, a ruling about whether something is or isn't religion is more than just a POV—it becomes a part of the law. The cited court case found that all human potential/self-help practices—including NLP—are predicated on a particular worldview. NLP is not science and the claims made by NLP proponents are not metaphysically neutral—they spring from certain foundational assumptions about how the world works. This is detailed by the social scientists cited in the NLP as Quasi-Religion section. The court case is significant because it corroborates the social scientific understanding of the metaphysical foundations of the human potential/self-help movement—of which NLP is a major part. We have a legal ruling from a common law nation-state that NLP does indeed contain substantive religious content such that it can conflict with mainline religions. The HR law textbooks that I have consulted (one of which is cited in the article section) mark this ruling as significant: it means that employers can't require employees to undertake NLP, Landmark, Scientology etc. courses without running afoul of anti-religious discrimination legislation. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 10:23, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

We tend to take a court decision over the view of an NLP advocate. Courts do decide these sort of things and we report them ----Snowded ^TALK 17:27, 4 January 2015 (UTC)