Talk:Neuro-linguistic programming

New Section Main components and core concepts

In the process of reading the article in its entirety I concluded that it required a succinct (as best as I could manage on the topic) statement of the core of NLP, what it is according to its founders. I think this addition makes the article more informative. I am mindful of complaints from some visitors that they failed to get a grasp of what NLP is from the lead but I don't think that what I have added to the body of the article would work in a lead, it would be far too much detail and trimming it down (reference my attempt at a revised lead) produces dense and incomprehensible text. Subjectivity is intrinsically difficult to write about so some degree of obscurity and verbosity is -- I think -- unavoidable in a textual work. This is partly why NLP proponents suggest that NLP can only be learnt via a seminar where a form of experiential learning can be effected. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 03:12, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

That comes across as very difficult to understand for me, and left me with little better of an idea what NLP was about after reading it. I had to literally sit down and "translate" it into everyday language. I've tried to summarize it in the rewrite below, but since it's not a topic I'm excessively familiar with, and I can see from the talk page history that this is probably a contentious article at times, I'd like some input before the article itself is changed.

----

NLP comprises three main concepts:

• Subjectivity. NLP suggests that people view the world subjectively in terms of five senses and language, and therefore think and relate ideas in those terms. It is suggested that these behaviours form a pattern, and NLP is therefore sometimes defined as the study of the structure of subjective experience. NLP contends that all behaviour, whether positive or negative in nature, can be described and understood in terms of these sense-based subjective experiences. Furthermore, NLP suggests that both your own behaviour and that of others can be modified by manipulating these experiences.
• Consciousness. NLP is predicated on the notion that consciousness is split into a conscious component and a unconscious component, with the unconscious component, referred to as the "unconscious mind", being comprised of what occurs outside of an individual's awareness.
• Learning. NLP uses what they call "modelling" as a basis for study, and claim that it can be used to represent one's expertise in any given area. An important part of this process is studying the senses and language used when the subject is working in their area of expertise.

How does that sound? – RobinHood70 ^talk 22:30, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. Overall it sounds ok but there are some problems which I have noticed on first reading. I don't like "NLP uses what they call", that isn't encyclopedic language. Who is "they"? The description of the modeling procedure is technically wrong. It isn't a matter of studying "the senses...used", it is a question of the sensory-based representations occuring in the exemplar's mind. For example, it is a trusm that a juggler is watching the balls in motion--that isn't worth noting. Rather, the NLP modeler is concerned with what "pictures" the juggler may be forming in their head whilst juggling. That is a critical difference. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 01:44, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

I just noticed that throughout your rendition you attribute behaviour to NLP. I appreciate that is idiomatic English (and that you don't actually mean that NLP is capable of behaviour) but I don't think that is encyclopedic language by virtue of its idiomatic nature. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 01:51, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Woops, sorry, I forgot about this. You're right, on re-reading my suggested version, the language could definitely use a little polishing, but I think the section as written is very difficult to comprehend. We should probably aim for half-way between the two. Of course, if it's just me who has trouble understanding the existing language, then I'm content to leave it as is. – RobinHood70 ^talk 05:22, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

I tried to make this section as simple and clear as possible whilst also being accurate. I am quite confident that it is technically accurate and sympathetic to its subject but I am uncertain if it is as lucid as possible. I am doing preliminary work for another article which also relates to subjectivity--but much more so--and I am struggling to find phrasings which are clear but also completely accurate. I am inclined to think that subjective experience is instrinsically difficult to write about because (a) it is generally an unfamiliar topic, i.e. we take it for granted, we just live it; and (b) it is subjective, i.e. it pertains to an internal experience, something which by definition cannot be--ordinarily--elucidated by pointing to something objective. If you survey the secondary texts on NLP you will not find even an attempt at a description as per this section and the primary texts provide these descriptions spread over entire chapters (and most seminars don't use these texts because many can't understand them). Thus there is no exemplar to refer to. Text frequently offered as exemplary is usually vacuous and obfuscatory (e.g. "NLP is the study of the structure of subjective experience" on its own communicates barely anything), marketing-speak (e.g. "NLP is the art and science of excellence"), incorrect by virtue of incompleteness (e.g. "NLP is about modeling excellence"), pseudo-technical/pseudo-philosophical nonsense (e.g. "NLP is pragmatic epistemology"; "NLP is a bridge between rationalism and empiricism"), peurile and reductive (e.g. "NLP is covert hypnosis methodology"). In defense of the current form and content, it is fair to say that if you have understood the section in question you have gained a deeper and more accurate understanding of what NLP is than 95% of NLP seminar attendants and trainers--that is a big payoff relative to the effort IMHO. Most NLP authors and certified proponents are unable to tell anyone what NLP is. They will typically describe a set of techniques and the purpose of those techniques but they are unable to actually articulate what distinguishes those technqiues as NLP--what ostensibly ties those techniques together. My point being that this section is a rarity and given its subject matter it should perhaps be judged with reference to its competition. I don't know--I'm tired and rambling. I am happy to field your suggestions. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 13:59, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for answering the question about your previous status. Otherwise I am afraid I don't find your argument convincing. The sources and text are pretty clear and I for one see no reason to change ----Snowded ^TALK 19:32, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Teaching scientific literacy

In the introduction, it says: "NLP serves as an example of pseudoscience for facilitating the teaching of scientific literacy at the professional and university level." None of the three references given: Lum, Lilienfeld et al., and Dunn et al. support this statement. Indeed, the aforementioned authors offer NLP as an example of pseudoscience, but there is no specific mention of NLP being used to teach scientific literacy at the professional or University level. Accordingly, if the correct references cannot be provided, the statement should be removed. Lex.shrapnel (talk) 04:55, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

The phrase does not say NLP is being used to teach scientific literacy, it says it is used as an example of pseudoscience in said teaching ----Snowded ^TALK 05:09, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

"it says it is used as an example of pseudoscience in said teaching". As I highlighted, the references provided do not support that statement. Lex.shrapnel (talk) 05:18, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

To be honest I have little idea what you are claiming or what changes you are suggesting. At the moment its a reasonable summary of the sources. It might be clearer if you made a specific proposal for change rather than general and ambiguous statements ----Snowded ^TALK 05:39, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

My statements were neither ambiguous nor general. If supporting reference(s) cannot be provided, the aforementioned statement should be removed. The three references in question could be moved over to the statement "NLP exhibits pseudoscientific characteristics," as that is all that they support. Lex.shrapnel (talk) 16:33, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

It is far from clear if you are saying the references do not say it is used an example of pseudoscience, or if you are saying that is OK but it is not about facilitating the teaching of scientific theory. The first is supported, the second to my mind is a reasonable summary ----Snowded ^TALK 19:03, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

In the three references I highlighted, there is no mention whatsoever of NLP "serving as an example of pseudoscience for facilitating the teaching of scientific literacy at the professional and university level." That is a very specific claim and it is not at all supported by the references provided. I wasted my time reading those references so that I could find out which University courses were doing so, only to discover that they offered no information at all in this regard. On the other hand, the authors do suggest that NLP is a pseudoscience, so as I mentioned already the references could be moved to the statement "NLP exhibits pseudoscientific characteristics", or even placed on a new statement (e.g., "It has been suggested that NLP is a pseudoscience"). Regardless, considering the current references, this should be removed (or have a citation needed added): "facilitating the teaching of scientific literacy at the professional and university level". That information is simply not present at all in the references provided, and so it is misleading to leave it in. Lex.shrapnel (talk) 01:42, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

I just checked page 16 of Lum and NLP is used as an exemplar of psuedoscience to contrast pseudoscience with science. I will check the other references shortly. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 02:10, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

I checked page 12 of Dunn et al and it uses NLP as an example of pseudoscience. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 02:32, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

I read through Lilienfeld et al and it provides instruction for instructors on constructing a critical thinking/pseudoscience curriculum in university psychology courses. There are specific book recommendations for such a course and these include some of the books that are referenced in the Wikipedia NLP article which do specifically name NLP as a pseudoscience e.g. Della Salla. @Lex.shrapnel you appear to be asking for the names of specific universities and I think that is misguided. It is neither necessary nor sufficient to name specific universities to justify the statement that you claim is illegitimate. Not necessary because the two books cited are university-level textbooks that are current and because the Lilienfeld et al paper provides specific direction on curricula creation and it was published in a major journal dedicated to teaching psychology, viz. Teaching of Psychology. Further the Lilienfeld paper tells us that such courses have been and are implemented in North American universities:

Largely as a consequence of the renewed interest in the problem of pseudoscience and its importance to education in psychology, a number of instructors across the country, including us, have developed undergraduate courses devoted to science and pseudoscience (Jones & Zusne, 1981; McBurney, 1976; B. Singer, 1977; Swords, 1990; Wesp & Montgomery, 1998). Based on our syllabi and those of several faculty members across the country who have taught closely related courses (see note 1), we present a model syllabus for undergraduate psychology courses in science andpseudoscience (see Table 1). Interested readers can find an excellent set of resources for such courses in B. Singer (1977), who described guidelines for teaching courses focusing on the scientific examination of paranormal phenomena. (p. 183)

Not sufficient because if specific universities were named and the citation was based mereley on naming universities people like you would complain that X universities are insufficent to justifify the statement and that more are needed. For these reasons there is no problem with the statement: "facilitating the teaching of scientific literacy at the professional and university level". NLP along with numerous other pseudosciences are used as examples in teaching students how to identify pseudoscience and to distinguish science. If you want specific examples then you can start with the universities to which the authors are attached. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 03:22, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

@Lex.shrapnel Just for the record here as some specific curricula that use NLP as an exemplar of pseudoscience:

http://commfaculty.fullerton.edu/jreinard/4th_ch3.htm

https://myeap.eap.ucop.edu/Galileo/service/coursecatalog/CoursePublic.aspx?IDs=28617&ParticipationID=V8K4e1%2Fa7gI%3D

http://faculty.weber.edu/eamsel/Classes/Science%20and%20Profession%20%282010%29/Lectures/LEcture%205/4%20Pop%20Psychology.pdf

http://gator.uhd.edu/~hagen/hum3310.pdf

http://faculty.berea.edu/messerw/paranormal/ExSyllabi/Wetzel_Chris.htm

http://sitemaker.umich.edu/dec.btr/files/dawes_principlesofindividualandcollectiveirrationality_socialanddecisionsci_advundergrad.pdf

http://www.unk.edu/uploadedFiles/academics/honors/honorscoursedescriptionsS10.pdf

Enjoy. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 03:55, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

PS:- @Lex.shrapnel Either you didn't read the Lilienfeld paper or you have reading comprehension problems. You could have answered you own questions by reading and understanding the Lilienfeld paper. If the authors say: "Largely as a consequence of the renewed interest in the problem of pseudoscience and its importance to education in psychology, a number of instructors across the country, including us, have developed undergraduate courses devoted to science and pseudoscience..." and they recomemend a bunch of books that use NLP as an exemplar of pseudoscience then the matter is settled. Teaching of Psychology is a well-regarded peer-reviewed journal, the authors couldn't get away with making stuff up. There is no reason to doubt the Lilienfeld paper. Also, looking for statements of the form "University of X uses NLP as an example of pseudoscience in their course on clear thinking" is puerile. There is nothing special about NLP qua pseudoscience such that it warrants specific mention at every point at which it could be stated. Furthermore, if you were genuine you would have used a search engine to find such curricula. But you didn't do so. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 04:14, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

@AnotherPseudonym: "people like you", "or you have reading comprehension problems", "puerile", "if you were genuine". Your arrogance and hostile attitude are certainly not appreciated and your personal attacks were completely unwarranted, and inappropriate. I disagree with some of what you said, and agree on a number of other points, but you've made it impossible to engage with you in a constructive dialogue after writing such an insulting response. Lex.shrapnel (talk) 04:55, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

You came here to the talk page with a series of presumptuous, poorly investigated and poorly expressed posts with an imperative tone. You responded to Snowded's attempts to clarify your specific meaning with posts that implied that even questioning the clarity of your brilliant prose was preposterous. You aren't after "constructive dialogue", if you were you wouldn't have posted as you did. Stuff like this:"I wasted my time reading those references so that I could find out which University courses were doing so..." sounds like the protest of a petulant child. Is that an example of your "constructive dialogue"? If you read those references and understood them you would have no cause to post and you would have learnt something. The NLP article is one of the most densely substantiated articles on Wikipedia and so by necessity because it is the target of zealous miscreants. You've got a total of SEVEN edits on articles (as opposed to talk pages where you also have seven total edits at this time) and those are mainly deletions and you've come here to play Wikilawyer with us. Instead of WP:CONCEDE you wrote "I disagree with some of what you said, and agree on a number of other points". I don't care what you think and I don't think anyone else does either. Your complaint was answered either challenge it in substantive terms or go away. You are a time waster and from your edits it is plain that you have nothing to offer this article. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 07:48, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

More personal attacks and blatant hostility. You claim that I'm here to "Wikilawyer" you, even though I made no reference to any Wikipedia policies. And "I don't care what you think" makes it abundantly clear that you have zero interest in engaging in a genuine back-and-forth. Lex.shrapnel (talk) 16:58, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Lex you appear to be a new editor (unless you have previously edited under another name in which case please declared it, this article has a history of sock and meat puppets). It was far from clear what you were objecting to but you have now clarified that. You also seem to be making a basic error in assuming that any sentence has to be a direct quote from a source. It does not. That phrase as far as I can see sounds like a good summary of the sources. AnotherPseudonym would you please cool it a bit. The facts you are giving are more than enough without the commentary on other editors which is against policy (as was yours Lex) ----Snowded ^TALK 18:30, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate your moderation, Snowded. I took a look through the history of the article, as well as the talk page, and had I known the state of affairs here (which I won't comment on) I never would have bothered making a suggestion. Nevertheless, here we are, so I'll just finish my original thought. "You also seem to be making a basic error in assuming that any sentence has to be a direct quote from a source": That seems like quite a leap, and I'm certainly not suggesting that at all. Lum and Dunn would both only support the statement "NLP serves as an example of pseudoscience". Them being marketed as "textbooks" doesn't qualify the statement, unless they're actually being used as such (which they may well be, but that is not addressed by the references). On the other hand, while I agree that it's possible to argue that Lilienfeld supports the statement in a roundabout way (as AnotherPseudonym did), I still think it's a very poor summary statement for the reference. The Lilienfeld article is discussing a general approach to pseudoscience teaching, and NLP is not mentioned, although other pseudosciences are (note that I am not at all arguing that NLP isn't a pseudoscience). Yes, a referenced article (Singer & Lalich, 1996) mentions NLP in its title, and Singer (1977) is also referenced in relation to teaching a course on the pseudoscience of paranormal phenomena, but that's a loose connection. Regardless, if you can follow a trail of references that start at Lilienfeld and end somewhere else, to support the statement, then I think providing the references later in the chain would be more beneficial for readers. Taking a different approach, perhaps it would be more useful for readers if the sentence said something like "NLP has served as an example of pseudoscience for facilitating the teaching of scientific literacy at the university level" and then the most prominent examples of it being used in a curriculum (provided by AnotherPseudodynm above) could be referenced. This gets the same point across, it's plainly factual, and can be easily referenced without any ambiguity (I've ignored the "professional level" aspect, as it hasn't been featured in the discussion thus far). Lex.shrapnel (talk) 13:25, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

So is this the game-plan? (1) Change references to specific instances of syllabi; (2) Meat-puppet or sock-puppet #2 (maybe he will be named something original and imaginative like Max Hardcore) makes some trivial edits and then comes here to; (3) complain that X syllabi are insufficient to justify the the statement that "NLP has served as an example of pseudoscience for facilitating the teaching of scientific literacy at the university level"; (4) demand that it be deleted. Super awesome smartness!. You aren't going to remove the reference to the Lilienfeld et al paper nor will you alter the existing statement. You have been shown that there are many universities (even within the small subset that post all of their syllabi online) that do use NLP as an exemplar of pseudoscience to teach students how to think clearly and identify pseudoscience. The statement is thoroughly justified. There really is nothing further to discuss. There is no feasible method of determining exactly how many university courses on clear thinking use NLP as an exemplar and we don't want to imply that those that we can find online exhaust the field. I would hazard a guess that many more than those that I listed use NLP as an exemplar of psuedoscience but I have no way of confirming that so instead we reference a reliable source, namely the Lilienfeld et al paper. The existing approach is sound. Regarding the two textbooks, you are just trying to be smart. The same considerations that I provided concerning syllabi also apply to prescribed texts. We can find courses that use those texts, e.g. here but we don't want to just list these. The point is—which you don't seem to appreciate—that set of references demonstrate a convergence of evidence for the support of the statement. That I can readily find courses that use NLP as an exemplar and that I can find courses that use the cited books demonstrates that the approach taken is sound and the statement honest. You aren't the first low edit count nuisance and you won't be the last. I suggest that you take a good look at the archived talk pages. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 17:39, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

To the other editors present: I have highlighted AnotherPseudonym's personal attacks three times now, in an effort to curb them, and Snowded has also asked him to stop... yet to no avail. It is clear that other editors frequent this page, and so I'm left to wonder: Is this type of behaviour actually condoned here? Lex.shrapnel (talk) 14:28, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

"[A] genuine back-and-forth" on what? Can't you just admit that you were wrong? You are right I have "zero interest" in indulging you as if your claim had any merit or as if you represent an opinion I should care about. Also rather than go around articles arbitrarily deleting text you should be marking them with Template:Citation needed if they need a citation; or better yet create a citation and make a positive contribution to the article (if only for the novelty of the experience). Also your username is in breach of WP:REALNAME (Cf. Lex Shrapnel) and your account page neither states that you are or are not Lex Shrapnel. Your pattern of edits is the same as many others that have come before you. You've made a some token edits and now you've come to the NLP article to post an illegitmate complaint. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 04:24, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

More personal attacks. In the hope that you will heed Snowded's advice, making this the last round of attacks, let me address them. "rather than go around articles arbitrarily deleting text you should be marking them with 'Citation needed' if they need a citation": As you highlighted previously, I have a small number of edits on Wikipedia thus far. However, despite your previous claim that they were "mainly deletions", two were edits that removed text (although not at all in an arbitrary fashion) and two were 'Citation needed' markings. "or better yet create a citation and make a positive contribution to the article (if only for the novelty of the experience)": Ignoring the pejorative aspect of this statement, one can easily discover that I had previously added a citation to an article that had been requesting it, as I stated in the edit summary: Provided citation that was being requested regarding Goodman's claim of secret service involvement. Lex.shrapnel (talk) 13:25, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

"[O]ne can easily discover" if one actually cares. I care so little I don't even remember why your activity fell below my threshold of care. I could only speculate at this stage but I don't even care enough to do that. I suppose I just really don't care about your seven trivial contributions to Wikipedia. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 16:21, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

(←) AP: You've been warned about your civility before. I suggest you bow out of this discussion before an administrator gets brought in.

Lex: AP did have a point about WP:REALNAME—thanks for clarifying that on your user page. We all have our heroes, but unlike mine, yours is a real, live person. :) And to answer your post a couple above, no, this type of behaviour isn't condoned anywhere on Wikipedia. – RobinHood70 ^talk 18:31, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, he did have a point about my name. While I'm sure Lex Shrapnel is a very talented voice-over artist (and therefore worthy of the 'hero' moniker), I must admit that I had no idea he was a real person. I cannot recall where/when I first heard the name, but it never occurred to me that it actually belonged to someone. It just sounded cool, and so it stuck with me for that reason :) Nevertheless, I appreciate your input. Lex.shrapnel (talk) 16:25, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Lex you need to calm down a bit as well, you don't seem to have made a case to make any change here and its understandable if other editors get a little irritated. In particular as you are a new editor taking a very similar stance and style to other new editors who have subsequently been proved as sock or meat puppets. You haven't answered the question about if you have edited here before by the way. It would be nice to have an answer.----Snowded ^TALK 19:32, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

"a little irritated" Okay... "You haven't answered the question about if you have edited here before by the way." Previously, you stated: "Lex you appear to be a new editor (unless you have previously edited under another name in which case please declared it, this article has a history of sock and meat puppets)". As I have not previously edited under another name, there was nothing to declare. "you don't seem to have made a case to make any change here" Yes, let's please get back to the discussion. So, my suggestion was: "NLP has served as an example of pseudoscience for facilitating the teaching of scientific literacy at the university level" (followed by the specific curriculum references provided by AnotherPseudonym). As I see it, the only point that I have not addressed is the idea that my suggestion is vulnerable to claims that it is not supported by the references. As AnotherPseudonym stated (hypothetically arguing as someone else): "X syllabi are insufficient to justify the the statement". I don't believe there is any validity in that. Even if you only had one specific instance of NLP being used in a curriculum, and it was at the lowest-ranked (yet still accredited) University in the world, the statement would still be supported. It's a statement of plain fact, and by using "has served" rather than "serves", I believe you avoid any issue of ambiguity. On a related note, AnotherPseudonym stated: "There is no feasible method of determining exactly how many university courses on clear thinking use NLP as an exemplar and we don't want to imply that those that we can find online exhaust the field". Obviously I agree that it's impossible to know how many are doing so, but it's not necessary to find them all. If we wrap the references in an "(e.g., )", as one would do if this were an academic article, then that solves both of those issues. So, to recap, as it stands, I do not think the references support the statement (for the reasons I highlighted). However, rather than remove it, I suggest we replace it with a statement that can easily be supported, as I have suggested. I think it is particularly telling that, in order to support the statement during the discussion, AnotherPseudonym made reference to specific instances of NLP being used in University curriculum. Indeed, as he stated: "You have been shown that there are many universities (even within the small subset that post all of their syllabi online) that do use NLP as an exemplar of pseudoscience to teach students how to think clearly and identify pseudoscience. The statement is thoroughly justified." Although I don't agree that they justify the statement as it is, I do agree that they justify a mildly adjusted statement, as I've suggested. Lex.shrapnel (talk) 16:25, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

@Lex.shrapnel: if you are a reasonable person and are prepared to survey the archives of the talk page you would concede that your behaviour follows the pattern of many sockpuppets and meatpuppets. Given the history of this article it would be foolish for any of the experienced editors to observe this well-rehearsed pattern and just WP:AGF. There is civility and there is stupidity. I would rather be thought of as incivil rather than stupid. Are you an NLP trainer? Are you associated with any NLP trainer or training organisation? You answered Snowded's query regarding sockpuppetry but you left the possibility of meatpuppetry open. Are you a meatpuppet? The objections I raised to your proposal were not made with idea of a reasonable and honest interlocutor in mind. My hypothetical interlocutor is deliberately unreasonable because that is how the various sockpuppets and meatpuppets have behaved. We've had Wikilawyering on the use of the word "claim" for example. If I have understood your position I agree that the presentation of actual syllabi that explicitly use NLP as an exemplar of pseudoscience makes a compelling case—it is factual. My concern though would be attempts to characterise those universities as unusual in order to deflect criticism of NLP. The value of the Lilienfeld et al paper is that it documents a trend and an influential position on curricula construction even though it doesn't specifically mention NLP so I would not support its removal. If anything it provides a context for the syllabi that you propose to cite. If you are serious about your proposal I suggest you find more syllabi and not just rely on my work. Also I would expect you to create complete citations that use the archive field that references the archived page so that the citations never break (I have created many such citations so you can refer to those). Doing some work would be demonstrative of your good-faith. So my advice is: answer my questions about meatpuppetry, find some more relevant curricula and then re-present your case for reconsideration. If you found another paper that did specifically mention curricula and NLP that would make your position even more compelling. You haven't really done any work and that denies you credibility and even the outward appearance of good intentions. You appear to understand what the statement in question is getting at and you concede that it is indeeed a factual statement, i.e. there really are courses that use NLP as an exemplar of pseudoscience. So why don't you do some research and propose a positive contribution to the article? AnotherPseudonym (talk) 04:43, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

"Given the history of the article..." Yes, it is totally understandable that people would be suspicious. As I mentioned previously, had I looked through the history of this page and the article, I never would have bothered making the suggestion. Regardless, absolutely nothing could possibly justify your previous behaviour. "Are you [...]" No. To summarize: I am not now, nor have I ever been, a member of the NLP party. "My concern though would be attempts to characterise those universities as unusual in order to deflect criticism of NLP" Again, I'd say there's zero validity in such a (hypothetical) position. As I mentioned, even if only one University in the world (with a low ranking) had done so, it would still be a totally valid statement. And if only one University is doing it, one could easily argue that, by definition, it is "unusual". Nevertheless, I don't see any validity to such an argument. Indeed, the robustness of my suggested alternative is, I think, one of its strongest points. "The value of the Lilienfeld et al paper is that it documents a trend and an influential position on curricula construction even though it doesn't specifically mention NLP so I would not support its removal. If anything it provides a context for the syllabi that you propose to cite." Let me be clear that I was never suggesting that any of the three references were "bad" (i.e., poor quality) articles/books, simply that they didn't apply to the statement (which I don't believe needs a 'context' provided, again making it a more robust statement). I agree that the Liliendfeld paper is a good one, but I do not agree that it is an appropriate reference for the statement that I have suggested. Generally speaking, it might work better in the article on pseudoscience. Alternatively, it may well be possible to add another statement, in the NLP article, that it could be used on. However, that would seem a bit forced to me. "find more syllabi" As I mentioned, even just one of the curricula you found should be enough to validate the statement. Lex.shrapnel (talk) 02:19, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

"absolutely nothing could possibly justify your previous behaviour." I don't agree, your initial post was hostile. But there's no point in arguing about that. "Again, I'd say there's zero validity in such a (hypothetical) position." I agree. I think you misunderstand my position. I know full well that this hypothetical position is invalid but that will not deter its invocation by misguided NLP zealots. A pre-emptive culture has developed around this article because of the stream of meatpuppets. The thinnest of pretexts is used to disrupt the development of the article and to attempt to delete critical content. I would be willing to support your proposal on the following conditions: (i) you use all of the universities I found as citations and ideally that you source more of the same; and (ii) you create archive referencing links so those links don't break. Assuming that you agree to my terms it still remains for you to persuade the other editors. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 03:20, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

"[...] conditions [...]" Sounds reasonable to me. If anyone else has issues with the proposed changes, please raise them. Lex.shrapnel (talk) 03:42, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

(Lex.shrapnel -- Welcome to the NLP talk page. The quizzing you're getting appears to be typical treatment of those who appear to edit this entry of Wikipedia. htom (talk) 05:09, 18 September 2013 (UTC) )

Thank you for the welcome. Regarding the rest: I have proposed a specific change above, I would be most appreciative (and it would be more productive) if you could direct your attention to that. Lex.shrapnel (talk) 02:19, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

The complaint to make is that this use of that reference is SYN, stating that the source has said something which the editor has inferred from the source. That some here seem to think that they OWN the page is rather blatantly stated in the conditions AnotherPseudonym makes above. htom (talk) 13:04, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

You mean WP:SYN and that is debataable. Lending my support conditionally does not entail that I think that I own the page. You also conveniently ignored "it still remains for you to persuade the other editors" which is inconistent with any notion of personal ownership. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 02:48, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I've incorporated the syllabi details I listed above into the lead. More will follow. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 03:40, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

@Lex.shrapnel Thank-you for being reasonable. I did (some of) the work. To keep the others happy I added to the citations rather replace the existing ones. I did a search using Google and I couldm't find more such courses but I am confident that there are more to be found. I am trying to find something that will better support the "professional" part of the statement. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 04:38, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

"Thank-you for being reasonable" You're very welcome. "To keep the others happy" Up to this point, there really haven't been any "others". You conditionally agreed to my suggested changes and I agreed to your conditions. Our debate is done, and no one else has raised any specific issues with the suggestions yet. Following User:David Gerard's example below, if no one else raises a specific issue with the suggested changes, after a few days, then I'll make the changes as we agreed (assuming you haven't done it all by then, of course). Lex.shrapnel (talk) 14:55, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, since you're asking: IMO, AP is pretty much right and you're pretty much wrong. Does that help? - David Gerard (talk) 15:20, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

"Does that help?" Well, to be honest, no it doesn't. Considering the two of us have come to an agreement, and that I was asking for specific issues to be raised, a blanket statement saying that he's right and I'm wrong doesn't really help to move the discussion forward at all. If you highlighted what argument(s) you thought were poor (and, preferably, why) then I could attempt to address them. Lex.shrapnel (talk) 16:15, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

LS, I think DG means that he agrees with me that the existing citations should be augmented rather than replaced and I suspect that Snowded, Roxy, and RobinHood share that view. It is important to appreciate WP:RAP and that the spirit of the principles should be respected rather than the strict letter of the law. The point of of WP:VERIFY is to prevent falisities from getting into articles. You are correct that the Lilienfeld paper and the two books do not directly support the statement they are attached to but it is also clear that there is no deception or falsehood there—and that is the ultimate purpose of WP:VERIFY. That there are many courses that do support the statement makes that point clear. The purpose of Wikipedia is to educate and inform and providing those links to the Lilienfeld paper and the books serves that purpose. Also that is not a breach of WP:OR either because we are just providing further information for the reader. The Lilienfeld paper provides a context for the syllabi and the books show that Liliefeld's recommendations are also being implemented in textbooks. That is worth knowing. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 18:12, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

American English spellings

I have restored some American English spellings in the article except in quotations and book titles. It seems obvious that American English is required in this article as per the MoS principle that articles should be written in the variation of English most closely associated with the subject which NLP clearly is. If anyone wants to make a case otherwise then please do so here. Afterwriting (talk) 09:32, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Read the large yellow box at the top of this page carefully, then I shall expect you to restore the page to the condition it was in before your good faith edits. Thanks. --Roxy the dog (bark) 09:58, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

I will not be changing it back for the reasons I've already given. As far as I am concerned it is a straightforward style policy matter that this particular article should be written in American English regardless of what form of English it was originally written in. Give me one good reason why this article ought to remain with British English spellings. It is quite ridiculous, for example, to keep referring to "Solution Focused Therapy" etc but then used "focussed" for the one time when this word is used by itself. As an Australian I usually use British spellings myself for most things as Australian English usually does. But this is not about such personal preferences ~ it is about what spellings etc an article ought to use based on the MoS principle that a subject principally associated with a particular nationality should use that nationality's spellings etc. As far as I am concerned it a matter of the bleeding obvious that an article about NLP on Wikipedia should be in American English regardless of what that "large yellow box" says. Afterwriting (talk) 11:15, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Just in case you didn't read the large yellow box, sport, I will helpfully reproduce the important bit here - This article is written in British English with Oxford spelling (suffix -ize rather than -ise), and some terms used in it are different or absent from American English and other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. I do hope this is written in the correct Queens English so that you understand it. It seems quite clear to me? Thanks. --Roxy the dog (bark) 11:28, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

If you want to come across to others as pathetically patronising then you are doing a very good job of it. But you have continued to completely fail to present any arguments at all to support using British spellings in an article which is overwhelmingly historically associated with the United States. There are, of course, no good arguments which support using British spellings in this article but obviously you are completely blind to the obvious and prefer silly little power games instead. Afterwriting (talk) 18:25, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

I note your recent edits - I'm happy that you have joined me in my crusade to stop the decline in good English. (Note spelling of patronize). --Roxy the dog (patronize me) 19:17, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Roxy if you want to make the change raise an RfC its simple. Don't edit war on what is an agreed standard until you have agreement that standard should change. I'm sympathetic by the way ----Snowded ^TALK 19:45, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't feel strongly about this issue either way. Afterwriting does make a good point in that the origin and culture of NLP is North American. Most of the books on the subject are from the USA and most of the key figures are from the USA so perhaps USA-English is more "natural". AnotherPseudonym (talk) 03:58, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

I also agree that for this article, using US spellings makes more sense, since that's where NLP has its origins and, I suspect, where it's the most popular. That said, it has obviously spread to other countries, and I agree with Roxy that, according to WP's rules, it should not have been changed without consensus. (And on a side note, I'm amused by the fact that all of us supporting US spelling for the article are from outside the US.) – RobinHood70 ^talk 07:34, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

+1 to move to US spellings as well (and I'm from Australia and living in the UK) - is there any significant non-US contribution to NLP? I was actually surprised to see the British English box at the top of this page when Roxy pointed it out - David Gerard (talk) 08:37, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

@Snowded ^TALK I think you may have got your impression of what I want the wrong way round, however I see what you mean. The issue for me is twofold, in that Afterwriting (talk) never even attempted to get consensus, and my eyes hurt every time I see the word behavior spelled that way. Consensus here will obviously go the American spelling way, and that will be fine, as long as you guys club together and buy me a bottle of bleach for my eyes. Thanks. --Roxy the dog (patronize me) 09:12, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

No, no significant contribution to NLP outside of the USA (but it's not really subject to revision in any event). I agree that Afterword should have sought consensus but (s)he seems a reasonable person and did actually argue a point which I think is a rarity here (present company excepted). It appears that the strength of their conviction of the rightness of the change compelled the action. @RobinHood70 I think our support of USA-English here even though none of us are from the USA is demonstrative of our striving for objectivity and our ability to set-aside any parochialism. I too prefer British-English and my dictionary of choice is the OED (I have the CD version of the behemoth version) but the subject is very American so USA-English it is. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 11:58, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

NLP was born in American so I agree that unless there is a strong case to use UK-English then we should default to US-English. --Reconsolidation (talk) 12:49, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Let's give it a day or two and if there's no dissent, we can change it - David Gerard (talk) 17:41, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

No dissent, so I've changed the template on this page and am about to go through the article. Painful as it will be to me as an unAmerican - David Gerard (talk) 09:12, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Just went through; could an American please go through as well? - David Gerard (talk) 09:56, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

My eyes are hurting ;) --Roxy the dog (patronize me) 10:00, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

BEHAVIOR! BEHAVIOR! BEHAVIOR! AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA (I find "behavior" really hard to type) - David Gerard (talk) 10:15, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Though quite a lot of the reference quotes are from UK sources, so take extra care not to alter those - David Gerard (talk) 10:16, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

The "real" NLP

In all of the time that I have been here you have contributed nothing to this page. Absolutely nothing. Most recently you were hassling Snowded about giving you evidence that Bandler and Grinder claimed that NLP is scientific. I gave you pages of such evidence (and I can give you more). Your response was that you had family problems and you won't be able to "digest" this for some weeks. Well many weeks have passed will you now WP:CONCEDE? You are incompetent to edit this article. You have no idea about NLP, its developers or its history yet you've developed this bizarre conceit that you represent its guardian. The description of NLP that I provided in Main components and core concepts is better than anything you could have produced in the entirety of your lifetime. All of your complaints have been answered yet you are still here trying to stir-up conflict. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 02:48, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't consider myself an expert about NLP (or indeed, any psychological topic.) I have read the first couple of books that Grinder and Bandler wrote about NLP, and I came to the talk page to ask questions about the differences between what I'd read them write and what is written in the article about what they wrote. I think that part of the difference is that there seem to have been changes in what is called NLP, between then and now. I'm not about to put that in the article, because I think that's OR. Looking at other current psychological therapy methods, I see some echos of "early NLP"; again, that's OR. It seems to me that there is a group here who are determined to label NLP as pseudoscience, as if it was the psychological version of phlogiston. I think I'm more skeptical of that particular claim than you are, and I'm more skeptical of the "truth" of NLP than I think you think I am. For my personal life, see your talk page. htom (talk) 05:24, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I've read all of the books jointly authored by B&G and almost all of those authored by them independently (the only one I haven't read is "Red Tail Math" by Grinder), I've attended NLP seminars and I've watched about 100 hours of NLP seminars on DVD. I've also read books by B&Gs direct "disciples". I think I know NLP fairly well. There has been no substantive change in NLP from Bandler and Grinder besides Grinder's "New Code" and that is more an exercise in brand differentiation rather than genuine development. There are forms of NLP that have been extended/created independently of Bandler and Grinder and the article deliberately avoids those. The article revolves around Bandler and Grinder and that way it avoids the charge of "that's not 'genuine' NLP". If you watch a Bandler NLP seminar from the early 1980s and a Bandler seminar from the 2000s it is essentially the same except that Bandler has grown fatter, uglier and toothless. The substantive content is barely different; the peripheral content has changed somewhat in that Bandler's imaginary qualifications have changed, now he is a physicist or a mathematician. Grinder's "New Code" is old wine in new bottles. When Bandler and Grinder were at each other's throats they were each accusing the other of not doing "real" NLP and of not "truly" understanding NLP. When Bandler sought to trademark "NLP" and sue every man and his dog he said he was doing so because he was saving NLP from Grinder and others. There is an usenet post from Bandler (I'd have to search for it) where he paints himself as the saviour of NLP. So when Bandler lost his trademarks and the civil suits he trademarked "Pure NLP" as if to say Grinder's "New Code" is adulterated NLP. If there be any doubt, the page reads "Pure NLP® & Keeping it Simple" which is a indirect swipe at Grinder's predilection for filling his books and seminars with pseudoscientific/pseudotechnical/pseudophilosophical decorations. But if you remove all of the rhetoric and decoration from "Pure NLP" and "New Code NLP" they are the essentially the same and also the same as the NLP of the late 1970s. At most there is a difference in emphasis of variou topics, eg. Bandler is big on "submodalities" and Grinder emphasies modeling. But regardless of that you are failing to see the bigger picture. There is no such thing as "real NLP" that is why Bandler and Grinder were able to each accuse the other of not doing "real NLP". When B&G were together "real NLP" was what they jointly said was "real NLP". When they split there became two "real NLPs". There is simply no such thing as "real NLP". Grinder provides an ex post facto defintion of NLP such that only his "New Code" is "real NLP"; Bandler does the same thing so that only his "Pure NLP" is "real NLP". To this extent you are chasing a ghost—there is no such thing as "authentic NLP". The best that we can do as encyclopedists is confine ourselves to Bandler and Grinder and emphasises their NLPs. You wrote: "It seems to me that there is a group here who are determined to label NLP as pseudoscience, as if it was the psychological version of phlogiston." NLP has been labelled a pseudoscience by many experts, you need only read the article to learn that. NLP is worse that the psychological version of phlogiston, phlogiston at least had some explanatory power, there was general agreement about what phlogiston was and there was also general agreement about how it could be falsified amongst its proponents. None of this could be said of NLP. NLP is more like witchcraft, Santeria and folk magic. You wrote: "I think I'm more skeptical of that particular claim than you are, and I'm more skeptical of the "truth" of NLP than I think you think I am." Your personal opinion of whether NLP is or isn't pseudoscience is irrelevant, as is my own. We have quoted a multitude of experts in the article that consider NLP to be a pseudoscience so I don't understand why you are trying to import your personal opinion into the discussion. I don't think you know enough about philosophy of science, science in general, experimental psychology in particular and NLP to make a determination whether NLP is or isn't pseudoscience and to second-guess neuroscientists. From what I have read of the demarcation problem and pseudoscience, NLP meets all of the criteria of pseudoscience. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 06:36, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

PS:- @htom Rather than speak in vague generalities can you tell us what you think NLP was and what it has become and can you find a source that corroborates your claim? I haven't encountered any such source nor have I detected any such change directly ("Pure NLP" and "New Code NLP" and their different emphases notwithstanding). I really don't understand what you are complaining about. You can't point to anything specific (because the content of the article is based on the writings, interviews and seminars of Bandler and/or Grinder) so you just express a vague dissatisfaction. Have you considered the possibility that you are incorrect in what you think NLP was? You don't seem to have considered that possibility. You admit that you have a limited reading of NLP texts and on that basis you are prepared to make grand and sweeping pronouncements about some mythical change that NLP has allegedly undergone. Further you are also prepared to criticise other editors for failing to account for this alleged change which you also incongruously categorise as the product of your WP:OR. I suspect that your conception of what NLP originally was is based entirely on your limited knowledge of NLP. More of NLP has been revealed to you in the article and you can't reconcile it with your original conception of NLP so instead of acknowledging that you were ignorant and the article educated you instead you form this strange theory that NLP has undergone some strange mutation since its early days and no NLP writer has recognised it but you have and we are all prejudiced because we don't write about this change even though you can't provide us any sources that document this change. To me this seems to be just a baroque way of dealing with your own ignorance and education in a way that you can deny being ignorant in the first place. It is like me saying "All swans are white" and then when I see a black swan I say "swans have changed, when I said they were all white they were all white but they have since changed so that there are now black swans". AnotherPseudonym (talk) 09:06, 20 September 2013 (UTC) [discussion from "Teaching Scientific Literacy" moved here] Lex.shrapnel (talk) 14:57, 20 September 2013 (UTC)]

Just another opinion on this: the idea that modeling a process undergone by "Extraordinary individuals" in a way that anyone can learn is far from being discredited. In fact, the latest revolutions in Artificial Intelligence, especially what Intel calls "cognitive computing" do just this. I believe neurolinguistic programming has simply been assimilated wholly into the field of Cognitive Science, one you will find highly guarded and at only the most prestigious - and tied to Washington, D.C. - academic institutions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.163.161.226 (talk) 18:35, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Excellent! Do you have a good citation that any of what they're doing is specifically from neuro-linguistic programming per se, rather than from ideas that might have a slight similarity? - David Gerard (talk) 18:47, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

@67.163.161.226 NLP modeling has nothing in common with cognitive computing nor with AI or machine learning. Given that NLP modeling is oriented toward the subjectivity of the exemplar and computers have no subjectivity your "opinion" is still-born. You don't understand NLP and are basing your "opinion" on factoids. Read the article and follow the citations—I don't want to repeat the article contents here. Cognitive science has not "assimilated" NLP neither "wholly" nor in part. One of the central premises of NLP is that subjectivity is constituted entirely in terms of the putative five senses (see Neuro-linguistic_programming#Main_components_and_core_concepts); that is not a premise of cognitive science. The last phrase of your post pretty much vaporises the remnants of your credibility that your preceding content left behind. That is a portion of a conspiracy theory template, viz. there is a conspiracy of silience and we can find no evidence of the conspiracy because the conspiracy runs so deep and is so well-organised but somehow some person on the internet has circumvented the obfuscatory efforts of the genius conspirators and arrived at The Truth and has decided to share it on the talk page of a Wikipedia article. Thanks for that. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 02:38, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

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)