Jump to content

Talk:Neuro-linguistic programming

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by AlanBarnet (talk | contribs) at 07:31, 7 February 2007 (→‎Fair representation of general description: another appeal for long term civility). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archive
Archives


Toward feature article status

This article has been submitted to Peer review and cleanup taskforce projects. We are currently working with those projects to improve the article. This is with the aim of eventually reach Feature Article candidate. To reach this goal we must aim for well written, comprehensive, factually accurate, neutral and stable article.

Template:Cleanup taskforce notice

This section is for general question regarding the progression toward feature article status:

Comaze, have you contacted Cleanup yet? I couldn't work out how to get in touch with the same person, or isn't it supposed to be the same person?Fainites 19:35, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately the person who did the cleanup report was not a regular member of that taskforce so I could not get in contact. I've ask peer-review to comment on our progress. --Comaze 22:38, 22 January 2007 (UTC) Thanks Fainites 16:20, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed changes

This section is for proposing changes to the article. In the past the article has been flooded with off-topic discussion. Here we can begin to focus our efforts in collaborating with each other. When agreement is reached and changes made, the relevant discussion can be moved to the archives.

Change subtitles and order of research reviews and mental health sections

Discussion

I noticed the 'Research reviews' has been moved into the 'Classifying NLP' section. Rationale? Doc Pato 21:11, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That was me. I thought they fitted better after the science section. However, I have no strong views on the subject if you think they would be better suited elsewhere.Fainites 23:03, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't quite understand the new position. 58.179.173.84 05:18, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What new position? DocPatos comment or the position of research reviews? They were moved on 11th jan. Fainites 14:25, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What about putting the Research reviews before 'Classifying NLP'? Previously it was between Mental Health Practice and Human Resources which didn't seem appropriate. It's too far down and not specifically related to either. 'Research reviews' cover broader aspects than MH practice. They mostly undermine the underlying principles and theories of NLP. There is scientific criticism and specific research relating to MH practice in the MH section itself. The research reviews need to be near the science issues. Fainites 20:04, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I meant I didn't understand research reviews as a subsection of science and pseudoscience. I'd prefer it be a sub-section of reception as it has little to do with classification (to my mind). Perhaps move the whole Reception section above the Classifying NLP section. 58.179.182.216 07:27, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think on reflection you're probably right. It could go above Mental health, then move the whole thing up. Then the 'classifying' section. Try it and see how it looks.Fainites 16:20, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Below is a contribution from an unknown editor added today near the top when we were discussing classification last time. I've copied it down here in case it's missed.Fainites 17:12, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there I have 3+ years experience with NLP and I will give you my opinion to help you make a better categorization. NLP is not a science, nor is it an art nor a religion. NLP is the study of the place where science, art, and religion overlap, also known as 'subjective experience.' The original subtitle of NLP was 'the study of the structure of subjective experience.' The structure of some NLP organizations may sometimes resemble that of a cult, but NLP itself is not a cult, though it can be used by cults. Subjective experience is not always directly measurable. This is why science has a hard time with NLP. The primary way to understand subjective experience is not by measuring it - that is comparing it to something else like a yardstick - but rather by observing the structure of subjective processes that occur in all manner of human experiences - from experiences in science, art, religion, etc. Think of it in the same way that quantum physics is not an exact science, and is sometimes paradoxical. I offer this explanation to you only as a guide to help you find the right way to categorize NLP correctly. The dispute over this article comes directly from misunderstanding and miscommunication - something that NLP itself does alot to rectify when used correctly.67.174.224.210 08:53, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Proposed change: Move "research reviews" to subsection of reception... "It could go above Mental health, then move the whole thing up. Then the 'classifying' section."
  • Status: I did this 23.1.07. Fainites 12:26, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Update tags for reception

Tried the re-order as discussed. Overall I think it's an improvement but feel free to revert if you disagree. I think perhaps your tags ought to go though Comaze. They haven't achieved anything yet.Fainites 20:15, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What tags are you referring to? --Comaze 13:42, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your tags at the beginning of reception. They don't seem to have produced anything. Is there a way they could perhaps be simplified? That might produce more.Fainites 17:42, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The second tag is mine. I think it's been quite effective. I would consider an updated wording/tag. 58.178.161.126 11:40, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Resolve confusion over criticism and reception

Somehow my suggestion got waylayed with the archiving... but how does the idea of a specific 'Criticism' section of NLP sound? This is something that's been discussed in the past, but always opposed by the sock army. The research reviews could be re-headed (unless someone wants to add the reviews suggesting some efficacy as well) and integrated within a general 'Criticism' section, which can even be possibly be followed with a brief counter criticism section? Thoughts? Doc Pato 19:20, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

:: Please read WP:CRITICISM and WP:STRUCTURES. Calling a section criticism has been a troll magnet in the past on this article. From my POV, NLP isn't really all that criticised; there is more positive reception than negative, so equal weighting would become difficult when following your suggestion.

:: What's more important though is that not all research reviews we've included are as negative as might be implied by calling the section criticism. In fact some citations we have lumped together don't necessarily belong together at all. Some groupings seem to be promoting the idea that there is a unanimous scientific "AHOY! look! quackery!" We could be a little more careful to avoid that kind of WP:OR, and a great place to start is calling a section reception (per guidelines above). 58.178.111.142 22:06, 26 January 2007 (UTC) I have struck and revoked my views from the record above due to restructuring and overgeneralising on this talk page that has altered context and meaning of my original statements. My apologies. I realise you had good intentions. 203.212.136.193 09:00, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Proposed change: Retain reception instead of criticism. --Comaze 10:06, 31 January 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Summarize research

The research reviews aren't 'criticism' , they're research reviews. The fact that they're mostly critical is a different matter. I think there could be a 'criticism' section that presented a summary of criticism and referred to research reviews, and a positive reception section,but overall I think that 'reception' is better because although the reviews are mostly critical, not everything is entirely critical, yet you couldn't call it positive. I'm not convinced by the idea as stated above that there is more positive reception than negative though. Apart from the fact that it's popular, (Singer says there are 38,000 practitioners in the USA alone) positive reception seems a little hard to come by. A summary of the scientific views would be ideal in principle but on this site it is problematical due to past (including recent past) problems with false and misleading citations. We could easily write an agreed version but it would have to be watched like a hawk! Does anybody (apart from sockpuppets) think we should attempt a summary of scientific views rather than the current list of quotes or should we leave well alone? (ps, I have no internet access for the next few days, but would be happy to attempt a summary of science views if there was general consensus that this was appropriate). Fainites 17:30, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

:: Having considered this issue further. I'd love to have a well written summary on-hand. Perhaps it will be better than what we currently have. Good luck. 203.212.138.209 12:08, 31 January 2007 (UTC) I have struck and revoked my views from the record above due to restructuring and overgeneralising on this talk page that has altered context and meaning of my original statements. My apologies. I realise you had good intentions. 203.212.136.193 08:56, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Should this happen before or after we have a more complete the list of peer-reviewed papers. Some of the current authors are not published in peer-reviewed journals. --Comaze 06:05, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Comaze. Yes I believe they need summarizing. Now we can consider how to do that. We can talk simple steps. Consider how this is going to happen according to NPOV policies. Suggestions are welcome but I suggest (reiterate) these steps: 1 place all similar views together. 2 state the most prominent proponent of that view if any 3 summarize using the corroboration of the other sources holding those views. AlanBarnet 07:50, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Proposed change: It is proposed that we summarise the scientific reviews.
  • Assigned to: Fainites has offered to write this summary.
  • Current status: It appears that we have reached consensus that research reviews should be summarized. It is not clear when this will happen. --Comaze 06:02, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Preference peer review sources

Peer review / FAC wants us to include all PMID, ISBN and page numbers for books. This will help reviewers quickly check if sources published in peer-reviewed reputable journals and if the authors are credible. This will help us resolve some weighting issues and would help Fainites if s/he were to write a summary. Most of the sources are not indexed by PubMed but are indexed by Proquest, psychinfo and non-medical journals. This is an important distinction that was missed by the peer-review comment. I've started a list of Talk:Neuro-linguistic programming/Peer reviewed sources --Comaze 22:48, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good start on the peer review list Comaze. Am I right in assuming Devilly, Sharpley, Druckman, Einspruch, Elich, Krugman, Buckner, Beyerstein, some Lilienfield, and in education - Craft and Tosey are all peer reviewed? However, possibly not Heap, and not Von Bergen or Figley. I think Wiki peer review have a point. What's the distinction between PubMed and Proquest, psychoinfo and non-medical journals? The research reviews should be peer reviewed only. In MH there should be a clear distinction between peer reviewed work and commentary, however notable the commentator. E.g. Drenth. How do we characterise Singer?

Looking at the one of the peer review comments, (the one that starts off with the POV that NLP is pseudoscience), the only peer reviwed scientific paper that calls it pseudoscience is Beyerstein. Lilienfield calls it pseudoscience in a book, and Corballis and Singer don't actually use the word but it's clear what they mean, but also in books. I think we should make a distinction between peer reviewed papers and commentary. However, presumably the commentary of the likes of Lilienfield and Drenth is worth having? Look forward to the complete list.Fainites 20:35, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looking again, Devilly's abstract says 'shows some of the characteristics of pseudoscience'. I'll look at the whole article. I think we did this before. Also, Eisner is a book, therefore should be commentary, not research reviews. DocPato has a point. Peer reviewed research and reviews in one section. Other criticism in another. What we shouldn't do is conflate critical research and critical commentary.Fainites 22:58, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comaze, can we get the reviews and research we already know about in the list first. Also, looking at some of the list, there is a difference between peer reviewed research and informative articles that happen to appear in a peer reviewed journal. We need to be careful about this.Fainites 07:56, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Should the section be 'research reviews' and 'research'. For example, Buckner et al did a specific piece of research in response to Sharpley, but it's not a review. Fainites 08:52, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Devilly uses NLP in his introduction as an 'early example' of alphabet or power therapies before going on to rubbish more recent examples such as EMDR and EFT.Fainites 14:39, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Sure Fainites. Such distinctions will help the article. Which do you think are the most obvious candidates? AlanBarnet 05:21, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Views of prominent organizations

:: Regarding positive reception: I think perhaps I've been confusing popularity with positive reception. I agree that those who have a purely positive and purely academic interest in NLP are few. However, that is a misleading figure. If you look past a mere head-count, some very prominent government and international agencies use NLP; and I think there is implied positive reception by the amount of use internationally. So perhaps the approach for citing positive reception is to not only cite the numbers and fields (e.g. Singer says 38000 practitioners in the US) but also to cite the prominent international agencies using NLP (eg. The United Nations, UK Police force, and others). :: Regarding critical reception: A list of peer-reviewed sources is useful. I don't think a abridged summary of science views is ever a good idea. Either individual researchers present their findings summarily or not. Where the findings are too verbose or unencyclopedic footnotes might be a useful comprimise. Take care. 58.178.144.161 03:30, 28 January 2007 (UTC) I have struck and revoked my views from the record above due to restructuring and overgeneralising on this talk page that has altered context and meaning of my original statements. My apologies. I realise you had good intentions. 203.212.136.193 08:57, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

US Federal Probation is another govt agency using NLP. There are many other organisations that have incorporated NLP into their training but don't refer to the source. I'll work on that list of peer review sources including the AAT, ISBN (with page numbers), ISSN and PMID so that these sources can be verified. You (including Fainites) are much better at writing that me, so I'd like to make it as easy as possible for you to look up these sources. --Comaze 12:26, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. A list like this would be awesome. Can you provide a source for prominent organisations using NLP? 58.178.144.161 14:20, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've added some URLs to that list Talk:Neuro-linguistic programming/Peer reviewed sources. --Comaze 22:19, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I'll check it out when I get some time later this week. 58.179.132.208 08:14, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Proposed changes (AlanBarnet)

Correction to Sharpley (1987)

Hi Fainites. I started sorting the Sharpley 87 finding as per his own account. [1]. I agree that the finding is not wholly critical (or a criticism). The way its presented now is fairly neutral though it can be improved. Collaboration is encouraged here. There do seem to be some critical parts of that review section though. Which ones are you interested in moving from reviews to a criticism section/paragraph? AlanBarnet 04:34, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of argumentative phrasing and distinguishing fact from debate

Hi all. As a first step to restructuring - I have removed some argumentative (debate) language [2]. The article needs to follow NPOV and all relevant views are to be presented [3] "in a balanced manner and that each is summarized as if by its proponents to their best ability". Presently the criticisms have been suppressed by bad structure. Straight reporting of facts is necessary. So instead of presenting argument - the article should have critical views seperated from straight reporting of science fact. User 58. You have mixed up the view of Sharpley and placed it in a manner which makes discussion seem like conclusion [4]. That is a form of selective editing and is certainly non-sequitur. Could you please explain why you call my version "bloating". It is a simple report of Sharpley's article. Also could you refrain from incivility (stop calling me a long term abuser). I am Alan Barnet and I am clearly not sockpuppeting. Do not remove my posts on the talkpage also. You have no regular talkpage of your own so I have to post messages to you here. Thank you AlanBarnet 03:34, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Missing views of critics

This post and section is relevant to how to restructure the article. Objectives first: I would first like to remind everyone about civility and acceptance of all views and how it can help maintain productive discussion [5] [6] Here is the ANI assessment of the latest situation on this article. [7] and the helpful suggestions of admin on my talkpage [8]. So lets work on this in a civil way without any suppression of information and lets get the article summarized as per NPOV policies. AlanBarnet 06:41, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe these are the critics of NLP:

  • Pseudoscientific and misleading: Lilienfeld (2003;2002), Beyerstein (1990), Drenth (2003, 1999), Devilly (2005), Corballis (1999).
  • Unvalidated therapy (psychotherapy/self development/HRM): sources: Lilienfeld (2003, 2002), Beyerstein (1990), Drenth (2003, 1999), Devilly (2005), Singer and Lalich (1996) AlanBarnet 04:40, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Proposed change: Give more weight to skeptics/critics of NLP --Comaze 09:55, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Current Status 2: Devilly, Druckman, Sharpley and Singer are already cited in the two opening paragraphs. The views of the all the above mentioned names are fully set out in the appropriate sections. Summaries with due distinctions for peer reviewed research and commentary are under consideration.Fainites 20:41, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Images for article (as per peer review)

Hi all. I have added an image as recommended by peer review [9]. Other images are welcome though this was the richest one I could find. I'll get on with the other recommendations. Collaboration is welcome. AlanBarnet 07:22, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS: This image is probably as good [10]. Not quite as rich as the previous - but it does show clearly what NLP is about to some extent. Other suggestions are welcome. AlanBarnet 07:34, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I restored the image as per Peer Review recommendations above - as there was no valid reason for them to be removed. AlanBarnet 05:23, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AN/I and mediation

Hi all. I made another notification on ANI [11]. Feel free to comment.

Also if you wish to go through mediation from a neutral mediator make your decision below:

Research Summaries

Hi Fainites. Still looking forward to the research summary. Let us know if you want us to review an in progress version. Take care. 203.212.136.193 08:52, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Awfully sorry people but I'm still without internet access at the moment except for the occasional snatched moment on borrowed computers. BT seem to be struggling with the concepts does not work and please mend it. I would hope to get down to the summary next week. Look forward to the list of peer-reviewed and other studies !Fainites 11:37, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Its not a problem Fainites. The research reviews are really easy to summarize as they come to a very solid conclusion that is extensively corroborated between experts. The trick is to make sure the results are not suppressed and are presented as encyclopedically as possible. AlanBarnet 11:29, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Hi all. Back in business. Ready to get on with summarising (or 'summarizing' on this site) research reviews. I'll post the results and then we'll see whether or not it is an improvment on the quotes which in themselves are all summaries.

Like the list of peer reviewed studies. How do I access the 'to-do' list or hasn't it been created yet? By the way, I re-ordered the sections at the bottom, americanised the spellings and put refs at the end of sentences where possible in accordance with peer review before I went off the air. Can't remember if I mentioned this. What's left? Fainites 18:21, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do you want to use the following todo list? --Comaze 01:59, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think a to do list (summarized) will be helpful. What are your suggestions for the list? AlanBarnet 05:18, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page format

As per 58.* comments, I want to move the to-do list to a separate page and make it op-in.. 58 is a very experience editor and I trust his/her judgement on this one. My apologies for the disruption. --Comaze 11:42, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Comaze. I think it helped resolve a few issues. A good refresher for moving forward. 58.178.160.124 00:17, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Fair representation of general description

Hi all. I'm looking for something positive to report in the ANI updates. I made some changes to the general description in order to make it more concise [12]. I removed what I believe to be OR and I rearranged it to look less like history and more like general description.

As per Wikipedia recommendations - its in the collective best interests to collaborate - starting with this fairly easy piece. Suggestions on better wording are welcome. AlanBarnet 08:24, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello user 58.178.172.195. Yesterday you were uncivil yet again [13]. Your actions are disruptive and you are getting deeper into incivility territory. I am not sockpuppeting or trolling. Despite your accusations you have presented no evidence beyond pro NLP group domination/WP:OWN. I am politely requesting collaboration and constructively summarizing the article as per Cleanuptaskforce - NPOV - and ANI assessments. Your cooperation is requested. To keep things positive - if you have any suggestions for improving or making concise the general description it will be appreciated. Thank you. AlanBarnet 05:17, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello again user 58.178.172.195. Please stop being uncivil[14]. I have asked admin multiple times to put me straight if I have done anything wrong and the only responses I have had are from Guy agreeing with my own assessments and Woohookitty encouraging me to keep working towards his previous recommendations on the NLP article. I'm clearly neither sockpuppeting nor trolling. I'm editing and discussing constructively here long term. Considering the long term incivility of your edit summaries and the negative effect it is having upon your own co-editors I suggest you stop making such disruptive accusations. Please show that you can get along with editors of different worldviews to yourself. Thank you. AlanBarnet 07:31, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spelling

Hi Comaze, fainites, doc. Though this page was begun the British English (see Modelling, Counselling in early edits) it quickly switched to American English (which probably shouldn't have happened). I plan to fix discrepancies up now, so let me know if there's anything particular I leave out or you want to make a case for British English. 58.178.172.195 22:23, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I'll do a doublecheck for consistency. This should be very easy and we can get on with more pressing NPOV problems. AlanBarnet 07:24, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Neuro-linguistic_programming&oldid=106262629"