Talk:Neuro-linguistic programming

open vs not open to suggestion and commentary on learning and scientific studies in general

I believe that as there are people ranging from very naïve to very sceptical people, there is likely some combination of genetic and childhood factors that make some people more or less open to suggestion. If this could be demonstrated to be true, it would be easier to understand why some people gain benefit from what "science" appears to prove to be "pseudoscience". The problem with many "scientific" studies is that the way they are constructed, they ALWAYS fail when it comes to outlier scenarios: eg. lets say 99% of people did not get any benefit of certain therapy and 1% gained a lot of benefit. To statistically validate this would require immense amount of people in the study and for the 99% it would be waste of time and they'd end up judging the benefits to be non-sense. The bottom line here is that even if people were "equal", they might be in a different stage of cognitive development, never mind things like temperament etc. factors. So there are simply so much variables that point to people not being all the same, that in order to have any SCIENTIFIC and (statistically) PROPER study, you'd need absolutely massive sample size and the problem is we are measuring very subjective things here. So convincing the most sceptical scientists is always going to require a massive investment of time and effort. The question therefore is, is in this case, proving beyond doubt that NLP works for some small % of people, worth the effort or not? I don't actually even know what NLP is, I just was pointed to this article from economy discussion and I've recognized things in myself that I had coined a similar term for (eg. if I just convince myself of something being true, it becomes true). I truly started to believe in this sort of "mythical" "pseudoscience" when I saw the documentary "Iceman" which went to enough extremes to demonstrate to the most sceptical people that "science" and "doctors" etc don't really know much, atleast not in rigorous literature - precisely because the people with these sort of "superpowers" are rare - however the documentary made a point to prove that anyone could gain the "superpowers" if they put effort to it! So if you believe the documentary, if people put serious effort to self-development, we could become more "equal" despite different starting points. So while things like "big 5" can be proven to be somewhat racist (eg. you can connect the big 5 differences in behaviour to genetic factors), with a lot of work (think about the "inferior shadow functions") ones personal deficiencies can be improved. The thing here is that the truth is most likely that we could divide people into 100 1% groups for each of which there was different "optimal" method of self-development. To improve/transform education from boring lectures to something more useful, it would be important to very early recognize which type of self-development and learning methodology works for each children and then incorporate special "learning to learn and self-improvement methods" courses to children based on those results. Of course such things need to be properly validated and followed up before any sort of "government mandate" to do things to everyone in specific way. There is a reason why the rich elite want their kids into special education (and not talking about handicap kids here but to gain advantage over other classes of folk in learning speed and subjects taught).

NLP has since been overwhelmingly discredited scientifically. Poor selection of words

"NLP has since been overwhelmingly discredited scientifically". This is statement is bias and diminishes the scientific content of the article overall. As an example, Christianity has been "overwhelming discredited scientifically". The same has been said of the work of Galileo and Einstein.

There are millions of users, practitioners and believers in the methods proposed by NLP. People have healed and learned to live a better live using NLP. It is now used in life coaching, and self-help programs

The statement should be modified to reflect a fact from an opinion. Jtllz (talk) 23:28, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Have you any WP:RS for these claims re NLP? Roxy the dog. bark 00:15, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Christianity is a religion, and thus its premises within faith are not subject to the scientific method. It may have also improved the lives of many of their practitioners, but that doesn't make it science either. On the other hand the line between religion and pseudoscience (trying to achieve tangible effects based on non-scientific reasoning) is blurry, and you mentioned the word "believers". Should NLP be classified as a religion instead? 2A02:AA13:8105:2500:D8C8:333E:8ED3:DEEC (talk) 12:52, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Pray tell, could you clarify what you mean by the discrediting of Christianity? Its belief system is questionable, but last I checked we had empirical data confirming that this religion exists.Dimadick (talk) 14:49, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

The words reflect the sources, we are not required to be neutral as to NLP claims or to take seriously evangelical claims such as those above ----Snowded ^TALK 14:54, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Edited it to better describe what is discredited. Hackwrench (talk) 09:42, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

This is a controversial page - get agreement to changes here first. I can't see those changes reflected in the body of sources we have so I have reverted them ----Snowded ^TALK 19:36, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Give me sufficient evidence with which to accept the credentials of someone to ask, and I will. Otherwise, you can fuggedaboudit! Hackwrench (talk) 00:44, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Furthermore, I am unaware of a Wikipedia policy that reflects your demands. Hackwrench (talk) 00:48, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Then you need to read on wikipedia practice you were bold, you were reverted, you now discuss. You don't simply reinstate your edit. As to the first sentence of your comment it is not clear if you are talking about other editors (in which case it is not a valid question) or the sources (in which case you need to be clearer) or something else completely ----Snowded ^TALK 03:42, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Just because something is not scientific does not mean it's wrong. The false idea that everything real is quantifiable and testable depends in itself on an unquantifiable, untestable premise. It is not scientific, and there is no scientific evidence for it, but there is plenty of experiential evidence for it, and that is proof that it works, at least in their experience. Svend la Rose (talk) 16:05, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Your argument then is that "experimental evidence" lies outside the realm of science. That is daft. Alexbrn (talk) 16:35, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

I do not know how to add in reflist, but all the researches claiming that NLP are not regarding it as science are themselves outdated. I hope that the moderators can have a look to this https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26609647 or here http://hrcak.srce.hr/file/239625 and inform the Wikipedia readers correctly and shows also what it works in NLP. Another notable research is http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1080/14733140903225240/abstract and I do not think that only one side of the story should be shown. If that is the case Wikipedia is discrediting itself. Drcz (talk) 13:30, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia is self moderating, no one arbitrates content issues. If you can make a case using third party sources (not primary ones) changes can be made. ----Snowded ^TALK 04:36, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

 Required edit requires sourcing which specifically addresses scientific workings of NLP - efficacy studies aren't proof of discredited claims about the workings of the brain

• your sources - a quick rundown:
  • 1) Mind Master Association, Bucharest, România They do a reasonable job of discrediting themselves by noting that a number of the studies included in their 'meta study' were sourced from NLP sources. Even if they hadn't cast this doubt on their study, the authorship consists of three NLP trainers from Bucharest, Croatia and Austria, making the source wp:primary They aim, not to study the scientific mechanisms of NLP, but to study observational reports based on patient feedback as stated in their paper, "AIM AND OBJECTIVE This meta-analysis aims to evaluate all available data regarding the effectiveness of Neuro Linguistic Psychotherapy (NLPt) and Neuro Linguistic Programming (NLP) for the treatment of individuals with different psychological and/or social problems."
  • 2)a paper on perceived effects Effects of Neuro-Linguistic Psychotherapy on psychological difficulties and perceived quality of life. This is a study on application of therapy and patient reports. The conclusions were: "Neuro-linguistic psychotherapy is an efficient intervention, which is on a par with other, well-established psychotherapeutic techniques."
  • 3) the other is a duplicate (link to pdf) of the first source.

Sumamry: The proposed edit is to alter the sentence, "NLP has since been overwhelmingly discredited scientifically". The sources do not justify or support an amendment here. They might support the sentence, "Neuro-Linguistic therapy has been used as an therapeutic intervention technique with results similar to that of other counseling techniques". They provide no support for the idea that neuro-linguistic programming works in the manner prescribed by its advocates or practitioners. Papers which study efficacy based on patient observation do not equate to support for their claims regarding the scientific validity of this technique, which as has been sourced, are discredited. I will remove the word "overwhelming" based on WP:PUFFERY. The sentence regarding discredited science will remain there based on the source we already have vs WP:BURDEN and WP:EXCEPTIONAL. It may be possible that some sources exist demonstrating the scientific validity of this commercial practice, but reports on the outcomes of treatment - no matter how shining - do not equal proof of an extraordinary scientific claim. Edaham (talk) 06:02, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Good call all round ----Snowded ^TALK 06:33, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

E-Prime

I added E-Prime to the see also list. @Snowded: reverted this edit. It's a small thing, but I think E-Prime is very appropriate for the see also section, as it also uses specific linguistic techniques for a purported therapeutic benefit. (See E-Prime#Influence in psychotherapy) There are also claims that Neuro-linguistic programming uses E-Prime as a technique and that NLP's theoretical basis relies heavily on the work of Korzybski and Bourland, developers of E-Prime.

The Wikipedia Manual of Style says that the see also section should include "topics similar to that discussed in the article" I apologize for ignoring the MOS guidance that "Editors should provide a brief annotation when a link's relevance is not immediately apparent" Do others have suggestions what an appropriate annotation might be? Sondra.kinsey (talk) 16:50, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Is there anything in the E-prime literature which references NLP or is this an NLP claim? ----Snowded ^TALK 21:01, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

@Snowded: The use of E-Prime in NLP may be a dubious NLP claim, but I still think they are similar enough to be included in see also purely on the basis of the similarities I described. Sondra.kinsey (talk) 19:05, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

We need a third party reference ----Snowded ^TALK 21:23, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

@Snowded: I have been editing Wikipedia for a while now, and am not accustomed to citing see also links. The Manual of Style says See also lists typically include "Links to related topics – topics similar to that discussed in the article." I have described what seems to me to be a significant similarity between them. I believe it is acceptable on Wikipedia for us as editors to make such connections that others have not made before in see also lists, although of course, not in article content, per WP:NOR. However, in addition to the claim I cited above, other works have discussed connections between them. Please correct me if I am mistaken about Wikipedia policy, and I welcome input from other editors. Sondra.kinsey (talk) 13:46, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

I've been editing for some time as well, and paid attention to this article. There is a general issue with NLP in that it seeks to create an association with other (more credible) techniques. This looks like something along those lines. On first sight the references you quote look like NLP proientated material not third party But if I am wrong give me the link ----Snowded ^TALK 22:03, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree. Including a see-also link to E-Prime to the NLP article seems somehow promotional. Making a connection between the two seems more like pushing an agenda than pointing readers to to related topics. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:28, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

@Snowded: Ah, I think I understand now. NLP advocates use name-dropping and mention of other more scientifically grounded theories to bolster their appearance of scientific standing. Therefore, you would rather not include theories or techniques in the see also list solely on the basis that NLP advocates claim association with them. I respect that, and that probably makes all of the citations I mentioned except perhaps Kellogg 1987 irrelevant.

I have been hoping to include E-Prime on the see also list not on the basis of NLP claims, but on the basis of similarities per MOS:SEEALSO. I recognize that your concerns about NLP name-dropping may make it appropriate to deviate from Wikipedia conventions for this article, in which case I would urge you to add a notice of some kind to this talk page.

I have no particular knowledge or interest in NLP. However, I am interested in the idea that training ourselves in particular patterns of speech can have positive psychological affects or be utilized in psychotherapy. I believe my own need can be met with the creation of Category:Linguistic practices with purported psychological benefits. You can find and discuss my proposal on that topic at Talk:Psychology#Linguistic practices with purported psychological benefits. Sondra.kinsey (talk) 16:14, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 17 April 2017

Please consider changing footnote 98 from:

See, for example, the following:

• Lum.C (2001). Scientific Thinking in Speech and Language Therapy. Psychology Press. p. 16. ISBN 0-8058-4029-X.
• Lilienfeld, Scott O.; Lohr, Jeffrey M.; Morier, Dean (1 July 2001). "The Teaching of Courses in the Science and Pseudoscience of Psychology: Useful Resources". Teaching of Psychology 28 (3): 182–191. doi:10.1207/S15328023TOP2803_03.
• Dunn D, Halonen J, Smith R (2008). Teaching Critical Thinking in Psychology. Wiley-Blackwell. p. 12. ISBN 978-1-4051-7402-2.

To:

See, for example, the following:

• Lum.C (2001). Scientific Thinking in Speech and Language Therapy. Psychology Press. p. 16. ISBN 0-8058-4029-X.
• Dunn D, Halonen J, Smith R (2008). Teaching Critical Thinking in Psychology. Wiley-Blackwell. p. 12. ISBN 978-1-4051-7402-2.

Rationale: The Lilienfeld article does not mention NLP and is not a relevant citation for: "In fact, in education, NLP has been used as a key example of pseudoscience." I do not have access to the other citations and I cannot speak to their veracity. Eturk001 also found this to be true.

Thank you! Theobfuskate (talk) 15:40, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Done. Daß Wölf 23:47, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

I beg to disagree. The Lilienfeld article: The Teaching of Courses in the Science and Pseudoscience of Psychology: Useful Resources has been a topic of numerous discussions. See archives. I am restoring the Lilienfeld reference. Jim1138 (talk) 01:50, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 June 2017

This part is missing in the article and I want to add the main and important thing to it

In essence, all of NLP is founded on two fundamental presuppositions:

• The Map is Not the Territory. As human beings, we can never know reality. We can only know our perceptions of reality. We experience and respond to the world around us primarily through our senses. It is our 'neuro-linguistic' maps of reality that determine how we behave and how we create meaning, not reality itself. It is usually not reality that limits us or empowers us, but rather our map of reality.

• Life and 'Mind' are Systemic Processes.

The processes that take place within a human being and between human beings and their environment are systemic. Our bodies, societies, and our universe form an ecology of complex systems and sub-systems all of which interact with and mutually influence each other. It is not possible to completely isolate any part of the system from the rest of the system. Such systems are based on certain 'self-organizing' principles and naturally seek optimal states of balance or homeostasis. 

All of the models and techniques of NLP are based on the combination of these two principles. In the belief system of NLP it is not possible for human beings to know objective reality. Wisdom, ethics and ecology do not come from having the one 'correct' map of the world, because human beings would not be capable of making one. Rather, the goal is to create the richest map possible that respects the systemic nature and ecology of ourselves and the world we live in. The people who are most effective are the ones who have a map of the world that allows them to perceive the greatest number of available choices and perspectives. Adnansaram (talk) 16:22, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

•  Not done. No sources provided, so fails WP:V for starters. Alexbrn (talk) 16:24, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
• It's WP:COPYVIO anyway. -Roxy the dog. bark 17:50, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

While what you say is valid Adnansaram, and I do understand where you're coming from, it's not going to happen on Wikipedia. Things like Second-Order Cybernetics and Cybernetic Epistemology for the large part fall far outside of the guidelines and scope here, that's just how we roll.

-- That Guy, From That Show! 08:23, 25 June 2017 (UTC)