Talk:Neuro-linguistic programming/Archive 8

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 → Archive 15

Sub article

Neuro-linguistic programming/Working is now the working article, where I will make comprimises or fixes.

However, a few of the criticism sources are a bit questionable, at least the cult ones(7 habits of highly effective people is even criticism there!). On the other hand removing all references to cult behavoir, most of the science section, and the image would seem to be crossing into censorship. Lets agknowledge NLP's faults, and off course, if attributes that are supported scientifically can be found, then add them to the science section. The engram section should be modified to no longer focus on just engrams, as they are rarely used.

And lets not edit war down there either please.Voice of AllT|@|ESP 18:25, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Hello VoiceOfAll. I checked the Loma ref again. Seven habits do not appear on that piece of literature. The NACHF paper focuses on empirically unvalidated (falsified) dubious therapies. So, the link to the webpage is not an accurate attribution, however the view that NLP is a dubious therapy in the same category as Dianetics is a credible source. 203.186.238.166 02:18, 23 December 2005 (UTC)HeadleyDown 02:19, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
Oh I almost forgot, Stephen Covey is often criticised for his claims to scientific support for his 7 habits (although automaticity research refutes this) and he is about as guilty as Deepak Chopra for mixing mysticism with his "remedies". [1]. Regards HeadleyDown 02:26, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
I am unable to find an author named Loma. What is Loma's first name? And what university/organisation is this author attached to? --Comaze 04:00, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
We still have no evidence that an author named Loma exists. How does this fabricated author keep getting into the article? And by the way NCAHF/Loma ref is not a paper at all, it is a short article that is not published by any reputable publisher. The Loma ref is most likely written by Steven Barrett. --Comaze 03:05, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
This is fine with me. And of course like every method that claims to enact influence NLP and hypnosis are used in the context of cults. I admit i overdid my proposal a little bit because the premature assumption of the self-proclaimed 'proponents of science' about me being an NLP-Fan together with the sloppy methodical work irked me somewhat. Personally i regard most of the methods collected in NLP as unverified regarding their effectiveness in a therapeutic setting, and as far as the scientific background goes: B & G made it clear enough that they aren't very much interested in it. Blauregen 23:57, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Blauregen. Your excuses make it clear that the pseudoscience section is absolutely necessary for the article. It makes no difference whether BnG say they are priests, pragmatists, or anti-science gurus. The fact is, they make hypotheses and scientists test them. They propose theory to support their assertions, and those theories are odd mixtures of pseudoscientific and/or falsified theory and assumption built on assumption. They choose to create whole glossaries of obscurantism in order to sound scientific. And they make pseudoscientific excuses placing the burden of proof on science and on the consumer to prove the efficacy of their dubious rituals. They (and many other NLPers) also actively associate various other pseudosciences with their pet pseudoscience. (all according to the literature). HeadleyDown 02:35, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
No HeadleyDown. We don't need to provide an additional explanation what pseudoscience is. I am all for mentioning that <source> regards NLP as pseudoscientific - though for the sake of brevity and comprehensibility we should restrict ourselves to a few reputable and representative sources - and to link to the appropriate article. That <source> stated this opinion is factually correct. Citing the complete list of reasons why they have this opinion is far beyond the scope of the article and should be left to the sources. Blauregen 08:58, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
Blauregen, your agenda to censor criticism is clear. The pseudoscience section should read "NLP's pseudoscientific characteristics". At least that would stop people like you from claiming we already know what pseudoscience is. Just read the thing clearly. It is not explaining to readers what pseudoscience is. It explains in what ways NLP is pseudoscientific, and it reduces the size of the article. NPOV states that a fact should be explained when the reason for the view is unclear. Pseudoscientific subjects are notoriously confusing. If there were no NLP pseudoscience section, those citations that are there would have to be mentioned in other places, and each with their own particular explanation. As it stands, the NLP pseudoscience section is a concise and clear network of facts. HeadleyDown 09:35, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
Hate to break this to you HeadleyDown, but your assertion is wrong. Around half of this section is simply swaggering about "The characteristics of pseudoscience....". If you have the impression that the appropriate article on pseudoscience is incorrect you should try to correct the errors there, instead of here. If you feel an urge to explain the pseudo-scientic characteristics of certain premises and methods of NLP this belongs to the appropriate methods and principles. There is a whole article on Principles of NLP where you could place criticism of said Principles, without artificially inflating this section of the main article. Blauregen 10:16, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
I make no assertions about the pseudoscience article. However, I have noticed your desperation towards censoring the NLP pseudoscience section, thereby whitewashing the article. Remember that any side-section or extra articles on principles etc were written by similarly desperate fanatics who could not write their promotional obscurantisms on the main NLP article. So they decided to place their fringe psychobabble in other wikipedia places. NLP is a fringe practice. A single article is sufficient. HeadleyDown 13:48, 23 December 2005 (UTC)


I am happy that the NLP page is locked for further edits and tagged as NPOV. People should conduct their own edit war on their own website. --Dejakitty 20:26, 22 December 2005 (UTC)


Fine by me also. Saves me having to revert the censorship of fanatical meatpuppets. HeadleyDown 00:44, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi all. I re-pasted in the images into the working article. They save the reader a great deal of time, and save having to spend a couple of extra paras each on explaining textually. HeadleyDown 01:16, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Greetings Headley and science orientation editors. Well done for showing a clear article and your clear explanation. The net is too full of false claimants. It appears here to dirty the encyclopedia, and you do well to brush it off. I wish I had more time. It is satisfying to point out the truth(facts). It looks like you get the satisfaction every day. All those unconvincing deluded (Comaze, FT2, old bandits, and the new fools (DejaKitty, AKlukis, and so on) have been well exposed for their wronghead promoting of fakevetenskap. Merry Xmas. HansAntel 04:06, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
Yes wikipedia is satisfying. Its mostly clarity that is rewarding though. A kind of intrinsic motivation. ATB HeadleyDown 09:42, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh I seem to have come at a bad time:) Well, it is clear that this article has some fervent believers, so I will try not to diss the gospel according to the authors. Anyway, I have been looking at the article and it looks quite scientifically deeply covered, and ---well I have to say it, NLP is considered a highly dubious pseudoscience according to my research also. From discussion it is also clear that the new age aspects of NLP explain a lot about its state. Well, here are some references from my investigations:

Concerning pseudoscience: Bandler and Grinder's observations, theories and grasp of neuroanatomy have been discredited and NLP is considered a dubious therapy according to (Elich, et al 1985; Gumm, et al 1982; Jupp, 1989; Poffel & Cross, 1985; Salas, et al 1989).

Elich, M., Thompson, R. W., & Miller, L. (1985). Mental imagery as revealed by eye movements and spoken predicates: A test of neurolinguistic programming. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 32(4), 622-625.

Jupp, J. J. (1989). A further empirical evaluation of neurolinguistic primary representational systems (PRS). Counselling Psychology Quarterly, 2(4), 441- 450.

Gumm, W. B., Walker, M. K., & Day, H. D. (1982). Neurolinguistics programming: Method or myth? Journal of Counseling Psychology, 29(3), 327-330.

Poffel, S. A., & Cross, H. J. (1985). Neurolinguistic programming: A test of the eyemovement hypothesis. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 61(3, Pt 2), 1262.

Salas, J. A., de Groot, H., & Spanos, N. P. (1989). Neuro-linguistic programming and hypnotic responding: An empirical evaluation. Journal of Mental Imagery, 13(1), 79-89.

Hope this helps to clarify things. Merry tidings. DocEastwood DocEastwood 06:18, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the refs Doc. The more the merrier. ATB HeadleyDown 09:42, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh, Hi again. I noticed that engram is an 'issue' here. Well, if you're into popular psychology, you're gonna associate engram with scientology (because dianetics is part of popular psychology). I relate it to neurology theory, but then again, I am a scientist. I'm not really into popular psychology. Most people havn't a clue what an engram is. From my reading of the Dilts et al 1980s Subjective Experience book, its pretty clear that they're talking about engrams from cover to cover. - Internal circuits, V-K-A, fourtuples, and so on. If you mention senses and the neurology and mental processing that is entailed, you are talking about engrams. There's no escaping the fact that NLP is about engrams, even if they do handle the concept in an "odd" way. DocEastwood 06:52, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Nevertheless, NLP engrams seem to be a dead concept, possibly abandoned due to credibility issues. We shouldn't simply say "NLP is about engrams" if that is an outdated minority view. On the other hand, several major NLP authors did mention them, so we have to let the history speak for itslelf, and not just ignore them.
Quote"If you mention senses and the neurology and mental processing that is entailed, you are talking about engrams"
Well, not necessarily, engrams are a theory and are a slightly more detailed abration than "neurology". Most NLP books likely mentioned neurology just to use the word, because it seems scientific, I have seen this kind of thing before. That issue is already addressed in the criticism section though. Enneagrams, which are not scientific at all, are actually used more than egrams. You might want to increase their mentioning rather than the small engram idea.Voice of AllT|@|ESP 07:35, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi VoA. I noticed that the engram term is actually used fairly recently, so its not outdated. Also, it would seem that engram is more a European/asian NLP term, than a minority one. I remember Hans mentioning that NPOV does have a passage about not being Anglo-american in perspective. I checked, and he's correct. BTW, its cool that we have a pagelock again. Cheers DaveRight 08:03, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

DaveRight, I think that the use of engram in some Hong Kong "NLP" training is a minority view, and there are counter-example that would need to be given the same or more weight. --Comaze 03:22, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
No sorry. A google.de search on engram and nlp shows that most hits only use both terms in spatial proximity, the main sources that use use them otherwise are anglo-american and predominantly this article or ripoffs of it. Blauregen 12:34, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Blauregen. Your search is narrow. As is your view. HeadleyDown 13:48, 23 December 2005 (UTC)


Hi again VoA. The Dilts and BnG books all mention "circuits" when talking about those sense combinations/connections. They also talk about "loops". This is central to engrams theory and explains how NLP is supposed to sustain its brief quick fix methods. Neuronal nets as a concept does not cover circuits. The engram concept is the only concept in neuroscience covering neural circuits and loops. Cheers again. DaveRight 08:09, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

So if i understand you correctly engrams as a neuroscientific concept (as opposed to the faulty use in dianetics) should be mentioned in the article in correlation to NLP? Well, they aren't that common, but if you insist i would not be opposed to mention them with an addition which interpretation is actually meant. This would give NLP an not entirely justified scientific appeal though. Blauregen 12:34, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually, this is a possible point for clarification. To my knowledge Dilts does not use the engram concept in relation to the subconscious. He does, however, make errors concerning the use of the neural network term (which refers to an artificial computing development) and he also makes pseudoscientific jumps from Hebb's rule, to the practicalities of NLP anchoring rituals (unfalsifiable). I think we could add something there, however, as it stands, some NLPers do make the gaff of applying engrams to the unconscious. In fact, some define the engram using exactly the same definition as the one invented by Hubbard [www.mcguireprogramme.com/articles/Unpredictability5.rtf]. Regards HeadleyDown 13:48, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Minor correction. According to wikipedia the term neural network refers to both, artifical and bilological structures. The supplied RTF refers to NLP only in one paragraph and a reference to Robbins, who as far as i know practces something he calls NAC, not basic NLP. It is hardly representative. Blauregen 14:29, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
OK, fine, the engram passage needs no changes at all. Anyway, your reliance on the web, and on other wikipedia pages is not particularly helpful. HeadleyDown 02:14, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
Dilts & Delozier's (2000) article on Artificial intelligence (http://www.nlpuniversitypress.com/html/AkAz18.html p.41) and it's influence on NLP is also relevant for the definition and use of Mind or neuro in NLP. See section on Bateson's Criteria of mind which is the minimal definition use in NLP practitioner training. --Comaze 02:57, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Bateson's Criteria of Mind

The entire field of neural networks is based on circuits. For example the machine learning model, feedforward, feedforward loops. NLP (eg. Malloy et al 2005) actually does cite Neutral networks as the source for some brain theory. It is important to note that Grinder (2001) considers neurology to be outside the domain of NLP and encourages those interested in NLP to become familar with recent developments in cognitive linguistics so that those interested can work alongside researchers in other field such as neuroscience. According to Grinder the scope of NLP is primarily the "linguistically mediated maps of first access".
The relevant passage from "Steps to ecology of emergence is"...
"The conceptualization of knowledge in terms of the “all or none” character of “difference” goes back in its modern computationally-based form at least to McCulloch and Pitts (1943). The fundamentals of neural nets that they laid down have undergone various stages of elaboration and development by theorists like Hebb (1949), Holland (1975) and Varela, Thompson and Rosch (1993) among many others. And the rigorous focus on difference as the defining epistemological relationship was developed extensively by Bateson (1972, 1979/2002), and continued in our own work by DeLozier and Grinder (1987) with application as a teaching method by Malloy (2001). Influenced by McCulloch’s thinking (see M. C. Bateson, 1991), Gregory Bateson proposes that difference is the basis of mental process which itself has six criteria:
  1. Mind is an aggregate of interacting parts or components.
  2. The interaction between parts of mind is triggered by difference.
  3. Mental process requires collateral energy.
  4. Mental process requires circular (or more complex) chains of determination.
  5. In mental process the effects of difference are to be regarded as transforms (i.e., coded versions) of the difference which preceded them.
  6. The description and classification of these processes of transformation discloses a hierarchy of logical types immanent in the phenomena. "(Malloy et al 2005 pp.40-41) --Comaze 02:48, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
The term is engram. And we have plenty of references that show the fact. Citing Grinder on neuroscience is like citing Hubbard. HeadleyDown 02:18, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
Malloy, Grinder and Bostic should be given more weight than Sinclair based on notability and authority in the field. Above is a direct quote from Malloy, Grinder and Bostic-St Clair published in Cybernetics and Human Knowing, 2005. See also Dilts & Delozier (2000 pp.246-274). --Comaze 02:48, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
Science needs more weight, Comaze, with supporting references. HansAntel 03:44, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
Weight is also determined by the verifiability, number of citations, authority of authors and reputation of publisher. Steps to ecology of mind (Bateson 1979) has over 1400 known citations so that source can be considered authoritative for Batesonian Epistemology. Steps spans many fields including communication theory and anthropology. --Comaze 04:15, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
Comaze, all of the stuff that you want to "shoe horn" into the article from Malloy, Bateson, McCulloch and cybernetic epistemology is gibberish. Bateson's impact is largely confined to the 1960s and 1970s on the West Coast of the USA -- an era and locale receptive to the ideas of the "hippy philosopher". Bateson's influence on contemporary epistemology -- at least in the English speaking world is virtually zero. Bateson's notion of "difference" and his "six criteria" are nonsense. I know of no psychologist, neurologist, philosopher of mind, psycholinguist or computer scientists of repute and significance that accords any weight to Bateson's post-modern intellectual masturbation. Malloy has no standing. What you are presenting is a chain of pseudoscientists citing each other: McCulloch -> Bateson -> Grinder -> Malloy. Turing regarded McCulloch a charlatan[2]. I conjecture he would have regarded Bateson, Grinder and Malloy the same. In deference to Turing and his huge contribution to the allied victory in WW II can we not sully his name by linking him with an idiotic, commercially-focussed, narcissistic, Californian, psycho-cult? Turing machines and Turing's other ideas have no substantive relationship to NLP. You are attempting to legitimise NLP theory and practice by associating it with major figures in Western intellectual history. You are acting as a pawn of Grinder, helping him to set-up his papier-mâché scientific facade for NLP. flavius 05:27, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Comaze, here's a core principle from "cyebernetic epistemology" from McCulloch (that is given lip-service by Bateson see Bateson, 1972b, p. 399) that Grinder, Malloy and you need to ponder: ‘To have proved a hypothesis false is indeed the peak of knowledge’ (McCulloch, 1970, p. 154). Von Glaserfeld adds, "This is equivalent to negative feedback: things are not what we thought they were." (Von Glasersfeld, 1996, p. 156). Thus from within the epistemology that you contend is native to NLP we are impelled to regard NLP as negative feedback, a huge sign shouting, "WRONG WAY -- GO BACK!". Consider Grinder and Bostic St Clairs curious interpretation of negative feedback:
One of the favorite patterns of NLP research to be subjected to testing by, no doubt, well-intentioned psychologists is representational systems (visual, auditory and kinesthetic) and, in particular, the eye movements that indicate which of the three major representational systems (visual, auditory and kinesthetics) is activated. Suppose that you as a researcher were interested in investigating the validity of the eye movements in a conventional scientific way...Suppose that we employ a video camera focused on the eye movements of the subjects involved and that we discover upon completion of the processing of 100 subjects that 80 of the 100 subjects when presented with this particular prompt, move their eyes to a position above the horizon and dilate their pupils prior to responding to the question. Further the remaining 20 subjects move their eyes down and to their left and then either dilate their pupils in position or then shift their eyes to a position above the horizon. What are we to make of this? Shall we conclude along with the psychologists that the probability is 0.8 that when presented with this prompt, the subject (and the general population to which we presumably wish to generalize our findings) will move his eyes to a position above the horizon? And that there is a probability of 0.2 that the subject will look down and to his left and dilate his pupils or down and to his left and then to a position above the horizon? It is possible to imagine contexts in which such probabilities might serve some purpose - the manipulation of eye movements in large groups of people (e.g. communication in print in mass advertising). However, to us as researchers, the conclusion is at best, amusing. The experienced NLP trained observer ideally would continue the investigation of the 20 subjects whose response was at variance with the predicted behavior - that is, whose response was the movement down and to their left and dilated pupils; or, down and to their left and then to a position above the horizon - subject by subject. More specifically, the investigator would elicit with great care a description from each of these subjects regarding what his or her ongoing experience was at the time of the movements involved. What one would hope to discover thereby is that the subject was using internal dialogue to repeat the prompt sentence when in the down and left position and then formed a visual image of the mentioned person, either in position (down and left) or after shifting to a position above the horizon. Such elicitation would bring the behavior of all subjects into conformity with the anticipated behavior and would thereby simply regularize the data. Such a result would offer very strong support for the thesis under consideration. (Grinder & Bostic-St Clair, 2002, Ch. 3)(italics added)
Besides demonstrating a complete misunderstanding of experiment design, inferential statistics and hypothesis testing the above excerpt demonstrates a perversion of the fundamental tenet in "cybernetic epistemology" of negative feedback. The hypothetical "20 subjects whose response was at variance with the predicted behavior" don't show us that "things are not what we thought they were" (in Glaserfeld's words) but rather than things are how we thought they were -- for some mysterious unspecified reason (Grinder's infallibility?) -- and that our method of inquiry needs adjustment. Grinder and Bostic St Clair's notion of the use negative feedback is to produce unfalsifiable hpotheses. The eye accessing cues hypothesis can't be false according to Grinder and his squeeze. This sophistry apparently hasn't occurred to Bandler since in his interview with the researchers from the US Army he downplayed the eye accessing and PRS hypothesis (Swets & Bjork, 1990). In cybernetic terms, Grinder's proposal is akin to programming a missile's inertial navigation system to repeatedly query the missiles speed and direction sensors in the "hope" that they will eventually indicate that the missile in on track when it has in fact veered off course. Grinder and Bostic St Clair demonstrate no fidelity to "cybernetic epistemology", no more fidelity that they exhibit to instrumentalism and fictionalism. It's just more name dropping and scientific pretence.
The problem for those of us that have some concern with truth and that value science is that no expert will review and debunk the crap currently pouring out of Grinder and Malloy because NLP is off the research agenda, its status as pseudoscience and psycho-shamanism has been settled. Wikipedia's prohibition of OR will enable B&Gs self-serving take on fictionalism (as-if inquiry minus the empirical test) and Grinder's self-serving and nonsensical interpretation of cyebernetic epistemology (treat all negative feedback as an artifact of the process of measurement/render all hypothesis unfalsifiable) to go without criticism. Given that Grinder's take on cybernetic epistemology and Malloy's post-modern vomitorium of a website is even more fringe than NLP (and consequently has not and most likely will not come to the attention of any topic experts) any references in the article to "cybernetic epistemology", "ecology of emergence", "discrete dynamical systems" and the like should be removed.
References:
McCulloch, W.S. (1970) Embodiments of Mind, Cambridge, Massachusetts, MIT Press.
Glasersfeld, E.V. (1996) Radical Constructivism: A Way of Knowing and Learing, London, Farmer Press.
Bateson, G. (1972b) Steps to an Ecology of Mind, New York, Ballantine.
Grinder, J. Bostic-St Clair C. (2002) Whispering in the Wind.
PS:- Fred Blaurden (or whathever your name is) does the above fall within the terms of that phrase in your private language "newsnet style spamming"? Your remark is utterly incomprehensible to me (and perhaps to you also). Spam (noun) is bulk unsolicited commercial email. Spamming (verb) is the act send of such electronic documents to Usenet forums (typically cross-posted to a multitude of groups and harvested email addresses. Do you have your own defintion of spam and spamming? If you do have such a private definition note that is has no value in communication. Also, what is "newsnet"? Perhaps newsnet is where you obtain your definitions of spam and spamming. How can I access newsnet and its mysterious lexicon? flavius 07:34, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Revisions

How does everyone like the current proposal?[3] Voice of AllT|@|ESP 18:32, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Looks fine, VoA. Reasonable file size, clear and factual, with no particularly large passages censored. I think it should be stabilized more or less around there. Regards HeadleyDown 02:11, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Article unprotected. Please make only minor changes to it without agreement. Larger changes can be made to the working article. Also, lets just keep the tag there since there is discussion. If Comaze or someone would like to replace it with sectional tags for certain areas, then please do so.Voice of AllT|@|ESP 03:28, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
Hi, yes Voicofall. Improving using incrementals is good. Also, I think the pseudoscience section can have info added. I have some European journal papers that explain more. But to be added piece by piece. HansAntel 03:42, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
Great, we need the highest quality references we can find. I've added NPOV sectional tags to the section that require higher priority of attention. --Comaze 04:27, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
"Higher", I take it there are other sections you have qualms with? Is it a general style or ref. issue, as the other sections seem like they could only use minimal work.Voice of AllT|@|ESP 04:33, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
The current structure and layout of the document is fine, except I still think that the "Questionable applications" can be connected to the "Applications section". "False claims to science" can be merged with "Pseudoscience". In terms of refs there are still many over-generalisations that need to be connected to aspects or specific schools or authors of NLP because they are not shared by the entire field, this can be done by tracing back the citations in the references. Generally the style and prose can be more encyclopedic, and kept consistant throughout the entire document -- this might need to be delegated to an external wikipedian. Some of the less-notable references and content can probably be removed in favour more reputable sources that is both for definitions and criticism of NLP. In some cases the references do not closely match the attributed statements, we'll need to work on this one-by-one. --Comaze 05:26, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Progress

I see that comaze has made the NPOV tag into more specific tags...good.

Now all we need is a point by point list, for each section, of what is wrong and a suggested fix.Voice of AllT|@|ESP 04:25, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

OK VoiceOfAll, but I am sure it is unneccesary to repeat what has been stated over and over in the archives. I suggest short replies to the NLP fanatics, and if they employ the old badgering trick, it is simply a trolling tactic that is best ignored. Regards HeadleyDown 09:24, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

I list would be nice, as before, we often had long rants that were not very concise.
I noticed that you moved the picture down to the applications section. Thats seems fine over there. If every reference will get challenged or something, then I might be bothered.Voice of AllT|@|ESP 19:32, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Issues:

This is a draft list (still more to come). Feel free to populate the list --Comaze 22:05, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Meaning of "Neuro" in NLP

  1. Include short paraphrase of meaning of mind from Structure of Magic Vol.1 (1975a), Frogs into princes (1979), Whispering 2001, Malloy (2005).
  2. Definitely mention AI/Neural Networks/Hebb influence include refs
  3. Possibly mention Turing Machine, Neurological transforms, Linguistic transforms, first access (4-tuple, primary experience), linguistically mediated maps -- probably too much detail
  4. TOTE (Test-Operate-Test-Exit) proposed by Miller, Galanter & Pribram (1960). And Miller's The Magical Number Seven, Plus or Minus Two) and neuropsychologist Oliver Sacks.

OK, though I am not sure about number 3, much of that seems like it would go into too much detail, and digress. Definetely, the neural networks should go in, perhpas Millar influence, and some of the number 3 items.Voice of AllT|@|ESP 23:52, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Comaze, Miller (1956) (available online at [4]) is outdated science. I know it is often quoted by NLP trainers and it has even seeped into numerous design disciplines but it is nevertheless outdated science. See for example

Yntema, D. B. (1963). Keeping track of several things at once. Human Factors, 5, 7-17.
Yntema, D. B., & Mueser, G. E. (1960). Remembering the present state of a number of variables. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 60, 18-22.
Venturino, M. (1997). Interference and Information Organization in Keeping Track of Continually Changing Information. Human Factors, 39(4), 532-539.
[5]

This reliance on outdated science that is convenient is characteristic of pseudoscience. The function of an encyclopedia is partly to educate. In the interests of this goal, outdated scientific results shouldn't be promulgated as if they represent the state of the art. flavius 04:26, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Scientific analysis of NLP

  1. Include peer-review journals [6] and [7]. Identify verifiability and notability of sources listed in those links.
  2. Include relevant findings APS conference, "Neuro-linguistic Programming (NLP) Pseudoscience or Topic of Peer Reviewed Academic Merit"[8]
  3. include some information about proper experiment design as defined by Grinder and Bostic St-Clair (2002)
  4. Distinguish between clinical psychology studies and outcome based studies.

Comaze, these issues have been discussed before multiple times, and your persistent denial shows that you are only here to enlarge the article. None of the studies you present are conclusive. They offer no proof. The current scientific analsysis is conclusive and based on expert (clinical psychologists) views. Your addition of those refs will lead to multiple explanations being added and a much larger section. Considering your bad faith actions, I will remove the NPOV tag. HeadleyDown 02:45, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

HeadleyDown. I've added point 4 based on your feedback. I'm still working on a paraphrase of the APS convention paper, we might be able to insert some relevant findings --Comaze 03:42, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Indeed, you can get started on the working article. However, note the message on the bottom of those webpages about study size and the fact that these are not external. They will therfore be worded as "but studies by X contents that..."

However, the Topic of Peer Reviewed Academic Merit link does not really go anywhere. The other two links mention or list reviews, but don't have them, and they are likely not by notable people. If there are any, then they can be cited.Voice of AllT|@|ESP 23:43, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Pseudoscience

  1. Include findings 17th American Psychological Science conference, "Neuro-linguistic Programming (NLP) Pseudoscience or Topic of Peer Reviewed Academic Merit"[9] - a poster can be found on Michael Foley's site [10].
  2. Correction to ref Lilienfield et al 2003 p.248 criticism is connected to VK/D (Grinder & Bandler 1979) that is used in workshops (eg. Figley) to treat PTSD, anxiety and trauma while VK/D lacks substantive clinical support Herbert, Lilienfeld et al. p.964[11]

If any relavent findings can be found then add them, but that first link is just an event summary. This may have very limited use then.

If the criticism refered only to one/several aspect(s), then reword the section on the working article.Voice of AllT|@|ESP 23:48, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

I've been forwarded the paper from the APS convention so I can paraphrase some relevant findings from there. --Comaze 00:08, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
I still doubt this will make much improvement. As for Lilienfield, I dont see what is wrong with the two areas he is cited at in that section. Do you not want the ref for the "self help delopement" part or at the list?Voice of AllT|@|ESP 04:29, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
Lilienfeld specificially criticises VK/D (Grinder & Bandler 1979) for treatment of trauma as taught in workshops, he says without substantive evidence. Lilienfeld does not study the entire field of NLP, at the moment Lilienfeld is overgeneralised. --Comaze 05:02, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
Show how you would reword it one the workin article.Voice of AllT|@|ESP 05:15, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
Sorry VoA, everyone: I've run out of time today. Should have some time tomorrow. --Comaze 10:27, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
As usual, Comaze is advocating that highly respected clinical psychologists should not have their views represented. And that NLP and turing machines should be. Go figure! HeadleyDown 16:33, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
Based on your feedback I modified the Lilienfeld point to make it more specific. --Comaze 22:42, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Cult characteristics

  1. What authors, techniques or specific aspects of NLP are cult-like? All criticism needs to be connected to specific aspects of NLP.
  1. If NLP is a set of techniques what techniques are cult like, or used by cults? Is this just an opinion of the author, or is this cited? This needs to be balanced with Hassan and Prof. Charles Figley who consider techniques of NLP useful in helping people leave cults and the view that NLP is promoted as a way to encourage independant critical thinking
  2. Hassan is aware of some cult leaders that have trained in NLP, he is not aware of any cults that use NLP as a central part of the indoctrination methods.
  3. Some prominant trainers are Christian (eg. Dilts) some are Agnostic, some are against any sort of indoctination. At the moment the Cult section
  4. Gary Tippet is misrepresented[12]. He basically state that some cult leaders are training in NLP.
  5. Crabtree is not notable[13], this reference and attributed statement can be removed or truncated into the first sentence in that section, "NLP is referred to a technique used by both mild and aggressive cults".
  6. Singer, Margaret & Janja Lalich are given alot of weight in the article. What aspects or schools of NLP are they criticising?
  7. Navopashin (2004) is a violation of "guilt by association" or Wikipedia:No Original Research see [14] for details

Its no good claiming that things are not notable. You must explain why. And considering the demands Comaze has made, you have to explain for MONTHS. These pointwise assertions are facile. The cult section could do with expanding in response to this censorious nonsense.JPLogan 03:34, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

JPLogan, are you claiming that Crabtree is a notable author in this field? What is your evidence? --Comaze 01:19, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, the difference between the "commercial cult" and actual cults should be stated more clearly in the article.


Specific attributtes of NLP, such as group pressure, should be tied to cult criticism, rather than all of NLP. There likely is no cult that is just build around being an "NLP cult". NLP does seem like a "commercial cult" at times, given the secretiveness, ellusion of peer review, ect...Criticism should be reworded to either "some aspects" or the exact ones("aspects, such as..."), but it should not just be deleted.

Commercial cult is already mentioned in order to distinguish the sect/religion/cults from commercial cults. The term 'new age' could be useful there though.HeadleyDown 02:53, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Many of the "NLP sucks" quotes have already been trimmed out, so we won't need to cut out too many more of those.Voice of AllT|@|ESP 23:58, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

I've modified comments about Hassan, added Crabtree, and Tippet while you were editing. Based on your comments I'll refactor the list accordingly. I'll be back later . Can you change your comments after it has been refactored? :) --Comaze 00:08, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
Can we agree to remove or truncate Crabtree ref , and reword Tippett? This should be fairly simple. Then we can cross out those two points and move forward --Comaze 09:48, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
No Comaze, but most of us have agreed that your are bent on censorship/whitewash. You are ultimately destined for disappointment. JPLogan 03:23, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
What points are you referring to here? --Comaze 01:19, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Other editors

FT2 has "given up" on this article. Fuelwagon won't be back anytime soon [15]. Where the others?Voice of AllT|@|ESP 05:14, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Hay, VoiceOfAll. Didn't someone remind you? Its Christmas:) Comaze is hoping Santa will allow him to remove all criticisms from the article. HeadleyDown 16:31, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

My primary focus now is accuracy; closeness of attribution to the actual source. --Comaze 22:46, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
Well, Comaze's focus in actual fact is just the same as it always was; To remove criticisms of NLP. This is quite a dry season, but I will be checking up on things at least once a week - forever. And any facts I see that should be in the article, I will paste right back there. You hear that Comaze? JPLogan 03:22, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

What was the writer of this bit trying to say?

"Grinder has stated that NLP is a science and an art, and Bandler and Grinder have used erroneously explained neuroscience to NLP (Bandler and Grinder 1975a)."

Fritz Perls and Dianetics

I wrote the Gestalt Institute a letter regarding the details of Perls' involvement in Dianetics when there was much consternation about this matter in the discussion page. I haven't received a reply (yet) but I have discovered a Perls biography:

Shepard, Martin (1975) Fritz, Saturday Review Press, New York.

The bio didn't contain any references to Perls running an auditing clinic but the excerpts below suggest that his involvement with Dianetics was more than dabbling. His biographer reports:

"It was not too long before Fritz began traveling from city to city on a "milk run"--to Cleveland, Detroit, Toronto, Miami--running small groups for those professionals and laymen interested in Gestalt Therapy. In addition, he took advantage of observing, attending, and being affected by such pioneers as Charlotte Selver (Body Awareness) and J. L. Moreno (Psychodrama), studying Dianetics with Arthur Ceppos, and being turned on to Zen by Paul Weisz, his friend, confidant, and fellow Gestaltist in New York." (Shepard, 1975, p. 64)
'Fritz was particularly intrigued with L. Ron Hubbard's Dianetics--later referred to as Scientology--and was one of the first people audited by this procedure. The Dianeticist's technique of emotional recall of past disturbing elements in the present time, as though they were happening now, in order to erase and eliminate these influences through emotional catharsis, was clearly evident in Fritz's later work, as was their insistence on communicating, on taking responsibility for one's own feelings. Thus, a Scientology student would say, "I feel uncomfortable when I am around you," rather than "You make me feel uncomfortable."' (Shepard, 1975, p. 65)

If this is still a topic of interest I'll pursue the matter more aggressively investigating Arthus Ceppos and attempting to obtain a copy of the Dianetics book that Perls wrote the intro for. flavius 10:42, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Flavius, doing a google search indicates that Dianetics was Hubbard's abuse of Perl's Gestalt Therapy (and other ideas). Thus, it was not Perls being influenced by Hubbard, but HUBBARD's joke-religion was based on Perls' work.
http://home.snafu.de/tilman/j/origins6.html Hubbard also seems to have borrowed ideas from Fritz Perls' Gestalt ...
http://www.as3265.net/~kspaink/cos/essays/atack_origin.html Hubbard also seems to have borrowed ideas from Fritz Perls' GESTALT therapy
Perls ALSO wrote this about Hubbard's Dianetics: "Hubbard, with his mixture of science and fiction, his bombastic way of pretending to something new by giving abstract names... to processes, his rejection of the patient's responsibility... his unsubstantiated claims, makes it easy for anyone to reject his work in toto,..." in the Introduction for this book: J. A. Winter, A Doctor's Report on Dianetics, p. xiv.
Perls could have been speaking about NLP and NLP promoters, being bombastic, mixing science and fiction, giving things abstract names (obscurantisms), unsubstantiated claims, and so on. Perls would probably be extremely critical of NLP. Camridge 03:10, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
In his book "A Doctor's Report on Dianetics" book, J.A. Winter wrote (in Chapter 1):


Another point in which dianetics did not seem to follow out the claims of its originator was in the concept of "clear." Hubbard defines a "clear" as an individual who, through dianetic therapy, has had all his engrams removed, who "has neither active nor potential psychosomatic illness or aberration" (p. 170). He further states that an engram, once removed, is gone permanently, and can never return to influence a person's behavior. In our early correspondence he mentioned that a "clear" had been obtained in as few as twenty hours of therapy; this sort of result has not, to my knowledge, been obtained by other practitioners of dianetics. I know of persons who have had 1500 to 2000 hours of therapy and do not approximate the state of "clear," as defined. True, they are in better health and are more effectual and happy citizens -- but they have not reached this absolute goal.


I have yet to see a "clear" before and after dianetic therapy. I have not reached that state myself, nor have I been able to produce that state in any of my patients. I have seen some individuals who are supposed to be "clear," but their behavior does not conform to the definition of the state. Moreover, an individual supposed to have been "clear" has undergone a relapse into conduct which suggests an incipient psychosis.
Thankyou AKulkis, this is clear evidence that Perls practiced Dianetics "I have not reached that state, nor have I been able to produce that state in any of my patients." Camridge 03:10, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Camridge, I believe that it is Winters speaking not Perls. There are a couple of indicators of this (i) the editor inserts "[snipped a couple of pages describing this woman's condition - quite gloomy. Dr. Winter continued his narrative...]"; (ii) the narrator says his home is in Michigan, Perls was based in New York City; (iii) the narrator states "For several years I had written articles on medical subjects for the laity, and some of my work had been published in Astounding Science Fiction". Perls never wrote for that magazine, Winter did ref ASTOUNDING SCIENCE FICTION 1948: November (Vol.42 No.3) [16] The above notwithsatnding there is enough evidence to reinstate a reference to the Perls/Dianetics connection. flavius 06:08, 28 December 2005 (UTC)


This does not mean that I am denying the existence of the state of being "clear." It remains a theoretical possibility, granting the validity of certain postulates. I must, however, regard this claim as one which has not been confirmed. [...]
Another observation which I made during my association with the Foundation had to do with the phenomenon called "positive suggestion." It has been known since the days of the Egyptians that most people can be put into a state in which they act as if whatever they are told is true; they are said to be hypnotized, and the statements made by the operator in manipulating the subject's actions are called "positive suggestions." Hubbard in his book had inveighed against hypnosis and pointed out that being hypnotized was tantamount to being given an engram.
"My association with the foundation" Perls was associated or affiliated with Dianetics. Camridge 03:10, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
It has been known for some time that hypnosis can alter a person's behavior pattern for better or worse, not only during the hypnotic state but also for an indefinite period thereafter. [Werner Wolff, "The Threshold of the Abnormal," Hermitage House, Inc., New York, 1950, p. 328.] It was generally believed, however, that the person had to be in the hypnotic state in order to have a positive suggestion installed and his conduct thereby altered. ...


By October, 1950, I had come to the conclusion that I could not agree with all the tenets of dianetics as set forth by the Foundation. I could not, as previously mentioned, support Hubbard's claims regarding the state of "clear." I no longer felt, as I once had, that any intelligent person could (and presumably should) practice dianetics. I noted several points on which the actions of the Foundation were at variance with the expressed ideals of dianetics: one of these points was a tendency toward the development of an authoritarian attitude. Moreover, there was a poorly concealed attitude of disparagement of the medical profession and of the efforts of previous workers in the field of mental illness. Finally, the avowed purpose of the Foundation -- the accomplishment of precise scientific research into the functioning of the mind -- was conspicuously absent.
http://www.xenu.net/archive/fifties/e510000.htm (Operation Clambake: Undressing Scientology)
Notice the qualified statements: Perls could not agree with all the tenets of dianetics. But he agreed with some. Not any intelligent person should practice dianetics, but some. Authoritarian attitude - NLP. Disparagment of medicine - NLP. Camridge 03:10, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
[Note that Hubbard and his Dianetics specifically REJECTS the use of hypnosis, which is in direct contrast to the NLP community which ENCOURAGES the use of hypnosis whenever it is convenient (including the use of covert hypnotic inductions while outside of clinical settings).]
Auditing has been banned in Australia, because it uses command hypnosis. The same kind of hypnotic commands as NLP. Camridge 03:10, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Perls wrote the forward to this book, and therefore endorsed Winter's position. And if it's not entirely clear from that act alone, the following statement by Perls in the forward makes it certain:
"Hubbard, with his mixture of science and fiction, his bombastic way of pretending to something new by giving abstract names... to processes, his rejection of the patient's responsibility... his unsubstantiated claims, makes it easy for anyone to reject his work in toto,..."
The Perls' statement is a POSITIVE REJECTION of Hubbard's views, and therefore, of Dianetics. Akulkis 14:43, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Perls did not actually say he rejected Dianetics. But he did say that he practiced it, and he was closely associated with dianetics. Here is the statement as it reads[17]: "Perls, a staunch adherent of dianetics and a follower of Winter's group, has taken issue with Hubbard. He writes, "Hubbard, with his mixture of science and fiction, his bombastic....." THEREFORE: Perls was a staunch adherent, an associate, and a practitioner of dianetics who somply took issue with some of Hubbards methods/characteristics. I think we have enough sources for "Perls the dianetics fan" for now. Camridge 03:10, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

WOW! I knew Perls was a xenuphile, but I didn't know he was a staunch adherent of dianetics. Learn something new every day:)DaveRight 04:00, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Aaron, I'm familiar with Atack's essay which you have referenced. Atack states,"Hubbard also seems to have borrowed ideas from Fritz Perls' Gestalt Therapy - though I haven't looked into this in any depth yet." Thus Atack's account is self-admittedly tentative. Shepard's bio is well-researched and his chronology of events is sensible. I don't see a reason to reject Shepard's work in favour of Atack's conjecture. Headley's account is consistent with Shepard's. Furthermore, your proposed chronology of events is discordant. Hubbard announced his creation of Dianetics in the December 1949 edition of Astounding Science Fiction[18]. The first Dianetics article appeared in the Spring 1950 edition of The Explorers Club Journal[19]. Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health was published on May 9, 1950 [20]. At this point Gestalt Therapy (distinct but related to Gestalt Psychology) was only just forming. Perls published Ego, Hunger and Aggression: A Revision of Psychoanalysis in 1947 which contained only the germ of Gestalt Therapy. At this stage Perls remained heavily influenced by Freudian psychoanalysis, Gestalt Psychology and existentianl psychotherapy . According to Laura Perls, Fritz was at this stage existential in orientation[21]. Perls' et als Gestalt Therapy: Excitement and Growth in the Human Personality wasn't published until 1951. Arthur Ceppos published Hubbard's Dianetics and Perl's Gestalt Therapy. Shepard tells us that Perls studied Dianetics with Ceppos during the latter formative years of Gestalt Therapy, namely, the 1950-1. Ceppos very likely introduced Perls to Dianetics. Thus Dianetics preceded Gestalt Therapy. Prior to Perls' exposure to Dianetics the nascent Gestalt Therapy was a pastiche of post-war Continetal Eurpoean humanistic psychologies. The only abreactive element that Perls originally had came from Freudian psychoanalysis (Existential Psychotherapy and Gestalt Psychology do not incorporate abreaction). Gestalt Therapy's trauma therapy by abreaction is not Freudian it is more like that in Dianetics. In the foreword in Winter's book Perls doesn't actually state that he rejects Dianetics in toto, he actually re-iterates his ostensibly "ecelectic" philosophy which is evident throughout his career. By the time Winter's book was published Gestalt Therapy was on its way to becoming institutionalised (in 1952 the New York Gestalt Institute was established) and Hubbard's paranoid schizophrenia had become acute and he was penning venomous, paranoid and accusatory letters to the FBI regarding both Winters and Ceppos [22]. If Perls wanted any credibility it was important that he distance himself from Hubbard and Dianetics. Also, in 1953 Harvey Jay Fischer published Dianetic Therapy: An Experimental Evaluation(online at [23]). In it he describes Perls as "a staunch adherent of dianetics and a follower of Winter's group" (Ch. 1). There is nothing peculiar about Hubbard's falling out with Winter's and Perls, Hubbard was a paranoid schizophrenic (just like you?) he fell out with many people (including Aleister Crowley). Your (vestigial) argument re hypnosis and dianetics is specious (like all of your contributions). You are in effect proposing that because A does not share all properties in common with B then A and B must be unrelated. Apparently, in your aberrant surrealistic world there are no intersecting sets (in naive set-theoretic terms). By your superior Engineering/US Army/Patent seeking/drill sergeant assaying logic then vanilla ice cream and chocolate ice cream are unrelated because they do not share a common flavour. Similarly kick-boxing is unrelated to boxing because they don't kick in boxing. If this weren't enough to damn you, your entire thesis is more of your simulacra. No one is claiming that NLP is Dianetics or that it is a subset of Dianetics. The thesis -- which has ample evidence -- is that NLP incorporates elements of Dianetics via Perls' influence on the formation of NLP. There is no evidence that Bandler or Grinder had any interest in Dianetics. There is ample evidence that Perls had much interest in Dianetics and we know that Perls was very influential in the formation of NLP. As Headley has explained, the core NLP notion of the submodality and the core technique of submodality manipulation for the purpose of attenuating traumatic memories is closely paralleled by Dianetic auditing. None of the other antecedents of Gestalt Therapy (besides Dianetics) have sensory based trauma reduction techniques. Finally, Hubbard's distancing of Dianetics and Scientology from hypnosis is merely marketing and a pre-requisite to his vilification of psychiatrists and psychologists. "Propaganda by Redefinition of Words” (PR series 12)[24][25] (or "loaded language" in Lifton's Thought Reform Model) is component of CoS doctrine. Dianetics can be understood as a form of hypnosis[26]. The pre-clear's state of relaxtion -- called reverie in Dianetics jargon -- during an auditing session is akin to light hypnotic trance. The Anderson Report (excerpted here [27], [28]; in full here [29]) states that "It is the firm conclusion of this Board that most scientology and dianetic techniques are those of authoritative hypnosis and as such are dangerous...the scientific evidence which the Board heard from several expert witnesses of the highest repute and possessed of the highest qualifications in their professions of medicine, psychology, and other sciences - and which was virtually unchallenged - leads to the inescapable conclusion that it is only in name that there is any difference between authoritative hypnosis and most of the techniques of scientology. Many scientology techniques are in fact hypnotic techniques, and Hubbard has not changed their nature by changing their names." (p.115) Consistent with PR series 12, the Anderson Report states, 'The common practice of Hubbard is to change the names of hypnotic phenomena to names of his own invention, purporting thereby to change the nature and significance of such phenomena. Thus, a form of unconsciousness experienced in hypnosis he has renamed variously "anaten", "boil-off", and "dope-off"; hypnotic hallucinations he has called "mental image pictures"; and "dissociation" he has called "exteriorization".' (p.115). Also, I remind you that you haven't answered any of my substantive criticisms of your blather and bluster. Will you conveniently ignore my arguments concerning inter alia your false harmless/ineffective dichotomy, your misrepresentation of Barrett's litigation, your inability to distinguish assertion from argument, your privileging of your own subjective experince, your presentation of anecdote as evidence, your self-refuting argument regarding the essential bias of those with a vested interest, your need to reconcile the last 500 years of scientific progress with the allegedly corrupt and entrenched institution of science, your need to reconcile the staunch criticism of psychology by psychologists given the alleged corruption of the profession ad nauseum? flavius 05:37, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Perls practiced Dianetics and adapted trauma treatments directly from dianetics. Going back into a traumatic experience, and making "in the shoes" gestures was Perl's major contribution to Gestalt therapy (a fringe therapy). Of course this is the same as submodality treatments of NLP. Naranjo has mentioned this, and in true narcissistic style, Perls then distances himself from Hubbard and claims the method for himself. Perls was into Dianetics until people started saying "hey thats not empirically supported". Then he goes to Esalen institute to suck dope with the other shamen. If he were alive today, he would probably use bits of NLP, then diss NLP for being empirically unsupported. How about we discuss Satir's enneagrams now?:) HeadleyDown 16:31, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
There are whole books written on NLP and the enneagram [30].Camridge 03:12, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Comaze, what you mean to say is that you would really love to censor the fact that NLP is based on the convenient yet ineffective techniques of Dianetics proponents and other such new agers. NLP fanatics such as yourself spend months trying to delete the fact that NLP is categorized with Dianetics and Scientology as pseudoscientific and cultlike. As NPOV states, we must explain that to people. And all those oldies who read NLP for the first time and say to themselves "Hang on! Thats just like Dianetics, isn't it?". We can clarify the facts for them. Or perhaps you could write a big sentence for them at the end saying "Oh no, this isnt at all like Dianetics, no not at all, nononononono! really, its not! Honestly!". DaveRight 02:37, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Comaze, I put it to you that it is not consistent with your "web of belief" (my apologies to Quine) to "work out why". NLP and Dianetics are "cut from the same cloth", they are of the same category (pseudoscientific, unsubstantiated, theoretically unfounded, ineffective, psycho-shamanistic, psycho-cults) share a historical connection via Perls, have in common regressive techniques (auditing vs. VK dissoaciation, submodality manipulation and time line therapy), Bandler's scornful descriptions of the "conscious mind" closely parallel Hubbard's disdain for the "reactive mind", the "clear" is essentially a person without pernicious "anchors", the unconscious mind is deified in both Dianetics and NLP, both NLP and Dianetics conceptualise pathology as learnt and eliminable via unlearning (engram removal vs. collapsing anchors/submodality attenuation/VK dissociation), both NLP and Dianetics claim General Semantics as influences. The parallels are too many to ignore. Sociologically, what is fascinating is that in the same way that Dianetics eventually grew into Scientology (a broader metpahysical framework within which Dianetics is placed) NLP has gained broader metaphysical/quasi-spiritual layers within which it nestled, supplying the psycho-philosophical theory for a grander metpahysical theory. The only difference is that NLP has undergone this expansion in a distributed and diverse fashion producing a multitute of quasi-religions. Perhaps this needs more explanation by way of analogy:
Dianetics is to Scientology as
NLP is to Tad James' Huna/NLP fusion
NLP is to Bandler's Magick/DHE/NHR fusion
NLP is to Kenrick Cleveland's Santeria/NLP fusion
NLP is to Philip Farber's Magick/NLP fusion
NLP is to Grinder's Castaneda/radical social constructivist/NLP fusion
These outgrowths demonstrate that NLP alone -- like Dianetics -- is insufficient to form a comprehensive New Religion. Religions present a soteriology, cosmology and a conception of human nature. NLP supplies a part of the conception of human nature but it has no soteriology and cosmology. To serve as a substitute religion these additional elements must be added. In the same way that Hubbard borrowed from gnosticism, gnostic mythology and science fiction to provide the necessary soteriology and cosmology so too have numerous NLP authorities borrowed from the occult. In my experience of NLP seminars the bulk of attendants have rejected traditional religion (Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism) and are seeking "something else". This disillusionment with traditional religion appears to have been experienced by the NLP authorities themselves and they consequently develop there own New Religion with NLP serving as an initiation and practical component of the "faith". Narcissistic baby-boomers with the money to spend form the ballast of these New Religions. Thus also from a sociological perspective there is a parallel between Dianetics and NLP. flavius 02:47, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
I still cannot work out why is there only one mention of "Gestalt therapy" and 12 repeats of Dianetics/Scientology (not including engrams ambiguity)? I think we are currently giving Scientology and Dianetics viewpoint too much weight in the current article. Firstly, NLP is not a religion and has been applied to sales training in business more than it has been applied in religious contexts. I think we're going to have to get an RfC on this from an expert in the field (Gestalt therapy?). The link between Dianetics and Gestalt is weak AND the link between Gestalt and NLP is also weak. Some language patterns observed in Bandler and Perls were imported into the meta model of therapy (1975a), the same model also includes language patterns from Virginia Satir and Transformational syntax so these also need to be included. Comaze 06:44, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi all. Here are some other interesting links: [31][32]. This "spiritual technology" is based partly on NLP, and the PEAT processes seem to be exactly the same. I notice that they also talk about language in the same way as dianetics, and this shows exactly how people perceive NLP. The loaded language of Scientology is so similar to NLP. Hubbard devotes a whole book to communication in his Dianetics 55, and his science and tech of achievement in his main Dianetics tome. NLP books themselves are very sanitized in comparison with what actualy goes on in use, or in groups, or in the seminars of NLP gurus. Take mirroring and matching for example. In social psych, mirroring is simply an effect rather than a cause. If you gain empathy with someone, you will automatically match them in some subtle ways. In NLP it is a mindfuck. You become a jedi who can gain compliance with your subject by cleverly, artfully and craftily matching their movements and leading them to do as you desire. The obscurantisms are similar. In hypnosis, you give suggestions to the subject. In NLP you COMMAND them. You go out to command your acquaintances using a deeper resonant pitch, like the voice of their own subconscious. NLP is designed to inspire you to consider this kind of "empowerment" by delusion. It gives you tools. The tools look great, and you can peel the golden foil off and eat the chocolate. But they do nothing for you in reality. They offer ultimate flexibility. But so does shamanism. You can evoke your halucinations and visions, and see the future you can create through building "outcomes", and all for the price of a seminar or novel. And you can surround yourself with like-minded people, on newsgroups and in clubs and seminars. For sure, sociologically this subject just gets more interesting the deeper you go. Camridge 03:26, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Camridge, I feel dumber after visiting those URLs :-) "Spiritual Technology" reads much like Dianetics and Scientology. It amuses me how the author refers to NLP to substantiate his claims (as if it were a fundamental science). The author of that web site has learnt much from Hubbard and B&G. "Loaded language" is a characteristic of cults. In this regard NLP is cult-like. I agree that the weirdest material is to be discovered at NLP seminars. I provided some links to reviews of Bandler's master prac classes that substantiates this.flavius 07:29, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
We've still got a major bias towards "New Age" (17 repeats), and "Dianetics/Scientology(20 repeats) points of view. --Comaze 04:53, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Comaze, clearly you still do not see the connections. The new age and dianetics issues will be quite useful for clarifying more of the article. I will make the appropriate clarifications in time. HeadleyDown 03:03, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Embedded Commands, Co-operative approach v. Authoritative approach

The embedded command is a basic technique that is taught in all master prac seminars that I am familiar with. I will dig-out my seminar manuals if need be. There is no confusion other than that which you are creating. I know from first-hand that Bandler, Ross Jeffries, Kenrick Cleveland and the Essential Skills group all teach NLP techniques as a means of covertly commanding unwitting victims. flavius 07:37, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Yes in NLP it is not framed as a suggestion, rather than an authoritative power word. In fact, they often sell 18 power words, and get people to practice them as commands. NOW, when you DO THIS, you will NOTICE, you can FEEL COMPELLED, to BUY THIS IDEA, and when you REALIZE ITS SO SEXY, you will COME OVER AND OVER AGAIN, to the same conclusion that you are FALLING UNDER THE SPELL, and SUCCUMMING TO NLP. NOW, how much does that make you FEEL REALLY GOOD to FALL FOR THAT? Of course its all bullshit, but it makes the practitioner feel like a powerhouse jedi shaman. If you ever hear that sort of thing coming from an NLPer, just realize they are probably also jerking off under the table. The terms in NLP are generally designed to give the practitioner delusions of grandure. Bookmain 08:36, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Thats really funny Bookmain. They use these "commands" all the time on newsgroups. Here is an article on commands [33] The idea is that they bypass the rational mind and hit you right in the subconscious (a notion considered dubious by hypnotherapists). The moderators of NLP newsgroups tend to use them a lot, and it gives them some mistique. In fact moderators of NLP groups tend to also act very bombastically, just like their heros (Bandler, Sikes, Hubbard etc) for the same reason. Their arguments and metaphors are generally designed to insult people indirectly in order to keep order. This only works in situations of group control, where people are under the threat of being booted and flamed. So when you HEAR DODGY NLP idiots such as Akulkis and his NLPgroup derived arguments, you may NOTICE THE NLPER is just PULLING ITS OWN PLONKER without the benefit of a group for backup. For sure, it mostly just comes across as shouting. In a "covert undercover NLP situation" it is usually used with "subtle artfullness" and "slight of mouth" in order to subtly "lead the victim to an outcome". You gotta learn some more "secrets" to get to that point though. Probably from one on one tuition from "qualified" NLPists. You gotta pay lots of money for that though. ATB Camridge 09:03, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Comaze, the only confusion is that which you are trying to spread. Saying "oh thats not the way we do it" has been your standard line from the beginning. NLP uses commands, full stop. They are termed commands. It doesn't matter whether you dress them up for song and dance, the fact is, NLP promotes methods that have dubious efficacy for what they are intended for. However, they seem to be great for fooling the practitioner/user. If you deliberately send people commands, then you feel you are impacting their subconscious somehow. Magic! You are in control and you have power over somebody else's mind. At least that is how they feel about it. Mirroring is similar. From research conducted on mirroring, if you tell a group of people that mirroring makes you persuasive, then they will find anybody who mirrors them will seem highly persuasive. But to those who don't know the hypothesis, mirroring makes no difference at all. Great for seminars that include mirroring workouts! NLP is set up to fool the practitioner (and it often encourages them to try devious and ethically dubious activities). Mostly though, it is just a lot of evasive rituals dressed up as science. HeadleyDown 03:16, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
I have also seen lists of power words, often sold as secrets in NLP. Perhaps this trend has died down, but it was very common a few years back on the WWW. HeadleyDown 03:20, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Flavius makes the most accurate comment here, saying "The embedded command is a basic technique" in NLP practitioner training. But you guys are still discounting the view best represented by Stephen Gilligan PhD -- the co-operative approach. One of the original developers of NLP and students of Milton Erickson, who wrote his PhD on this co-operative relationship between hypnotist and client for use in psychotherapy.
Camridge says, "In NLP you COMMAND them" and "[They] use these 'commands' all the time on newsgroups."
HeadleyDown says, "NLP uses commands, full stop." and
There is still confusion around the difference between the commanding/authoritative approach used in clinical hypnotherapy and stage hypnosis, and the co-operative approach promoted by many NLP trainers. I'm not saying that this approach is used by all practitioners of NLP and all NLP training but it certainly a majority, examples can be found all the early NLP books (Patterns 1&2 1976-1977, Trance-formations 1981, Turtles 1986) and the same patterns is found in pacing and leading in rapport (Patterns 1&2 1976-1977), this is a dance where no one person is in control of the relationship. In the psychotherapy setting embedded commands are not used as bald statements, embedded commands are taught for use in subtle generative suggestions. Also, there is still a confusion around the difference between stage hypnosis/clinical hypnosis which can be very commanding/authoritative, and the ericksonian approach to hypnosis a softly pacing/leading approach.
Bookmain says, "[they] often sell 18 power words"
HeadleyDown says, "power words, often sold as secrets in NLP."
By definition power words are content, not process and therefore not part of any NLP syllabus -- not part of any topic covered in a course.. Do you have any counter-examples for this? Who teaches them? Are they taught by any notable trainers/authors in the field? If so, when? This is again part of the co-operative approach which allows the student or client to use his/her own words to describe the desired states and resources required to achieve outcomes. Additionally HeadleyDown/Bookmain/Camridge make the claim that NLP can be used in newsgroups. Well, strictly this is not true; NLP can only be used in face-to-face communication. There are no verbal or non-verbal cues to calibrate with text therefore you are not doing NLP. --Comaze 04:22, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

History repeating winwinwin

NLP fanatics make demands for more evidence, more evidence is presented, and NLP fanatics don't like it. Thats the history of this article. I quite like the process. It is a win-win-win. I win because it makes a clear article, and humanity wins because it makes a clear article, and humility wins because dickhead NLPbrains get to look really stupid:) DaveRight 04:04, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

If Perls at once promoted all or most of Dianetics, then the link should stay. Methinks I removed it too hastily :).

Nevertheless, lets not insult people. Comaze has been very civil, whether he seems annoying to you or not.Voice of AllT|@|ESP 05:28, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi VoiceOfAll. Your edits work well, as we are trying to keep things brief. Changes to your edits are only made when an editor has more info at hand than you. Regards Camridge 06:00, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Mmm! I wonder. I think Comaze's months of creating annoyance and extra work is extremely uncivil. Especially when those annoying incidences are highlighted by his daily and mostly unwarrented accusations of personal attacks (slur campaign). We know Comaze's game all too well. I don't think any editor is going to see his edits or suggestions as anything more than a desire for censorship. We all have to live with that, including him. Camridge 06:00, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
This is on topic Comaze. Your activities highlight the pseudoscientific attitudes and cultlike nature of NLP proponents. And any solutions to reduce your antagonistic and conflict provoking efforts have always been useful for the advancement of this article. Bookmain 08:26, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
There is nothing strict about discussions pages Comaze. People here are doing their best to cope with your censorship and your fostering of wikispam/promotion/confusion. I think anything that helps avoid such confounding nonsense is a good thing for the article. HeadleyDown 03:23, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
By refering to your agenda, Comaze, nobody is being personal. And by refering to your agenda here, rather than on personal pages, you will have less chance of creating conflict with your multiple unreasonable objections. HeadleyDown 04:50, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Accuracy, Verifiability and No original research

I've created a page to document any inaccuracies, overgeneralisations, misleading statements or statements that do not have proper citations, see Talk:Neuro-linguistic_programming/inaccurate. This will take some time to document all the sections, but will help us sort out the content disputes and prepare for a fact and reference check. Any assistance would be greatly appreciate, anyone want to join me on this project? Please assist by adding references and page numbers to all facts -- the quick test is, can someone verify this in 10 years time? I've just added some page numbers for your reference. Also marked REF or PAGE where page number or REF is required as per the proposed decision of arbitration. We also need to be careful because some of the current statements use "guilt by association" to connect NLP to negative things, this would be covered under verifiability and Wikipedia: No original research. I've also made some changes to the Neuro-linguistic_programming/Working version to mark out some missing references and proposed changes to that "questionable application" section. --Comaze 11:50, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Comaze, you are obsessed. Trying to recruit more cronies? This is really funny. In the process you will undoubtedly uncover plenty of extra criticism towards NLP. Do you care to share it on your new "advocate censorship" article? HeadleyDown 03:07, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
I modified the Brain laterilization section for 1 of the 4 request. The other 1 was already fulfilled. I dont see how the issue with the first 2 however: "some" is due to books by major NLP writers mentioning it, but not everyone using it, and it is an oversimplification, that is well known by now.Voice of AllT|@|ESP 04:38, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Mediation Page

Please use Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Neuro-linguistic programming for mediation disputes(please summarize and keep it orderly) and email me for conduct disputes. Thanks.Voice of AllT|@|ESP 18:50, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

The current dispute is getting silly with so much personal attack. You are giving Wikipedia a bad reputation by setting a bad example. If you have strong emotional stance either against or for NLP, you should consider putting up a website of your own to express your views instead of using wikipedia as a free web hosting service. The objective of wikipedia is to inform not to indoctrinate. I would suggest that if people can't achieve an NPOV consensus and continue with immature personal attacks, I think the mediator should consider removing the NLP page from wikipedia.--Dejakitty 03:06, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Dejakitty, the present situation involves the improvement of the article, and includes any pointing out of various agendas of various editors. That is the way this particular cult-ridden subject works. You may have noticed that it is in fact working; the article has become more brief and more clear. Mainly through clarification of facts, and clarification of the promoter/cult agenda situation. HeadleyDown 15:06, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

HeadlyDown, As I have said, the purpose of Wikipedia is to inform, not indoctrinate. If you believe that there is cult conspiracy behind any particular NLP training organization, I don't think Wikipedia is the appropriate platform to make such an accusation. You should also consider the problem of other websites "scrapping" off an outdated version of wikipedia article. Accusation of cultism is a serious charge and should not be taken lightly. If you think you have sufficient evidence against a particular NLP organization or practitioner, you should consider presenting your case to an appropriate local regulatory body, such as UKCP (in the case of psychotherapy in UK). There is no centralized regulatory body in NLP, so it does not make any sense accusing NLP of global cult agenda. Any poorly presented, unfocused attacks on NLP (as opposed to critical review) will hurt the reputation of Wikipedia in the long-run and will have no effect on any potential bad NLP practioners and institutions. Please exercise responsibility when submitting on-line, otherwise we may face the end of the open-source Wikipedia. --Dejakitty 21:30, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Dejakitty, there does not have to be a conspiracy for a cult to form. Scientists who state NLP is a cult are nothing to do with me. If they say it is a cult, then that is there view. However, the activities of NLPers on this article and discussion are consistent with the fact that NLP is a cult and have been conspiring to censor the article. Your own overreaction to the NLP-cult facts being presented on this article shows that you also have an agenda to censor. The sort of whitewash/censorship you are proposing places you as a member of the NLP cult, and highlights NLP's cult characteristics. It would be irresponsible for any wikipedia editor to allow cult members such as yourself or Comaze to censor an article to whitewash or promote their biased and anti-science views. HeadleyDown 01:28, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Dejakitty, I agree "the purpose of Wikipedia is to inform, not indoctrinate". Consistent with that objective, any expert opinion which characterises NLP as a psycho-cult, cult-like, business cult should be included in the article. To do otherwise would be to allow the article to serve as a PR piece for the NLP industry/cult. This would amount to advocacy and promotion. Advocacy and promotion disguised as education is inimical to the the credibility of Wikipedia. HeadleyDown isn't making an "accustaion", he is reporting expert opinion. You are again correct, "[a]ccusation of cultism is a serious charge and should not be taken lightly", that is why the expert opinion of cult authorties such as Singer should be reported. Like HeadleyDown I too do not comprehend your equation of cults with conspiracy or global organisation. Cults may be conspiratorial and globally organised but they need not be. None of the models of cults that I am familiar with require conspiracy or global organsiation for identification. Lifton (1981) identifies cults using three criteria:
Charismatic leadership
Thought reform
Exploitation (sexual, economic, other) of group members by the leader and the ruling coterie
Lifton is an authority on cults, unfortunately he hasn't taken an interest in NLP. By Lifton's criteria, NLP is a cult -- not one large global cult -- but a multitude of small cults each with their own leadership and peculiarities. The OR prohibition prevents us from including Lifton's criteria. However, other authorities have taken an interest in NLP and have concluded that it is a cult. Any person with their critical faculties switched-on that attends a Bandler NLP or DHE seminar will arrive at the same conclusion. Consider a typical Bandler seminar: you pay US$3000-5000 to attend, Bandler enters stage with triumphalist music playing, he assumes his center stage seat where he delivers what is essentially a sermon (the shaman/high-priest talks, the disciples listen -- no questions asked), the flock learns a bunch of techniques that don't work, Bandler fictionalises his biography (claiming to have a doctorate, claiming to be a physicist, computer scientist, holographer, information scientists, claims he was in a band, claims he worked for the CIA... ostensibly for the purpose of state elicitation) and denigrates any ideas and individuals that compete in the commercial and intellectual markets with him (I've yet to hear a Bandler seminar where he doesn't denigrate psychology and psychiatry and indoctrinate his students against these professions). Cogntive dissonance and social pressure prevent any expression of dissatisfaction. I have a report from a person that attended a DHE seminar that a short-sighted person attended. Bandler claimed that using DHE and making the student "hallucinate" a pair of spectacles the student would be cured of his mypoia. After Bandler performed his shamanistic ritual on the student the student exclaimed his cure. Contrary to expectations the student spent the rest of the seminar squinting and bumping into furniture. The myopic student didn't put his spectacles back on. My reporter tells me that the myopic student probably feared the censure he would be subjected to as a "non-believer". At the end of the seminar when he left the hall he promptly put his spectacles back on. This anecdote illustrates several psychological forces and ploys that you'll find in many cult gatherings. I provie this only for your education. My conclusions and those of HeadleyDown are irrelevant -- it is the conclusions of experts that matter and that is what's being reported. flavius 02:37, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

It seems that you are using the word cult differently than I have in mind. I usually think of highly secretively non-mainstream religion organization, with a tendency to mind control and brainwash people. I don't know what you have in mind. The fact that you refer me as cult member suggests that you just use the word loosely to refer to anyone who doesn't subscribe to your view. If that is true, you might be correct referring NLP as cult. You should be clearer about what do you mean by cult when writing for an encyclopedia entry. Also, when quoting other authors referring NLP as cult, you should also be explicit about what the others mean by cult, as well as considering their potential biasis. I think I might be biased about this article. Therefore I have choosen not to contributely directly. You should also consider the reason why you are writing this article. If you think you have a strong agenda, you may not be the best person to contribute this entry. No one is censoring your right of expression. However you should consider what you write is appropriate for wikipedia. If not, you can always find other channel to express yourself. Please exercise self-control. --Dejakitty 01:56, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Dejakitty, it is your conception of cult that is flawed. Your notion of a cult is a caricature with little relationship to the research of social psychologists and psychitarists on the topic. Part of your dissatisfaction with the edits stems from your self-referential cogitations: "I usually think of highly secretively non-mainstream religion organization, with a tendency to mind control and brainwash people". You are not a recognised authority on cults (such as Lifton and Singer) so what you think a cult is, is irrelevant and forms no basis for accusations of bias and polemic against editors. Pre-empting all of the banal criticisms (such as yours regarding the definition of a cult) can be easily accomplished (because these criticisms don't stand up to critical scrutiny) but would come at the cost of brevity. Your admonition about considering the "potential biasis" of authors is specious and stinks of bad faith. There are numerous probelems with your admonition: (i) a declaration of an authors potential bias is OR; (ii) stating that an author may have a potential bias is at best conjecture; (iii) it reveals a double-standard on your part in that you demonstrate no concern for flagging "potential biasis" from NLP promoters; (iv) the notion of a potential X is informationally bankrupt, why not say the author is a potential liar, potential genius, potential saint, potential murderer, potential rapist (as per Andrea Dworkin Lesbian-Separatist propaganda), potential homosexual, there are no boundaries regarding ascribing potential qualities to people without any evidence, knock yourself out. Why aren't NLP promoters potential cult leaders? Everyone has influences on their beliefs that come from family, friends, religion, personal experience, temperament, age, gender and so on. An influence is not a bias. It is entirely possible to be influenced without being biased. If you have a bias in favour of NLP then it suggests that your accpetance of NLP is not based on evidence, reason and education but on emotion, faith and/or pecuniary interest. Anything that you conribute from a position of bias would be unable to withstand any critical scrutiny and it wouldn't originate from the conclusions of topic experts (neurologists, psychiatrists, linguists, psychologists and philosophers). Reporting the consensus of expert opinion on the topic of NLP may proceed from a position of personal influence (eg. in my case I spent many thousands of dollars on NLP training and media and much time that proved worthless) without being biased. Bias would be demonstrated by failing to report methodologically sound research that demonstrates the efficacy of NLP or the integrity of its underlying theory. There is no such research. I have sought it on PubMed and PsycInfo and I have checked Bolstadt's list of NLP research. The experts quoted in the article have been entirely fair. Again my OR is irrelevant, I offer it only for your education. Experts such as Sharpley have performed exhaustive literature reviews and have even answered criticisms (which have subsequently gone unanswered). Prima facie the experts exhbit no bias (sure they have influences as we all do) -- the process of peer review would have flushed this out (refer to the dialogue between Sharpley (1984 and 1987) and Einspruch and Forman (1985)). Your concern with bias is misplaced. NLP is fundamentally a commercial enterprise. NLP Practitoner training is more expensive than even the most expensive private university in my part of the world (in terms of (tuition fee)/(service hours), service hours includes lectures, tutorials, one-on-one consultation, assignment grading, examination). NLP promoters trademark and copyright their every fart and burp and sell them as seminars, DVDs and CDs at exhorbiant rates (eg. Bandler's "State of the Art"). Contrast this with scientific research where not only are the latest research results available freely at academic libraries but for the cost of a typical NLP DVD set you can get an annual online subscription to a publishers entire catalogue of journals on a particular topic. Who is most likely to be biased: a salaried obscure academic whose findings can be found in a library at no cost or a charismatic, entrepreunarial NLP promoter that trademarks nelogisms and copyrights banality (with no research cost to recover) and sells them at rates higher than our learning institutions teach substantive disciplines such as civil engineering? flavius 03:48, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

To Flavius, I am sorry that you have wasted all your money on NLP on courses without getting any benefit. Unless you can find a way to get your money back, I think all you can do is to take what you have learnt and be a bit wiser the next time.

No, I can do more than that. I can help prevent others from falling into the same trap. flavius 04:39, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  • 1) Most people like me have no idea what is the expert scientific definition of cult. We can only react to words based on our past experience. I guess from your personal experience you mean training organizations pressuring people to enrole more courses than they need. Unfortunately, there are greedy people in NLP thinking that they will make as much money as Tony Robbins, though I can't say all NLP organizations are like that.
"The road to hell is paved with good intentions." I don't think the people that taught me NLP were greedy or malevolent. They were true believers. Whether the trainers themselves are greedy or otherwise is irrelevant, that is not what is at issue. The issue is what they are teaching. What I was taught was crap irrespective of the intentions, motives and skills of the trainer. flavius 04:39, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  • 2) Potential bias is not meant to be an insult to scientists. In fact, when submitting articles to peered-reviewed journal, you have to declare any potential biasis (institutional and methodological). What I was trying to say was that you should review all sources critically whether they are from expert sources or from NLP literature. This is the best way to protect yourself from "cultish" influence. I was not implying that all expert research are false and all pro-NLP literature should be taken as absolute truth.
Unless there is prima facie evidence of bias then no accusations should be made. The matter of bias is secondary to the disputed points. Even a biased source can conribute to a debate if (s)he supplies argument and evidence (as opposed to assertion and emotion). flavius 04:39, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  • 3) Like many things, NLP has strength and weakness. At the risk of oversimplification, there are broadly two types of NLP training, one with the emphasis on doing modelling with the right attitude, and one with emphasis on teaching specific techniques. It will take ages to comment on the former, but the latter is a bit like learning foreign languages with Michel Thomas method (loose analogy).
I'm familiar with the distinction. Grinder makes much of it in Whispering. It doesn't help, NLP is "Garbage All the Way Down" ;-) flavius 04:39, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  • 4) NLP is an illegitimate child of science. Thus there is an inherent institutional illegitimacy. It has to constantly justify itself as either science, art, philosophy, martial arts, sports etc. There are similarities to each categories, it does not exactly fit into any one of these categories. Unfortunately, John Grinder lost his job as assistant professor of linguists early on because of accusation of ethics violation (you probably konw more than I do on this). JG and RB were desperate to make their enterprise commercially viable. Other subjects like General Semantics (Korzybski) also suffers from lack of institutional endorsement. However, being illegitimate doesn't mean being worthless.
NLP has nothing to do with science, it's not even an illegitimate child of it. The correct categorisation of NLP is a non-issue. What is vitally improtant is: Does NLP work? and Is NLP theoretically sound?. Unfortunately, it doesn't work and it is without foundation. Thus, any discussion about whether NLP is art, science or whatever is peripheral and is the least of NLPs problems. flavius 04:39, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  • 5) It would not be reasonable to expect NLP practionners or institutions to provide scientific peer-reviewed proof, as they do not have the right expertise nor resources to do so. It is also difficult for university academics to secure funding for NLP research because of its lack of institutional legitimacy. Francine Shapiro's EMDR is one of the proposed method for treating PTSD. The current evidence supporting EMDR is far from conclusive. Unlike NLP, Francine Shapiro (MRI research fellow) has strong connection with research institutions and has submitted numerous papers on the subject. Thus you will find a number of papers on the subject from Pubmed. Despite the number of publications in pubmed, the strength of evidence is not conclusive.
Not so, I strongly disagree. Bandler snorted kilos of cocaine in the 80s. If he had any interest in substantiation he could have funded research. Similarly, Grinder and his gal are busy writing amateurish philosophical apologetics for why NLP doesn't need emprical testing instead of engaging in empirical testing. EMDR has been tested (I supplied a citation to a paper that is a literature review of EMDR research), it too is junk. I'm familiar with PubMed, it's not exhaustive on NLP research. This matter is "old hat" we've alreadt covered it. Please refer to the archived discussions. flavius 04:39, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  • 6) I think critism of NLP should be split into the following categories
    • Scientific testing of
      • Existing models of NLP (falsifiable) e.g. eye movement model
      • Efficacy of Specific Applications of NLP
    • Review from multiple perspectives
      • Preppositions or attitude of NLP
      • Existing models of NLP (non-falsifiable)
      • Practice of NLP as practiced NLP practioner and institutions - e.g. exorbitant price etc, commercialism

Traditional scientific testing (hypothesis based) should have a great role in evaluating areas like falsifiable NLP models and efficacy of specific NLP applications like Swish technique on PTSD. There is still lots to be done in this area and the current level of evidence is far from conclusive. This will require recouncilation between research institution and NLP practionners. I think the chances of this happening is not all that great.

Unfalsifiable hypotheses are junk hypotheses. flavius
  • 7) At the end of day, most people make their decision based on lots of factors others than science. This has nothing to do with lack of scientific education. --Dejakitty 14:27, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Yes, and so what? The scientific evidence "[a]t the end of the day" says that NLP doesn't work. flavius
Dejakitty. Your obviously NLP-promotional appeal has been covered before, more than once. Here is the research: The claims of NLP promoters are extraordinary. Until they provide extraordinary evidence for those claims, they continue to be part of the list of pseudoscientific cults such as dianetics, EST (landmark forum), and could even be considered part of the more "magical thinking" pseudosciences. You have completely ignored the fact that NLP is a falsified pseudoscience based on other unverified, unverifiable, or falsified pseudosciences. NLP is heavily laced with pseudoscientific and popularly mythical bunkum. NLP's research stream is dry as a bone because nobody wants to spend money on researching the pseudoscience of NLP. The "other" parts of NLP are not to be researched because they are also based on nonsense. Indeed, more could be achieved by researching dianetics or phrenology. The "amazing results" claimed by the NLP promoters have not been presented to the scientific community because they are far from amazing. According to the research to date, they do not even come up to normal standards. NLP was measured, it failed the tests, the fad is over, and the effort to provide any evidence for the claimed results has been somewhere between negative and pathetic. HeadleyDown 16:41, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

HeadlyDown Calm down. There is no need to get overly emotional on a subject you don't care about. If NLP are not to be researched because they are based on nonsense, could you tell me exactly what have you been doing for the last few months writing this entry? Are you telling me that you have been writing on NLP without doing any form of research on NLP? Sounds like you have been ripped off by some bad NLP trainers and still have a grudge. Exactly how much catharsis are you getting for the last few months? Is what you have been doing really working? Are you really the right person writing this article without getting too emotional about it? --Dejakitty 19:36, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Dejakitty, your accusations are not working. We have heard it all before. Now, would you like to deal with the issue that NLP is based on the most wobbly bunk in pseudoscience? No, clearly you wouldn't! Because you want to say that your NLP is actually not the pseudoscientific and ineffective NLP that scientists have written about. You are trying to promote NLP by using your ridiculous implication that "some" NLP is really bad, and therefore, all other NLP must be kosher. Here is the result that your communication got: It sounds like you mean only some charlatans and pseudoscientists are dodgy! HeadleyDown 02:49, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Dejakitty, I can tell you have really swotted up on NLP persuasion technologies - you are completely unconvincing. As a follower of the NLP cult, you seem to have fallen for one of its biggest cons. You seem to think that NLP is convincing outside of high pressure NLP fanatic social situations (NLP seminars and groups). If you post any of the science from this article on NLP newsgroups to support a questioning or critical NLP attitude, you will find the only thing they can do is boot you off. It is their only option. As an NLP cult follower, you are using emotional arguments against scientific evidence. And the only thing you can do is advocate for the removal of scientific fact, or to claim that people who support the article with science are being emotional. If NLP is not a cult, then just try to stop behaving like a cult fanatic. DaveRight 04:03, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Dejakitty, you're starting to distinguish yourself as a deluded zealot. Your statememnt above to HeadleyDown is unpersuasive and can only be understood as a lame attempt at being provocative. The accusation of hyper-emotionality is without substance and is an exemplar of Ad Hominem. HeadleyDown's emotionality even if it were evident would be irrelevant. An editors contribution is assessed on its own merits without (irrelevant) reference to their biography. You've conflated the notion of care with the notion of emotionality which you have in turn conflated with bias. In NLP terms you have formed a complex equivalence: care = emotionality = bias. All editors have some interest in the topic they contribute to, this is a truism. Whether they have a bias -- and if they did it would not necessairly be any grounds for censure -- can not be inferred from the amount of research engaged in or the volume of edits. Bias would be indicated by the quality of the edits. Insofar as NLP doesn't work All NLP trainers "rip off" their clients. No NLP trainer can deliver what NLP promises. The problem is less to do with the trainers and more to do with the subject -- it is a content problem not a form problem ;-) Your assertion regarding HeadleyDown seeking "catharsis" is without substance. In NLP terms it's another Meta Model violation, perhaps the gravest of NLP sins: the mind read. Since you have committed two Meta Model violations you should cleanse yourself of your NLP sins by suffering through Bandler and La Valle's "Persuasion Engineering". flavius 05:05, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

At least NLP convinced you two to study the subject and joined their training. If you think the subject doesn't work completely as you have claimed, why are you using NLP concepts as the basis of your argument? You are even promoting Bandler and La Valle's training. --Dejakitty 13:00, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Dejakitty, are you serious? Doesn't your dictionary have sarcasm in it. I can't speak for HeadleyDown on this matter. My expenditure of money and time on NLP training wasn't the result of NLP persuasion it was the result of old-fashioned snake oil selling techniques that any con-artist uses. I also attribute my then gullibility to immaturity. My use of NLP concepts above -- specifically the Meta Model -- is "tongue in cheek", I'm being sarcastic. NLP seminars and online discussion groups are replete with zealots pointing out each others Meta Model violations and attempts to use the Meta Model as a heuristic for logical thinking. I'm making fun of that tendency. If you read closely you will notice that the Meta Model is not the basis of my argument, I re-state my points of logic in Meta Model terms in a tongue in cheek "peacoking" display of my NLP bona fides. B&G didn't invent logic, rhetoric and "clear thinking", the Meta Model was never intended to be a heuristic or model for logical thinking or the analysis of arguments. I was mocking you by making explicit reference to "complex equivalence" and "mind reading". Didn't the use of the word "suffering" indicate to you what my estimate of Persuasion Engineering is? That I've had to detail this for you doesn't speak well for you. Will you reply -- parror-like -- that "the meaning of a communication is th response you get"? ;-) flavius 00:07, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

References

Let's tone the discussion down and discuss how we can improve the article. I've done alot of work cleaning up the references today, removed unused refs, and provided URL link to sources for verifiability. Let's see if we can implement some of arbitration's proposed recommendations such as the suggested citation style. --Comaze 04:34, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Alternatively, lets revert all of Comaze's attempts to transform scientists and other experts into narrow minded fringe web page writers. There have already been many deleted views of scientists and other such experts. These were deleted through Comaze's advocacy for censorship. His attempts at censorship have sometimes been rewarded, and thus reinforced. If this article is further clarified by briefly placing the views of experts, then the NLP fanatics will be punished. In fact anything that clarifies the article will lead to NLP fanatics being punished. Looks like we have no choice but to torture Comaze and co by clarifying the article some more. Camridge 06:26, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Hardiman (1994)

Current statements attributed to: Hardiman (May 1994) NLP background and issues. Industrial relations review and report. No.560 Publisher: London: Industrial Relations Services and Personnel Publications, Ltd.

  1. management experts such as Hardiman (1994) have criticized quasi-spiritual and unethical uses within management and human resources developments.
  2. It has been found that NLP certified practitioners often show a weak grasp of ethics (Hardiman 1994)
  3. Its various forms, such as those promoted by Grinder, and Tony Robbins are said to be ill conceived and coercive in some business settings (Hardiman 1994)
  4. There is a general view that NLP is dubious and is not to be taken seriously in a business context (Hardiman 1994; Summers 1996)
Comments by Comaze
  1. There are no citations on google scholar or citeseer for Hardiman (1994)
  2. What is the URL this author's bio? (Camridge says this author is notable)
  3. What is the full name of Hardiman?
  4. What is the page number?
  5. What is the country or state of the "Industrial relations review"
  6. an opinion of Hardiman (1994) or reference to scientific research?
  7. There are no results for Hardiman 1994 in the British OPAC (http://catalogue.bl.uk)
Comments by Camridge

Comaze, you and other NLPbrains have tried this trick too many times. It does not work. The ref exists in the literature, and the google spambot is not designed as a tool for determining verifiability. Normal people use libraries in order to do research. Your persistent argument for the censorship of criticism is ignored. Camridge 06:29, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Comaze, I just looked up Hardiman on the web. She is both notable and quotable. Stop trying to waste my time. I will revert your edits and ignore your ridiculous requests. Camridge 07:32, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Comaze, you are the googlefan. Look it up.Camridge 08:08, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Comments by flavius
Comaze, Wikipedia verifiability is not to be equated with the existence of an online reference. Certainly online references are preferred (because they allow instant verification) but they are not mandatory. Not every relevant source is online (yet). Excising sections of the article because your're unable to locate an online version of the cited work is devious. In the spirit of co-operation (which I expect you to reciprocate) can I suggest you use the OPAC (Online Public Access Catalogue) of major libraries rather than just Google for basic investigation? To locate some journals you will have to use the various abstract indices available in academic libraries. Can I also suggest that if you would like to cultivate the co-operation of editors then don't be antagonistic.flavius 09:54, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Summers, L. (1996)

Current statement attributed to Summers, L. (1996) Training & Development. Alexandria, VA: American Society for Training: Jan 1996. Vol. 50, Iss. 1; pg. 30, 2 pgs
  1. "There is a general view that NLP is dubious and is not to be taken seriously in a business context (Hardiman 1994; Summers 1996)"
Comments by Comaze
  1. This ref needs to be checked. Google scholar not citeseer does not return any citations for this article. Lynn Summers, PhD appears to be notable, we just need to verify what this author actually says about NLP. Who here has access to American Society for Training articles and can check this? Should we use RfC (HR) to check this? --Comaze 09:40, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Ignore Comaze's Pretence at Rigor

What else can I say. Just look at his history. And look at the past versions of the article. There is a whole lot of support for the views that are present on the article. All we need to do is revert it. Comaze and the other NLP fanatics are their own worst enemy. If they like, they can have all the past criticisms reverted back to the present artcle. HeadleyDown 13:15, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I have sent a message to Voice of All:

To Voice of All, I am concerned about the current edit wars with the NLP article. This will no doubt reflect badly on Wikipedia considering many websites are scrapping off Wikipedia for articles. I have in the past tagged NPOV as I believed that the NPOV status was disputed. I am not convinced that any form consensus has emerged at the moment. Recently someone has removed all NPOV tags. There is no point in contributing to the article because of the current edit conflict. I wonder whether you are still the mediator or you have appointed anyone to the position? If conventional mediation doesn't work, what about restoring NPOV tag and freezing the article for a few months. This will allow people to calm down and dissociate Wikipedia from the edit conflict. --Dejakitty 19:04, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Dejakitty, there is no point in you trying to remove facts from this article in order to promote NLP. If you want to discuss various NPOV issues then go ahead. But don't be surprised if somebody takes your tags off when your arguments have been covered before multiple times in the archives. Persistence does not pay on wikipedia. The only things that count are the facts. Certainly persistence towards censorship does not pay. Comaze has been trying it on for months, and all it has led to is clearer evidence that NLP is pseudoscientific and cultlike charlatanry. If you want to help here, then stop parroting the same old delusional rubbish as all the previous NLP fanatics. HeadleyDown 06:23, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

HeadleyDown, I don't have time to play edit wars with you. It is up to the arbitrators of Wikipedia to consider whether what you have contributed is within the Wikipedia guidelines. If they have no objection to your article, they will not take any action. Then Wikipedia will have to take responsibility of what you have written. However, if they believe that what you are doing is against Wikipedia's interest, the arbitrators will have every right censoring your contribution or even take further drastic action. --Dejakitty 17:19, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Dejakitty, your suggestion is ridiculous and borders on delusion. This is not my article. It has been developed by many editors and through substantial mediation. Your urge towards arbitration is just as futile as the prior NLP promoters urge towards mediation and arbitration with the view to kicking out multiple non-promotional editors. And your suggestion that arbitrators have every right to censorship is about the stupidest thing I have heard this week. Censorship is against NPOV policy. You (and other NLP fanatics) have verified your overzealous NLP fanaticism, and highlighted the cultlike nature of NLP. You clearly want to censor the article and boot all neutral editors off wikipedia. You are starting to look desperate. HeadleyDown 00:21, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Hey Dejakitty, this is really funny. You seem to think ALL organizations have some kind of self interest and are willing to censor facts in order to further that selfish interest. Really! NLP has done nothing for you. You got conned into thinking that it works somehow, you got deluded into publicly babbling like a scientologist, and you still havn't woken up. Your presuppositions, (that you threaten to conduct an edit war, that arbitrators are going to support pseudoscientific cults, and that posting factual information is against wikipedia interests), are not working. If the research shows anything, it is that NLP is unconvincing. You would probably be better off with Hubbard's Dianetics 55 (the technology of communication).

Your slavish advocacy for neoDianetics (NLP) is really not doing you any good at all. DaveRight 01:42, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Everyone. please calm down and avoid personal remarks. May I suggest a wiki break to cool down? --Comaze 05:39, 5 January 2006 (UTC)


Comaze, stop pretending that discussion is heated. These are all matter of fact statements about behaviour. Pointing out bias and working towards neutral articles is the general effort. Camridge 08:52, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Defence section?

The "Criticisms" section seems appropriate and complete, but I wonder if including a "Defence of NLP" section would make the article more approachable to the skeptical reader. This section would allow proponent to present their views in one section rather than throughout the article. Here are a few suggestions for such a section:

  1. Certain techniques from the 70s vary considerably in form from current day version (e.g. the Phobia Cure). Updated techniques, as taught at contemporary NLP courses, may or may not be more effective.
Hi Jens. This has been covered before. There are claims that NLP has evolved. The NLP books show otherwise. Phobia cure, eye accessing and so on are the same. The NLP people have made no attempt to improve things, and that his consistent with pseudoscience. New code and so on are only in order to diversify or to brand particular group's products. DaveRight 04:01, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Hi Dave. Didn't mean to beat a dead horse, but even if some techniques are only changed in order to re-brand (which seems a tad speculative) proponents are still in their right to claim that a newer untested version may or may not be more effective than an older, tested version. --Jens Schriver 17:08, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  1. NLP is not exactly defined, nor is it protected. Anyone can make up a technique and call it NLP. Therefore testing "NLP" requires a strict definition which may or may not be fair. Scientifically testing a specific technique is more useful.
NLP is well defined, and it has been tested. NLP techniques have been tested as has NLP's core tennets. It is pseudoscientific in theory, in practice, and in excuse. DaveRight 04:01, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  1. Bandler himself claimed at an October 2005 seminar, that he never thought of eye-accessing cues as being science. He had noted that some people showed the tendencies proposed (this may conflict with what he actually wrote).
  2. etc.
Bandler is notoriously inconsistend, as is Ron Hubbard. DaveRight 04:01, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Considering the relative size of the Criticisms section (over 25% of article text), perhaps a summary would be better and then moving the full text to a separate wiki.

(NB. The Einspruch (1988) paper linked to concludes "Results indicate marked improvement by those who were treated. Findings suggest that NLP holds promise for treating phobias." - considering that curing phobias appears to be the most quoted benefit of NLP, doesn't this paper deserve to be mentioned, if not here, then in the "Scientific Analysis of NLP" section?)

The verdict on the NLP phobia cure is the same as all others in NLP; Scientifically unsupported. DaveRight 04:01, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

All in all the article is of much higher standard than it was a month ago. --Jens Schriver 16:06, 5 January 2006 (UTC)


Hi Jens. This has been dealt with before. The Eispruch article was answered by Sharpley who provided further evidence for the falsification of NLP. The only defense of NLP would be from a non-scientific standpoint. All of the hypotheses of NLP have been falsified, and nothing remains but a set of pseudoscientific excuses. If you want to expand the article to how it was a month ago, that is easy. Just revert the science section to what it was then. It included the Einspruch paper there. The only real excuse NLP has is that people and organizations often make the mistake of being fooled by pseudoscience. HeadleyDown 17:19, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the update, HeadleyDown. In that case not quoting the paper is entirely appropriate. --Jens Schriver 17:08, 6 January 2006 (UTC)


Hi Jens. Advocating the insertion of a "Defence of NLP" section implies that there is a body of evidence in support of NLP theory and practice that (a) the cited scientists are unaware of or have ignored; and/or (b) the article editors are unaware of or have ignored. No such evidence exists. As HeadleyDown rightly puts its, any defence would be pseudoscientific and non-scientific. Regarding updated techniques (and any techniques as yet not formulated) the onus of proof rests with the claimant, there is no "line of credit of credibility" that NLP proponents can draw on such that a hypothesis is assumed valid by default. Regarding the definition of NLP this is largely a non-issue since most of the cited literature is concerned with specific techniques or "patterns" (in NLP jargon). On he matter of eye accessing cues Bandler and Grinder differ considerably on this matter. When Bandler was interviewed by representatives of the US Army's study on human performance improvement technologies (reported in Druckman & Swets and Swets and Bjorkman) he downplayed the significance of PRS and eye accessing cues and accepted that the eye accessing cues hypothesis is probably mistaken. Grinder, on the other hand, presents a wounded defence of eye accessing cues in Whispering. Grinder re-affirms the hypothesis not only in Whispering but also on his now closed forum and mounts a naive methodological and epistemological critique of eye accessing cues research. Furthermore, you will still find the PRS and eye accessing cues in most NLP books and courses. flavius 04:05, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi Flavius and thank you for the response. "As HeadleyDown rightly puts its, any defence would be pseudoscientific and non-scientific." I agree, none of my proposed defences are scientific in nature - but if a technique was proven ineffective in the past, but has since been updated, it is relevant mentioning this if the technique was in fact updated (which DaveRight wrote it wasn't).
But if there indeed is no scientific support at all for NLP, it may be better presenting the previous defence somewhere else in the article. --Jens Schriver 17:08, 6 January 2006 (UTC)


Hi Jens. I think your summary and conclusions make sense. I am for this suggestion. Peace. Metta Bubble 01:10, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Metabubble. Read the archives. The summary and conclusions only make sense to those wishing to whitewash, promote, or make pseudoscientific excuses for NLP. DaveRight 04:01, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
the occasion mentioning of "but some NLP practitioners claim that their procedures have been revised (x 19yy)" would be OK is if used seldomly, as it is not strong evidence.Voice of AllT|@|ESP 21:38, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Ashley Dowlen's (1996) review of research evidence on NLP

Title: NLP - help or hype? Investigating the uses of neuro-linguistic programming in management learning Ashley Dowlen (1996) Career Development International PDF

Comments by Comaze
  1. Ashley Dowlen's (1996) article provides a different outsider POV of the scientific and academic research in NLP and the usefulness of NLP for management learning. This can probably be included to balance the article for both applications and academic/scientific research sections. --Comaze 23:02, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Comments by HeadleyDown
  1. Downlen presents yet another inconclusive paper. To explain Dowlen's paper will take more than a few paras, and the results will be the same: NLP is scientifically unsupported. HeadleyDown 02:44, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
Comments by Flavius
  1. Thanks for the reference Comaze. I read the paper and it doesn't present anything new or conclusive. I don't think its inclusion will add balance as it is inconclusive. The only noteworthy conclusions were the following: "In outlining the development of NLP all articles, with the exception of Milne, stress the involvement of Bandler and Grinder. It is interesting to note the degree to which NLP is personalized in connection with these two individuals, with far less emphasis being accorded to either the origins of NLP or its subsequent development by others" (p.3); "[t]he extent to which NLP is personalized in connection with the originators Bandler and Grinder is apparent, and the absence of any substantial acknowledgement of the theoretical underpinnings comes through" (p.4); and "[o]ther features are striking about the research. Firstly the relative lack of it, compared to the almost cult following that NLP has achieved, mainly in the USA but latterly in the UK. There appears to have been an absence of research into NLP in the UK. There are however a great many articles and books written by those who use NLP and clearly believe it to be of great value in their work." (p.6) Dowlen identifies those traits of NLP that position it as pseudoscience, New Age and cult-like. These traits -- viz. personalisation of NLP in connection with B&G, failure to fully acknowledge derivative aspects of NLP theory and practice, incongruity between fanatical following and dearth of supportive evidence and empahsis on promotion over investigation -- are connected and are to be found in Scientology, Silva Mind Control, est and other psycho-cults. flavius 04:03, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
Comments by User

On Comaze's prompting and in the spirit of co-operation I have re-read Dowlen (1996) with a view to determining if the paper can contribute anything to the article regarding NLP "history, epistemology, background, research and usefulness in various management applications" [[34]].

Dowlen (1996) is neither a literature review, meta-analysis, report of original research or theoretical analysis. It does contain some literature review but it is by no means an attempt to comprehensively review all of the available literature on a topic as per Sharpley (1987). Dowlen's paper is a chatty, largely uncritical (most of the criticisms do not originate from Dowlen but from the authors whose research he reviews) discussion piece. Dowlen is concerned with management learning, i.e. the process of training and developing managers, and the potential relevance of NLP to this field.

Dowlen states one of his two main aims as "to investigate aspects of neurolinguistic programming (NLP) that might contribute to management learning" (p.27) However, Dowlen's criteria for evaluation are vague. It appears that Dowlen's logic is

P1. Management learning requires communication and learning skills.
P2. NLP appears to provide communication and learning skills.
C. NLP may be useful to management learning.

That is the extent of Dowlen's investigative framework, specific criteria regarding communication and learning skills are not specified.

Dowlen establishes P1 with reference to some of the management learning literaure. Fair enough. P2 is arrived at via (a) attendance of a two-day NLP seminar; (b) administering an NLP learning and thinking styles questionnaire to his colleagues and himself; (c) reviewing some of the management learning literature on NLP; and (d) reviewing some of the research evidence on NLP.

Methods (a) and (b) are of little evidentiary value. There is no conceivable reason why Dowlen's subjective report is more authoritative than anyone elses. The only seminar content that Dowlen expresses any criticism of is anchoring: 'I was personally less convinced about the "anchoring" technique.'(p.28) Why he was "less convinced" Dowlen doesn't tell us, his criteria remain obscure. After his two day training Dowlen administered to his "team" and himself a questionaiire named the "Neurolinguistic communication profile" which claims to determine preferred sensory modality for learning and communicating and preferred thinking style (serial and parallel processing, terms taken from IT). Assessment of the test involved a discussion (presumably over tea and biscuits).

Methods (c) and (d) involved what can only be described as a "half-arsed" literature review. Dowlen's reviews are selective and his selection criteria are not revealed.

In On Bullshit -- in which Princeton Univeristy philosophy professor Harry G. Frankfurt provides a (serious) philosophical analysis of the notion of bullshit -- the author makes a distinction between the liar and the bullshitter. According to Frankfurt, "the fact that about himself that the liar hides is that he is attempting to lead us away from a correct apprehension of reality; we are not to know that he wants us to believe somthing he supposes to be false. The fact about himself that the bullshitter hides, on the other hand, is that the truth value of his statements are of no central interest to him; what we are not to understand is that his intention is neither to report the truth nor to conceal it. This does not mean that his speech is anarchically impulsive, but that the motive guiding and controlling it is unconcerned with how the things about which he speaks truly are." (pp.54-5, italics added) Dowlen thus is a bullshitter and his paper is bullshit. It isn't a serious study. If Dowlen revealed the content of his paper over dinner I'd find his conversation interesting and engaging and the degree of rigour would have been appropriate. As a published investigation of NLP vis-a-vis management learning it cannot be taken seriously. Bullshit can't be fruitfully critiqued whereas a lie can. More from Frankfurt, '[t]elling a lie is an act with a sharp focus. It is designed to insert a particular falsehood at a specific point in a set or system of beliefs, in order to avoid the consequences of having that point occupied by the truth. This requires a degree of craftmanship, in which the teller of the lie submits to objective constraints imposed by what he takes to be the truth...On the other hand, a person who undertakes to bullshit his way through has much more freedom. His focus is panoramic rather than particular...it is more expansive and independent, with more spacious opportunities for improvisation, color, and imaginative play. This is less a matter of craft than of art. Hence the familiar notion of the "bullshit artist" (pp.51-53) Dowlen is then a "bullshit artist"'. Dowlen is a management consultant -- a role bullshit artists gravitate towards -- and he is employed at the UK Social Services Department, which like all large bureaucracies, is a bullshitter's stronghold. A perfect match. Bullshitting is the management consultants stock-in-trade. flavius 10:45, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Neuro-Linguistic Truths

I came here searching for "Neuro linguistic" stuff, not in the NLP sense of the word. Maybe there should be a link for "neurolinguistics".--Ratone 21:34, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

There could be a short sentence explaining that NLP is not neurolinguistics. HeadleyDown 02:46, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Crabtree Cult Reference

I flagged the unsuitability of Crabtree as a source on either NLP or cults earlier and received no response on this matter. I have removed the citation and the opinion attributed to Crabtree. "Vexen Crabtree" is punk/Goth guy with a vanity web page, he's not an authority on cults, NLP, psychology or any other relevant matter and furthermore he's not cited in any reputable cult literature I have searched. I found it embarassing that the opinions of some narcissistic -- for all practical purposes -- nobody were being cited in the same paragraph as Singer. flavius 12:43, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

No problems here :).Voice of AllT|@|ESP 16:46, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Alleged Frogs Quote

I've skim (re-)read all of Frogs (what a tedious book) and am unable to locate the quote attributed to that text in the article: "However, Richard Bandler and John Grinder have also stated that "NLP is not a science... we are not scientists" (Frogs into Princes, 1979 REF PAGE)". I did find "We are not psychologists, and we're also not theologians and theoreticians." (p.7) Can someone else confirm my results. Personally I can not imagine B&G uttering something as modest as "NLP is not a science...we are not scientists" especially since Bandler in his pompous seminar sermonising has claimed to be a scientist of one form or another (physicist, information scientist, computer scientist, linguist). flavius 12:53, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Let's expand that p.7 quote, it is quite obvious that in 1979 Bandler and Grinder do not appeal to the scientific method, "We call ourselves modelers. What we essentially do is to pay very little attention to what people say they do and a great deal of attention to what they do. And then we build ourselves a model of what they do. We are not psychologists, and we're also not theologians or theoreticians. We have no idea about the "real" nature of things, and we're not particularly interested in what's "true." The function of modeling is to arrive at descriptions which are useful. So, if we happen to mention something that you know from a scientific study, or from statistics, is inaccurate, realize that a different level of experience is being offered you here. We're not offering you something that's true, just things that are useful." (1979 p.7) --Comaze 10:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Is that you HeadleyDown? I was thinking along the same lines when I discussed the matter with Comaze on my talk page. Although it doesn't explicitly state "we are not scientists" that statement can be reasonably inferred from the expanded quote. flavius 03:49, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
No, it's me who expanded the p.7 quote.. :) I forgot to sign it. --Comaze 10:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes Flavius, I think this can be expanded using Dilts et al's 1980 study of structure of...etc. Dilts, bng etc also say that NLP is all form and no content. They also conclude that through their modeling they have created a universally applicable method (Aka a panacea). But of course this needs explaining scientifically, and scientific modeling will need a mention (which generally includes hypotheses and theory). Cheers DaveRight 02:56, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

DaveRight, my now deleted subsection Atheroretical Pretence contained the expanded form of the p.7 quote and it clarified the distinction between model, theory, law and hypothesis. Comaze commented that it was OR, VoiceOfAll commented that it was OR and that it didn't make sense. I remain of the view that it did make sense (no-one else commented that it was nonsensical; perhaps it would have been more appropriate for VoiceOfAll to state "I don't understand it) yet I eventually came around to the view that it comprised OR and didn't not contest its deletion. The now defunct subsection was thoroughly cited so you may want to salvage parts, it will save you some work. I'd do it but I don't fully understand your proposed composition (or perhaps I can phrase that in an ego syntonic form as per VoiceOfAll and write, "what you are proposing doesn't make sense". (-;) flavius 03:49, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Yes, flavius, I think the Atheroretical Pretence section was excellent and well sourced, I commented that some (not all) was OR. I don't think the entire section should have been -- it was the most intelligible piece in the entire article.. --Comaze 10:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Flavius, I've also skimmed Frogs and I am unable to find the alleged quote. There are a few quotes that indicated B&Gs stance on the topic of science. The opening page of Structure I states, "The behavioral sciences, and especially psychiatry, have always avoided theory..." (1975a p.ix). There is a quote from Patterns 2, "Erickson has dedicated his life to the exploration of these phenomenon, and if half of what he has incorporated into unconscious patterns of his own behavior can be formalized it will make a solid foundation for a science of communication" (1977 p.81). --Comaze 22:46, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
The Criticism section contains the statement: "However, Bandler and Grinder in the Structure of Magic Volume I claim that, "The behavioral sciences, and especially psychiatry, have always avoided theory..." (1975a p.ix). That is incorrect. That quotation is from the introduction penned by Gregory Bateson. Virginia Satir wrote the Foreword (pp.vii-viii) and Bateson wrote the Introduction (pp. ix-xi). Both prologues are clearly signed. I'm reluctant to edit the paragraph because I'm uncertain of the authors intent. Can the responsible person please correct this misattribution. flavius 14:07, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
HeadleyDown can you please correct this[35]. It is in fact Gregory Bateson who wrote the introduction to Structure of Magic Vol.1. regards, --Comaze 02:55, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

NLP Principles article - just another attempt at promotion

NLP is a fringe and psuedoscientific subject. At one time or other, desperate fanatics have written extra articles on NLP bits and pieces because they were not allowed to promote on this article. Everything can be dealt with on this article. NLP is not rocket science. The principles are explained very well on this article already. HeadleyDown 02:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes I mentioned in its discussion section that it has already been merged and should be deleted. However, I don't mind if we give the NLPbrains some more months to pour more zealous sweat into it. Then we can delete it anyway:) Cheers DaveRight 03:01, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

So that's what FT2 has been busy with. How devious! I was really hoping for the "Bells and Whistles" display of NLP persuasion technology from FT2 and GregA (I was especially hoping for hypnotic metaphor and language and the "sleight of mouth" patterns, commonly misspelled "slight of mouth" by many NLPers, presumably those that haven't mastered the NLP spelling strategy) rather than a quiet exit and the creation of a parallel NLP article. flavius 04:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Embedded commands

How come there isn't any mention of this in the article ? Intersofia 04:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Brevity. Anchoring isn't mentioned either. Embedded commands and anchoring are two of many techniques. YOUR UNCONSCIOUS mind... ;-) flavius 05:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
IMO the B.A.G.E.L. model is far less relevant than anchoring. Anchoring seems to be the one thing that all NLPers teach in the same way. --Jens Schriver 19:48, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
I disagree. Anchoring is just classical/Pavlovian conditioning (B&G explicitly state this much in Frogs I'll provide the page ref later) and it is unrelated to NLPs core, i.e. its information processing "model" of mind and that model's central notion of memory and experience being encoded in terms of sensory information. Although anchoring is widely and consistently taught by many trainers it is actually peripheral to NLP: it is content (a "pattern") and its teaching or explanation doesn't communicate anything of what distinguishes NLP. flavius 22:56, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Anchoring is a different feast to Pavlovian conditioning --- each has its own unique criteria and the use is also unique. I'll provide page numbers as evidence. --Comaze 10:15, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
In its basic form anchoring is a form of classical conditioning and B&G concede that much (see page 84 of Frogs). The more fanciful "enhancements" of anchoring such as "sliding anchors", "stacking anchors" and "collapsing anchors", I agree are not classical conditioning they are rituals just like the "Lesser Banishing Ritual of the Pentagram"[36]. flavius 08:18, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, we cannot include every ritual NLP has. BAGEL is the core tennet according to the main group of developers and according to the scientists who measured it. HeadleyDown 02:19, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

HeadleyDown, BAGEL is not widely taught in NLP. BAGEL model was developed by Robert Dilts and in that form is not widely used in NLP. It is generally taught as part of "sensory acuity and calibration" or other key exercise. Shall I make the necessary changes on the article? --Comaze 21:31, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Comaze, you are looking for trouble. BAGEL may have been an acronym invented or promoted by Dilts. But the principles are taught throughout by each and every trainer even after they were found to be total nonsense. You are deliberately clouding issues and whitewashing once again. I read that you are a member of the harmonious editing club. You have just written something to cause intense antagonism and irritation. So, now you had better kiss my ass really thoroughly. Or else!DaveRight 03:00, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Charming, Dave. I attended an NLP Practitioner course (Bandler/McKenna) last year and have read a couple of introductory books on NLP and I never heard about the BAGEL model. HeadleyDown still thinks the model is a core tenent in NLP and I frankly think he knows more about NLP than I do - so maybe the model is relevant. And Dave is right, according to my experience, that some of the principles of the BAGEL model are taught (at least 2 of 5, 'eye accessing cues' and 'language patterns'), but these principles are described elsewhere in the article, so the BAGEL section just seems like a spacefiller to me. (at least liberate the text from that awful yellow table) --Jens Schriver 19:54, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
I think we can probably merge BAGEL with eye accessing cues and language patterns, and add a small section on sensory acuity and calibration. --Comaze 22:45, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Comaze and Jens, I suspect that you are confusing form with content. BAGEL itself -- the mnemonic -- may be a relatively recent invention of Dilts but the content is common to all NLP ("classic code" and "new code"). I have seminar notes from Tad James, Bandler/Lavalle, Bandler/McKenna/Breen and Hall and although BAGEL doesn't appear anywhere the content does (in varying degrees depending on the teacher). All of the elements of BAGEL are present in Grinder's approach to modeling. It is desirable to retain the content re BAGEL even if the presentation changes because of the mnemonic value of the acronym. Presenting all the aspects of human behaviour that are claimed to reflect the form of internal representation in a mnemonic form has pedagogic value. Furthermore, Dilts is significant in the development of NLP and he is generally good at organising, systematising and teaching. So reformat the BAGEL section to bring its aesthetics into line with the rest of the article but retain the content. flavius 04:51, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Good points. --Jens Schriver 18:56, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Comaze, I am happy to ignore or ridicule you and your guruworshiping quest to whitewash the psychobabbling and moneygrabbing cult of NLP. Behavioural sciences generally avoid theory? Thats gotta be one of the most stoopid things NLPbrains claim in order to make excuses for their own banal rituals. DaveRight 03:23, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Comaze, I've discussed the matter of theory vis-a-vis NLP more than I would have liked in an (apparently vain) attempt to demonstrate to you that the claim to being atheoretical is false and is merely a philosophically naive means of evading justification and substantiation. NLP is theory laden both implicitly and explicitly. I remind you that you are yet to answer my criticisms which you concede are significant and substantive. I listened to the recent Bandler MP3 and the Grinder Quicktime that you referred me to and in both of those interviews B&G communicate more than one theory in their explanantions of NLP and modeling. For example, they both contend that all behavior is learnt, that poor performance and mental disease is learnt and that the remedy is more learning (Grinder is more concerned with excellence than disease but the message is the same). For those that are interested the media are to be found at www.nlpmp3.com (Bandler interview) and www.inspiritive.com.au (Grinder interview). Both are recent interviews and provide useful checkpoints of confirmation that the critical content of the article is "on track". The usual pattern of B&G is that they will happily enunciate theories about mental illness, performance, neurology, cognition, memory, ethics and everything else but when they are met with contradiction they retreat into the "we don't do theory" defence. It is also noteworthy that in the interview Bandler claims that advances in neurochemistry and neurology confirm NLPs implicit theories of learning, memory and cognition. Beyerstein and Levelt's criticisms thus remain especially relevant. The amount of shit pouring out of Bandler's mouth in that interview is disgusting. Both B&G explicitly reference naive pop-neurology brain lateralization ideas in their interviews. flavius 05:36, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Behaviour

Flavius, The tag line is, "All behaviour can be learned." It's the old classic one from NLP whereby if someone can do something, then anyone can learn to do it. This is a useful believe for learning contexts and I can trace this back to the start of NLP and to all major authors on the subject. Obviously there are genetic and other constraints but that is framed in the outcome and evidence phase of the modeling process. Mainstream Cognitive Neuroscience recognises specialised regions of the brain for visual/auditory tasks -- this is not new but the technology is not that great yet. Contralateralization has been used in hypnosis and NLP for 30 years, this is imported from the work of Milton Erickson, the references for this were removed from the article for some reason; I can dig them up for you. It is noteworthy that Grinder & Bostic St Clair (2001) are encouraging those interested in NLP to work alongside researchers in cognitive neuropsychology, linguistics and other fields in order to study human patterning. Grinder does in fact encourage people to connect observations/patterns to existing theory, however this is after the initial modeling phase (unconscious uptake) is completed. --Comaze 13:53, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Comaze, you are mis-representing a fundamental tenet of NLP. The NLP conception of behaviour admits of no biological or genetic factors. Bandler has stated in at least one seminar that I've heard that even schizophrenia is laernt, that schizophrenics nuerochemistry is aberrant because their thinking causes them to produce "those chemicals". In the same seminar Bandler claims that he cured schizophrenics through dialysis, that the dialysis unit removed the "toxic chemicals" from the blood of the schizophrenic thereby effecting a cure. Bandler added that the relapses are due to persistent thinking patterns that produce the "toxic chemicals" (IIRC this was at one of the Indian seminars that he did in the 1990s.) There is nowhere in the NLP "model" to place biological and genetic influences upon behaviour. It is an NLP dogma that all behaviour is learnt. Propagating this dogma has immense pecuniary value in that NLP proponents can attract desperate people. Also it is utter bullshit that if someone can do something then anyone can learn it and it is not merely presented as a useful belief, it is presented by Bandler and Grinder as factual. AFAIK the only cognitive function that has been demonstrated to be localised within a region of the brain is language. There is no evidence that I am aware of for any other localisation of function. How do you use contralateralization? Grinder and Bostic St Clair live in a hermetically sealed bubble of self-delusion and narcissism into which criticism can not penetrate. Beyerstein is an authority on neuropsychology and Levelt is an authority on psycholinguistics and linguistics. Have Grinder and Bostic St Clair acknowledged Beyerstein and Levelt's criticisms and answered them? How could this proposed collaboration possibly work given that the consesnus of scientific opinion has judged NLP to be false, ineffective and pseudoscientific? Why would genuine scientists collaborate with pseudoscientists? On the one hand Bandler and Grinder contend that bodies of knowledge and experts that dispute the value and effectiveness of NLP are worthless and that NLP has all the answers (this attitude is evident is Whispering, on the Whispering forum and in Bandler's seminars and interviews) yet they want to be seen to be associated with these bodies of knowledge and experts that they disparage when it suits them. flavius 15:13, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Flavius, I think you're misrepresenting a fundament tenet of NLP, NLP is NOT a science (this puts a big hole in the pseudoscience argument). Be careful not to use pseudoscience to argue pseudoscience. We might need to create a section for academic / pseudoscience argument. Nowhere has Bandler or Grinder claimed that "NLP is a science" -- rather this is an exagerated claim made by some marketers of NLP training. NLP is based (Whispering 2001) on Noam Chomsky's "intuition as a legitimate research methodology", Transformational grammar, finite state automata, Gregory Bateson's epistemology including the double bind theory of schizophrenia --- NLP does NOT follow the science method, and does not claim to -- it attempts to map sense-impressions to concepts (Turtles 1986). There are plenty examples of where genetics places constraints on human behaviour -- the issue here is CONTEXT. This is covered in depth in John Grinder (1986-2005) and Gregory Bateson (1970s) seminars (it is also covered in Turtles, 1986) again this would depend on what phase of the NLP modelling. It could be covered in the initial outcome framing but this is up to the individual. NLP theory of schizophrenia is based on Gregory Bateson's theory of double bind (1972, 1979) and Milton Erickson's work (see Complete Works of Milton Erickson). It involves finding a context where the maladaptive states would be useful. I am not aware of any peer-reviewed papers that cite Beyerstein or Levelt on the topic of NLP (this includes Grinder) -- however a general reply can be found in Whispering, and I expect it will be covered in the working title, Redtail Math. Other researchers (eg. Mathison & Tossey, Craft) have also replied to some of their concerns. Some industry associations are attempting to enforce the standards for training and practice of NLP. Has Figley replied to Lilienfield et al (2003) criticism of V/KD use in Traumalology (1979)? On the optic of contralateralization, now this is widely accepted in neuroscience -- the motor attention for the right side of the body is located in the left hemisphere. There are some excellent studies into eye movement and body movement cues in Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, MIT Press. How do you use contralateralization? According to NLP, contralaterization is a fundamental of Milton Ericksonian's work with Hypnosis -- see Patterns I&2 (someone removed the page numbers them from the article). Roger Tabb (an optomostrist) developed various state games that are widely used in NLP (eg. Alphabeta chart) -- see Whispering (2001). In the recent course in Sydney: we have people from all around the world including those studying psychiatry, cognitive science, golf coaching, business, presentation skills, business management, IT, engineering -- the majority of participants use NLP as an adjunct to their existing roles in life, based on feedback setting well-formed outcomes was the most useful. --Comaze 23:32, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
B&G may not explicitly state that "NLP is a science" (Bandler may have said this in one of his rambling monologues, I'd have to suffer through the CDs and DVDs I haven't yet binned to find out) but NLP has most of the trappings of pseudoscience. No, NLP is indeed not a science but its proponents -- inluding B&G -- pretend that it is scientific. Why do B&G talk about neurology if NLP lacks even the pretence of being scientific (as you are contending)? NLP is competing with scientific disciplines for "mindshare" and "cultural space". B&G present their own theories regarding learning, memory, thinking, mental illness, emotion, consciousness, neurology, motivation, language and perception that are largely inconsistent with the findings of scientific disciplines that cover these domains. If B&G are positing theories in an area that is the province of science then they are preseneting NLP as something scientific. Transformational Grammar is dead and Bateson's double-bind theory of schizophrenia was discredited decades ago. You mention "NLP theory of schizophrenia". NLP then is competing with scientifically based fields (neuropsychiatry, neuropharmacology, genetics, psychiatry) in providing understanding and treatment of schizophrenia. Mental illness treatment is the province of science. Hence NLP is presenting itself as a scientific field. Beyerstein is cited by Tye and Levelt is cited by Drenth. Also Levelt is a monument in psycholinguistics, as the director of the Max Planck Institute of Psycholinguistics his professional opinion counts for much. If Levelt says that NLP is unininformed about linguistics you can be very confident that NLP is uninformed about linguistics. You mention one unanswered paper, I can cite 20 or so unanswered papers. It matters not that certains professionals learn and/or practice NLP. Many professionals -- even psychiatrists -- are Scientologists. What of it? Couldn't we parameterise "we have people from all around the world including those studying psychiatry, cognitive science, golf coaching, business, presentation skills, business management, IT, engineering -- the majority of participants use X as an adjunct to their existing roles in life, based on feedback setting well-formed outcomes was the most useful" and let X be one of {Scientology, Silva Mind Control Method, Huna, Magick, EST, Tensegrity, Theosophy, Anthroposophy, Breatharianism, Knowledge (Prem Rawat), Shamanism} and still have a true statement? The vital point is that "feedback [from] setting well-formed outcomes [which] was the most useful" does not count as evidence for efficacy. Subjective report is no basis upon which to make statements about the universe. Your criterion fails to honour the notions of actual efficacy (versus apparent efficacy) and it is unconcerned with truth. Throughout the history of medicine all of the bogus therapies such as blood-letting met your criterion of "feedback [from] setting well-formed outcomes [which] was the most useful" for their practitioners. George Washington was convinced that blood-letting had curative properties (most likely because of the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy) else he wouldn't have been such an enthusisatic practitioner and exponent. It was blood-letting that eventually killed Washington. Unfortunately for Washington the universe was indifferent to his subjective assessments of utility. flavius 02:34, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Flavius, There are published POVs (including in PubMed) that back up the view that people use NLP as an adjunct to their existing qualifications and businesses. My personal experiences with NLP are opinion and my comment was stated as such -- It was not presented as fact so I don't appreicate you accusing me of logical fallacy -- I know the difference. I personally have no interest in therapy, spirituality, mysticism, religion or cults. I have a great deal of interest in logic and mathematics. In this discussion my interest in NLP is purely from a Neutral Point of View. I'll check out Drenth and Levelt, but initial keyword search of the Beyerstein refs shows no results for NLP or neurolinguistic programming. Does Beyerstein actually research NLP, if so, do you have the paper? If the only connection to Beyerstein is via Drenth, then it needs to be presented in the article in this manner. Let's enforce some academic standards here. The infighting is sounds like what is happening between various factions in psychology -- some psychology factions want adopt methods of hard science -- good luck. --Comaze 05:31, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Comaze, I would like to put this issue to bed (forever) so I'll respond to each of your points.
There are published POVs (including in PubMed) that back up the view that people use NLP as an adjunct to their existing qualifications and businesses.
So what? Since when was the point that people (attempt to) use NLP ever in contention? Similarly, when and where was it disputed that various (misguided) professionals (attempt to) use NLP in the context of their professions? What does this prove? Are you suggesting that because Mr Salesman claims that his success is due to NLP does that establish the efficacy of NLP? When John Travolta tells us "I have been a successful actor for more than twenty years and Scientology has played a major role in that success. I have a wonderful child and a great marriage because I apply L. Ron Hubbard’s technology to this area of my life" [37] does this count as evidence that Dianetics works and that Scientology is a life-enhancing "technology"? Is it not possible that John Travolta is mistaken or that he is delusional?
My personal experiences with NLP are opinion and my comment was stated as such -- It was not presented as fact so I don't appreicate you accusing me of logical fallacy -- I know the difference.
Your thinking on this matter is entirely unclear, you are guilty of numerous failings of reasoning:
    1. You repeatedly attempt to minimise the relevance of criticisim by arbitrarily narrowing the scope of NLP on an ad hoc basis. When something looks really bad for NLP you claim that the criticised aspect isn't really NLP.
    2. You blindly repeat the bloviations of Grinder regarding the alleged intellectual antecedents of NLP without being able to demonstrate a substantive connection between NLP and automata theory, genetic algorithms, Russell's Theory of Types etc. When pressed on this matter you conveniently ignore the promptings.
    3. You ignore that numerous aspects of NLP have been throughly discredited: Bateson's "double-bind" theory of schizophrenia, TG, eye accessing cues, PRS, human mind as tabula rasa, (all) mental illness as learnt etc.
    4. You mouth Grinders (naive) pontifications about epistemology without understanding what you are parroting or the implications of what you are parroting. Even if NLP were based on "cybernetic epistemology" and fictionalism was sound the burden of rigorous empirical testing remains. "NLP can cure depression" is a falsifiable and testable hypothesis. Whether NLP can or can't cure depression is a statement about the universe. The best method devised for testing hypothesis about the universe is the scientific method. Irrespective of how the NLP treatment for depression was arrived we still have the problem of "Does NLP work better than placebo in treating depression?". There is no escaping this problem.
I personally have no interest in therapy, spirituality, mysticism, religion or cults. I have a great deal of interest in logic and mathematics.
You may have a great deal of interest in logic and mathematics but you apparently have little understanding. Russell's theory of types is dead, you don't appear to understand inferential statistics or inductive logic.
In this discussion my interest in NLP is purely from a Neutral Point of View.
No, it definitely isn't NPOV. You are a promoter and advocate and you have a zeal that is almost religious. NLP is basically a "snake oil" business. The advocacy that you are engaged in is especially unethical because NLP isn't free, it costs big bucks. Not only is their insuffcient evidence of the efficacy of NLP there is substantial evidence that it doesn't work. It is unethical to charge people AU$100.00/hour for treatment that doesn't work or AU$5000.00 for a melange of ritual, pop-psychology, brain myths, B-grade philosophy and anecdotes.
I'll check out Drenth and Levelt, but initial keyword search of the Beyerstein refs shows no results for NLP or neurolinguistic programming. Does Beyerstein actually research NLP, if so, do you have the paper? If the only connection to Beyerstein is via Drenth, then it needs to be presented in the article in this manner.
That you haven't investigated Drenth or Levelt yet is indicative of your bad faith, they have been in the article for months. Beyerstein is a physiological psychologist and psychopharmacologist and he pans NLP in his paper Beyerstein, B.L. (1990). Brainscams: Neuromythologies of the new age. International Journal of Mental Health, 19, 27-36. Beyerstein is cited by Drenth (IIRC) and Tye. Levelt also shit-canned NLP. What is your response? Are Beyerstein and Levelt ignorant dickheads that don't know what they are talking about? Does Grinder know more about psycholinguistics than Levelt (an acknowledged worldwide authority on the subject)? Does Grinder know more about Beyerstein (a recognised expert on the biological bases of behaviour)? The whole world is wrong expect Grinder, Malloy and Tossey?
Let's enforce some academic standards here. The infighting is sounds like what is happening between various factions in psychology -- some psychology factions want adopt methods of hard science -- good luck.
Are you suggesting that human behavior can't be studied experimentally? If you are then you have a "tough brief". Social psychology has yielded many useful and valid results using an experimental approach. Are you familiar with at least the classical papers in social psychology such as Milgram (1963), Darley & Latané (1968), Nisbett & Bellows (1977), Festinger & Carlsmith (1959)? There is contention within psychology (in some areas) and psycho-cults prosper because we know very little about the brain. NLP is parasitic on our (comparative) ignorance regarding the brain. Physics -- the field that defines "hard science" -- was once a branch of philosophy. During this pre-mathematical and pre-experimental phase there was much dispute amongst "natural philosophers" about the fundamental concepts in introductory physics. It was not the nature of the subject matter that produced this contention it was instead the ignorance of the physicists of the time. The hypotheses of eccentrics versus epicycles is no longer an issue of contention amongst astronomers, chemists no longer argue about "phlogiston", and physicians are no divided about the role of the heart. This is the pattern in the history of science. The psychology of the future will be much more biological in orientation than it currently is, it will be better informed about neurophysiology and genetics. Also, you are overstating the division within psychology and misunderstanding th trends within psychology. I don't know of a University in Australia whose department of psychology doesn't teach experimental psychology. Furthermore, all of the psychology departments are heavily influenced by physiology. The trend in psychology is towards biological psychology. Psychology syllabi are throughly infused with statistical methods and research design (it is impossible to get a major in psychology without studying statistics). Psychology has rid itself of its pseudoscientific heritage -- psychoanalysis (Freud) and analytical psychology (Jung) are pretty much dead. There are no major debates about method within psychology. Modern psychology is experimental psychology. flavius 11:07, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Comaze, your assersions are leading to further damning evidence. I actually have one of Beyerstein's papers (the one cited on this site: http://www.workingpsychology.com/nlp.html ). It shows what he thinks of NLP. I have many others. Now if you want those extra and daming facts left out of the article, I suggest you stay away from discussion and editing for a week. Otherwise they will be included! Camridge 06:00, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm all for high quality. If you can get more credible references then please present them. We need to get the most credible references for each of the major points of view. --Comaze 06:12, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Platt / Knight

I don't think that Platt (2001) holds enough weight to be referenced alongside Sharpley. If Platt can be included Sue Knights reply published in the same magazine can also be included. To be fair if Knight is not allowed then Platt should also be removed. Given that there is a reluctance to include Downlen, let's compare and contrast Platt with Dowlen (1996). --Comaze 11:39, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Comaze, Platt actually came to your alternative promotional article to explain his research according to your wishes. I believe you are acting churlishly and the Platt ref will remain. Some explanations can be made concerning his method, but you ask for more evidence, you are going to get it. I have been counting how many criticisms and negative facts I have collected that have been left out of the article. They are on the verge of being reinstated into the article. Or are you going to act harmonious and kiss my arse? DaveRight 03:04, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Yes Comaze is removing citations based on the fact that they have been removed from the refs section. If Comaze or anyone else removes any other ref from the ref section, just revert them. Comaze is playing his normal sneaky deletion game. Delete something sneakily, then delete the rest of its associations later. Comaze needs deleting and indeed punishment is on its way. Camridge 03:30, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
I just don't think we're being fair here. Platt is being given too much weight to be included alongside Sharpley. I think we can remove most of the Platt references and keep Sharpley. --Comaze 22:54, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Whoever removed the Singer and Lalich 1999 ref, replace it immediately. Camridge 03:41, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
While Crabtree does appear to be highly unnoteworthy, Platt seems fine. Just because he is near Sharpley(more credible) does not mean that his refs should be deleted. If you agree to "X says Y" (A yyyy)(B yyyy) why remove B just because A is more notable B? Maybe I am not picking up on something, so correct me if I am wrong, but this seems fairly minor, especially when we still have "REF" on the page and a cleanup tag; methinks it best if we focus on those.Voice of AllT|@|ESP 23:35, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
I agree let's focus on the more important issues. If later we could get an opinion from an expert on wikipedia citation standards, that would be great. --Comaze 00:17, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Comaze. How about the issue of you and other NLP fanatics persistently advocating censorship? Perhaps we could place a label at the top of the article that statey your name and the fact that your history is one of persistent censorship and promotion! HeadleyDown 02:06, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Comaze, stop your antagonism. Behaving like a fanatical zealot and deleting or advocating deletion of criticisms for 6 months, and then telling people to stop pointing it out, is either whitewash or trolling behaviour. It is intensely irritating. Pointing out your biases, and keeping you and all the other fanatical wouldbe censors in line is the duty of every neutrally oriented editor. HeadleyDown 01:41, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
HeadleyDown, Please avoid personal remarks, thanks. --Comaze 01:25, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Nomination

Well, since I have been accused of not helping the NLP page and spreading Scientology and Dianetics fanaticism (whatever this is?) by HeadleyDown et al., I have decided to push this page forward. I have nominated this page. You guys can accept this challenge. If HeadleyDown thinks that this page is no way up to wikipedia standard, you can always decline this challenge by reverting my edit on this talk page. Please click the nomination tags to leave any comments supporting this nomination. --Dejakitty 13:48, 12 January 2006 (UTC)


Dejakitty. Your nomination is simply a cry for help. You want some scientific peers to come in and say 'OK, the illusion is banished and NLP is indeed advanced rocket science and can be included together with astrophysics and advanced computing technology'. From what realistic people understand about peer review, you are going to feel pretty thoroughly crucified, disemboweled, and quartered by the end of it. HeadleyDown 14:24, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Dejakitty, it is undisputable that you've contributed nothing to the article or the discussion that precedes the article. You are a trivial distraction attempting to spread your "brainwashing" to others with the usual banal NLP psycho-cult agitprop that I've heard and read many times before. That you are a mindless NLP drone is evident in the banality that you offer in defence of NLP -- you mouth the same words as the NLP herd, you have no mind of your own. Structurally, your behaviour is indistinguishable from that of Scientologists, only the specific details differ. Also none of your bullshit NLP persuasion and rapport skills will work here, they only work in seminars and amongst the NLP herd that is willing to participate in the idiotic ritual. Like all NLP zealots -- despite your self-delusions about magically changing beliefs and persuading -- you couldn't shift a belief or persuade someone if your life depended on it. Who of any of the pro-NLP editors have demonstrated "exquisite communication skills", "belief changing linguistic wizardry" or "power persuasion"? Comaze? GregA? FT2? You? The distinguishing trait of all of the pro-NLP editors thus far is insipidity of intellect and of writing. Unable to make your "patterns" work like they do in seminars you -- and your cohorts -- resort to evasion or plainly malicious and devious conduct. Your involvement will not "push this page forward". Rather, it will drag it down. If you want to advance the NLP article then go away. flavius 14:41, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Please show some grace and accept the nomination if you believe in what you are doing. I would be very surprised if you choose to do so. You will probably reply with keywords like, scientology, brainwash, NLP-fanatics, go-away, pseudoscience, devious conduct, zealots, mindless drone etc. Please proof me wrong. --Dejakitty 17:33, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

What if I show "behavioural flexibility" and provide multiple replies (including the one you reckon I'll probably make):
Reply 1: scientology, brainwash, NLP-fanatics, go-away, pseudoscience, devious conduct, zealots, mindless drone etc.
Reply 2: diabetes, washing machine, cupcake, Bolivia, echo, tea kettle, lentils, zombies (Different "keywords").
Reply 3: [38][39] Some Grace.
Reply 4: Have I proofed (sic) you right or wrong? flavius 04:29, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for nominating the page. I need to read up on the peer review process for wikipedia. I hope it is accepted by other wikipedians. --Comaze 01:22, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

This nomination violated WP:POINT. So it seems a bit dissappointing to me :(.Voice of AllT|@|ESP 01:37, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
This should be a laugh:) Its time for the NLPers to put up with far more criticisms, and for more rational people to reveal more of the murky pseudoscience of NLP. HeadleyDown 01:38, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
That is dissappointing. I'm hoping that peer review is something that we can all work towards in the long term -- it's likely that peer review will become a requirement if people are going to trust wikipedia articles. --Comaze 02:31, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

NLP fanatic demands for arbitration/mediation/peer review are just distractions and time/effort wasting trolling tactics

Here is the way it works:

  • NLPbrains demand stuff,
  • it gets provided through the hard work of neutrally minded editors,
  • then they want to delete it.
  • then everybody realises that NLPbrains are zealots, and are only interested in NLP cult promotion/censorship of criticism

It happens all the time. Do not let the NLP fanatics waste anybody elses time. It is fine to allow them to talk gibberish, and to subsequently poke fun at them (point out their biases), but it is not ok to allow excessive censorship to appease their grubby little pseudoscientific and warped demands for myth over fact. Already facts have been censored to keep them happy. Those facts are on the verge of reappearing according to NPOV policy. Just stay cool and point and laugh whenever Comaze or Dejakitty fall on their faces with their feet in each other's gob. DaveRight 03:45, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

NLP practice and principles are completely wrong, then NLP presuppositions are completely wrong

  • It is wrong to say that "You cannot not communicate." So it may be possible to not communicate.
  • It is wrong to say that "The map is not the territory". So the map is the territory. Who has the map that is also the territory? Perhaps we are all living on a giant map that is also the territory.
  • It is wrong to "respect for the other person’s model of the world." So we should not respect the other person's model.
  • It is wrong to say that "The system (person) with the most flexibility of behaviour will have the most influence on the system." So the person with the most flexible behavious does not have the most influence on the system. Will the person with the lest flexible behaviour has more influence?
  • It is wrong to say that "The meaning of communication is the response it produces." So the meaning of my communication could be my intention to communicate, or something else, or there is no meaning at all, as long as it is not the response it produces.
  • It is wrong to say that "There is no failure only feedback." So there are times when it is wrong to regard something as feedback when it should be regarded as failure. (Skeptics Dict said something like that)
  • It is wrong to say that "Every behaviour has a positive intention" So there are behaviours with no positive intention at all like my present attempt performing brainwash.
  • It is wrong to say that "There are no unresourceful people, only unresourceful states." So there are unresourceful people around.
  • It is wrong to say that "You are in charge of your mind and therefore your results." So you are not in charge of your mind and therefore your results. Who might be in-charged?

This is what I think given that NLP is completely wrong. Since dejakitty is completely wrong, so it is wrong for dejakitty to say NLP is completely wrong. Therefore this is just dejakitty's completely weak attempt brainwashing HeadleyDown, Flavius to response back with keywords like scientology, brainwash, NLP-fanatics, go-away, pseudoscience, devious conduct, zealots, mindless drone etc, since it is wrong to say that "You are in charge of your mind and therefore your results." However dejakitty is unable to brainwash Headley because dejakitty is an unresourceful person, not because Headley is in charge of his mind. Therefore, this should be regarded as failure not feedback. So why do I keep on doing the same thing, because I am inflexible and I may have more influence than a flexible person. Thus there is no choice for Headley other than to reply back using words like scientology, brainwash, NLP-fanatics, go-away, pseudoscience, devious conduct, zealots, mindless drone etc, as his opinion based on scientific analysis has great influence on the general consensus, so it is impossible for Headley to choose to behave flexibly. --Dejakitty 18:55, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I never told you to go away, Dejakitty. I am happy for you and Comaze to demonstrate NLP's errors, and to spout your pseudoscientific waffle. The statements that you have written in this section are as banal as can be found in any pseudoscience...according to the views of scientists and other experts. HeadleyDown 01:35, 13 January 2006 (UTC)


I told you to go away, Dejakitty. Your asinine post above demonstrates that you should have followed my suggestion. The more you write the more credibility you lose. You've managed to confirm my assessment of the NLP-proponents thus far as intellectually insipid. Have you decided to fill the now vacant position of the "Aaron Kulkis Chair of Solipsistic Inquiry"? Aaron did heaps towards advancing the interest of NLP didn't he? Also, for your education "NLP practice and principles are completely wrong, then NLP presuppositions are completely wrong" is an assertion. You haven't demonstrated that this is the case. If that is your conclusion then you will need to supply the premises:
P1 "NLP practice and principles are completely wrong"
P2
P3
...
Pn
C "NLP presuppositions are completely wrong"
No-one actually stated that "NLP practice and principles are completely wrong". What has been stated is that when NLP practice has been tested it has been found to be largely ineffective, that there is no evidence to support the claims of the efficacy of NLP and that NLP theory is inconsistent with understandings obtained from neurology, psychiatry, genetics, linguistics, psycholinguistics, social psychology, cognitive psychology and psychopathology. It is logically possible for NLP patterns/practice to be ineffective and the presuppositions to be true and it is also logically possible that the NLP patterns/practice to be true and the presuppositions to be false. The two can be refuted independently of each other. You appear to lack basic clear-thinking skills and your English composition skills are appalling. As a persuader you suck because you can't formulate a sound argument and your ill-formed arguments are poorly presented. For example, "This is what I think given that NLP is completely wrong. Since dejakitty is completely wrong, so it is wrong for dejakitty to say NLP is completely wrong". Even if it were true that "NLP is completely wrong" it is not possible to deduce from that premise that "dejakitty is completely wrong". This is the structure of your reasoning:
P1. X is A. "...given that NLP is completely wrong"
C. Y is A. "Since dejakitty is completely wrong"
P1. Y is A "...dejakitty is completely wrong"
C. Z is A "...it is wrong for dejakitty to say NLP is completely wrong"
These aren't arguments they are just assertions. A deductive argument needs at least two premises and the two premises must overlap in subject, eg.
P1. An inability to reason effectively is a trait of gullible people.
P2. Dejakitty is unable to reason effectively.
C. Dejakitty is a gullible person.
Most of your post is ungrammatical to the point of being unparseable and incomprehensible: 'Therefore this is just dejakitty's completely weak attempt brainwashing HeadleyDown, Flavius to response back with keywords like scientology, brainwash, NLP-fanatics, go-away, pseudoscience, devious conduct, zealots, mindless drone etc, since it is wrong to say that "You are in charge of your mind and therefore your results."' Exquisite communication. Also, since when did behavioral flexibility entail believing unsubstantiated claims? flavius 03:37, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

BAGEL / Accessing cues and representational systems

I've done my best at merging the BAGAL/rep system section. Can someone please fill in the REFs and clean it up to make it more intelligible. and also check it for NPOV. cheers --Comaze 02:46, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Lets try to reword our put in some of these refs, as it is just a quick(hopefully) lookup. Some of the claims, while likely true, are bid too broad and sweeping.Voice of AllT|@|ESP 02:50, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks VoA, I've just heavily simplified that section. The last paragraph also still needs to be reworked. I dropped some of the 4-tuple stuff and redundancy. If I've removed anything important please correct it. I do think the criticism of rep systems and accessing cues should be mentioned. --Comaze 03:30, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Its all been reverted. Since no can make any kind of edits/cleanup/formatting or removing of excessive refs for one idea(even the featured article voter pointed this out) without an automatic blanket revert, this article is protected. Either way it would end up as it is now through reverts.Voice of AllT|@|ESP 03:42, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
VoA, I asked if anyone thought if anything removed was important, please put it back in. The changes were designed to merge BAGEL with accessing cues and rep systems to remove redundancy and simplify the description of same idea with different names. Can we work together here? This is not a newsgroup. --Comaze 04:21, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Thats fine VoA. Right now people are getting sick and tired of repeat demands/questions/delusions/denials of cited fact from the NLPbrains. I am also getting tired of reverting Comaze's fact deletion. Every time you make your brevifying changes, Comaze uses it as an excuse to reframe/delete facts in favor of NLP promotion. The article is in good shape already, and I think it can get better. But certain fanatics need to realize, their efforts to censor will only lead to them being punished by the wikipedia process of orientation to facts over bullshit. Cheers DaveRight 03:50, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

DaveRight, please avoid personal remarks. thanks --Comaze 04:11, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps, but I am trying to kill things like "this is y"(reference yyyy; reference yyyy; reference yyyy; reference yyyy; reference yyyy) or "(reference yyyy) says". It is excessive, looks bad, and some of it is against format guidelines. However this all just gets reverted when I change it. I re-arrange a paragraph and it gets reverted.Voice of AllT|@|ESP 03:58, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Of course you are correct VoiceOfAll. But when the NLPers keep advocating for the deletion of facts because there are only a couple of citations supporting it, reducing refs per line will only be setting them up for more of their nonsense. I'm sure the format will eventually be as you have changed it, but the persistent pressure from Comaze et al to remove facts will have to stop for a month or two first. And it going to irritate so many editors if the references were demanded, and then deleted. Perhaps if Comaze, Dejakitty and others stopped sneaking around, reframing then deleting, and proposing other deletions, things could move forward faster. Camridge 04:28, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

If two credable refs are listed for a statement, then the statement is solid and no reasonable person should challenge it, especially if they know that other sources can be found.Voice of AllT|@|ESP 04:43, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Reference Limit

While a few things need some refs, many have way to many. Who wants to have a maximum of 3 refs for major statements and 2 for smaller ones? That makes the page much more readible and less cluttered. We will use the most credible sources.Voice of AllT|@|ESP 04:00, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Agreed Filtering out the less-credible references will improve the quality of the article so I'm for this. So I'm supportive of notes similar to the style we use on Intelligent Design --Comaze 05:40, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Sorry for butting in, but if it's getting cluttered, why not use footnotes instead of Harvard references, instead of deleting them?
VofA, the reason for multiple -- perhaps redundant -- citations is to demonstrate the orthodoxy and prevalence of the criticism and to prevent factual disputes regarding descriptions of NLP. The case against NLP is strong. The strength of the case only be demonstrated through multiple citations. If "X is Y" is supported by 10 references and the contrary "X is Z" is supported by 2 and we trim down the citations for "X is Y" to 2 it will create the false impression of inconclusiveness. For this reason I disgree with the imposition of an arbitrary reference limit. If clutter is your concern then the references can be converted to superscripts and end notes. flavius 04:46, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I concur with flavius. If you don't have multiple citations for each assertion the case against NLP will look weak and will create an impression of inconclusiveness. QED. It's a bit shakey how many of the citations will actually make the notability grade all by themselves. If we were to apply Occums Razor to conclusions based on simple citation standards we'd end up having to rewrite the entire article proclaiming the inconclusiveness of skeptic concerns. Perhaps we'd even have to concede skepticism to a smaller section of the article? Again... QED. Peace. Metta Bubble 05:42, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
If there are citations to substantiate a statement it is not an assertion it is a conclusion. I don't think you know what Occam's Razor is. Occam's Razor is the principle of parsimony, it is concerned with choosing explanations. The idea of applying Occam's Razor "to conclusions based on simple citation standards" is literally meaningless. Q.E.D. is an acronym for "quod erat demonstrandum". You haven't demonstrated anything other than your ignorance. Tacking QED onto your assertions (yes assertions not conclusions) doesn't substantiate them, only argument and evidence can do that. By what idiot logic did you arrive at the statement that "we'd end up having to rewrite the entire article proclaiming the inconclusiveness of skeptic concerns"? Did "Occums Razor" (sic) take you there? Occums Razor must be different then from Occam's Razor. Is Occums Razor the principle of promoting pseudoscience by deleting critical references? QED. Peace. Occums Razor. flavius 11:28, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Flavius. I'm surprised you don't believe small-minded insults are below you. I'd like to lift the tone and I know you are capable of being reasonable in your discussions.
I don't see it as a lowering, it's more a sideways move. flavius 15:00, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
Your opening statement "If there are citations to substantiate a statement it is not an assertion it is a conclusion" is false logic. The truth is citations merely support our writing, they don't turn our writing into fact. Where multiple citations are making opposing conclusions it is logical for us all to conclude (yes using Occum's Razor!) that consensus on the topic is inconclusive. You have recently stated culling any citation will give a "false impression of inconclusiveness". So what are we to believe? That NLP alone requires many citations because...
  • We need to avoid a false impression of inconclusiveness?
  • or more obviously The results actually are inconclusive!
No, it isn't "false logic". I didn't claim that a citations establishes fact. Citation provides substantiation, substantiation turns an assertion into an argument. The argument may be invalid or weak but it is nevertheless an argument. A conclusion is the deductive or inductive step of an argument. Again you are parading your ignorance. It isn't the case in regard to NLP research that "multiple citations are making opposing conclusions". There is more evidence against NLP than there is for it but you would like to pretend that this isn't the case. Furthermore, most of the research that has concluded in favour of NLP has been critiqued on methodological grounds. The point is that the actual split of opinion amongst experts should be accurately and fully communicated else the article becomes an advert for NLP. Even if the distribution of NLP research findings was equally split between positive and negative (which it isn't) it wouldn't be logical to automatically conclude that the research is inconclusive. Before that conclusion can be made methodological error would have to be ruled out as a possible cause and there may be reason to review the experiment designs used in the research. Occam's Razor won't lead you to the conclusion that the research is inconclusive (if you seriously believe this then explain how). By Occam's Razor -- i.e choose that explanation that explains the results in the simplest fashion, with the most conceptual economy -- we should reject NLP. NLP theory has no explanatory power, there is nothing that it explains (more thoroughly and with the most conceptual economy) that other theory doesn't. NLP doesn't provide a more parsimonious explanation of anything over the alternatives. Furthermore, Grinder has re-iterated the fictionalist epistemological stance of NLP method. Fictionalist theory can't be evaluated on the basis of parismony of explanation because it is deliberate artifice. The NLP research results are conclusive -- it's been shown not to work, it's a settled matter that's why the research stopped after the early 1990s. The article should reflect this. On what basis can you argue that the research is inconclusive? Sharpley doesn't appear to think that the research is inconclusive, neither does Lilienfeld or Eisner. flavius 15:00, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
Secondly, you've used this "let's claim the user is talking gibberish" strategy a few times now. In assuming your QED comments are sincere I will address them. QED can be easily rendered "As has been shown" ... You have stated yourself, "the strength of the case [can] only be demonstrated through multiple citations". So, as has been shown the skeptical attacks on NLP do not stand up on their own. Hence we should discuss reframing them into a more appropriate context rather than using them as a series of bullet wounds in an otherwise sensible article. Peace. Metta Bubble 04:34, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
This is all moot now, as we are using footnotes instead of trimming refs.Voice of AllT|@|ESP 04:35, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
No, QED can't be easily rendered "As has been shown". The only contemporary contexts in which QED appears is in mathematical and logical proofs. Its use implies deductive proof, you were using it where there was none. The strength of the case against NLP can indeed only be demonstrated through multiple citations. How else can it be communicated in a verifiable manner that NLP is discredited pseudoscientific bunkum? Your notion of argument is aberrant. You are typing gibberish. You appear to be suggesting that because we can provide multiple citations that demonstrate that P is Q then P is not Q or we simply can't say anything about P. If 20 reserach papers exist that conclude that P is Q and 5 exist that conclude P is not Q then it is safe to conclude that P is Q because most of the research is converging on the same result. No a posteriori proposition can "stand up on their own". Does the proposition "the Earth orbits the Sun" stand on its own? No result in science stands up on its own? The very notion of "standing up on their own" is bullshit (in the sense that Frankfurt has defined it in On Bullshit). It's vague verbiage that betrays a lack of interest in how things actually are. flavius 15:00, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks VoA, but I don't believe you are highlighting a consensus. The resolution you have proposed may actually hide the problem more than resolve it. I believe that well researched impartial articles do not require massive tomes of citations merely to get from A to B... to quote :Jimbo Wales, September 2003, on the Neutral Point of View page:
  • If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
  • If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
  • If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it's true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not.
In light of this, I ask you to consider further whether seeking to discourage discussion on this issue is an impartial act... and I refer readers to my previous post above for more information on my request -- to discuss reframing skeptic concerns into a more appropriate context rather than using them as a series of bullet wounds in an otherwise sensible article. Peace. Metta Bubble 05:29, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
Any non-credible refs can still be challenged, but we will not just cut of the ref limit (well there is a limit, but is is pretty high with footnotes).Voice of AllT|@|ESP 05:34, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
Given the article citations seem to be more for editors than for readers we might find that HTML comments would be a better solution for what to do with all those excess citations. It seems to be of little doubt on all sides that there are excess citations. There are also unresolved notability issues which end-notes will make harder to resolve. HTML comments would solve all this, as editors would only refer to the more salient citations. I propose this rather than hiding citations at the end of the article where people can use them as ammunition to randomly take pot shots into the article. I understand you have already embarked on your solution but it doesn't come across as a mediated group decision. Peace. Metta Bubble 06:02, 14 January 2006 (UTC)


Commercial Break

Since pretty much every behaviour guideline is being broken (with no apparent consequences) on this talk page and because the tone is so foul and negative, I thought it would be good with some on-topic entertainment. Here the fabulous Derren Brown works his "magic" in a staged NLP/self-development seminar (complete with eye accessing cues, anchors, language patterns and embedded commands). Interestingly, I think both camps will feel validated by watching it. Oh, we also get to see a reenactment of the (in)famous Milgram experiment. Enjoy! --Jens Schriver 20:46, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Jens, I'll excuse the smarmy and self-righteous "finger waving" of your post (which is entirely consistent withe the Scandinavian ethnic stereotype) to point out that (a) you haven't supplied the URL for the media you are referring to; and (b) you are one of the people behind CheatHouse.com a site dedicated to profiting from academic plagiarism -- your moral admonition is as credible as Bandler's claim that he wanted to take ownership of NLP for the good of the people. :-)flavius 02:58, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
Here's a hug for you, flavius. And the missing link . --Jens Schriver 04:07, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
Don't worry about the hug :-) Do you know anyone sufficiently competent in English and Dutch that can translate Professor Levelt's NLP article [40]? flavius 09:16, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
My Dutch is good enough to extract the main points, but I can't do a proper, full translation. Yes, I know people that can. Would the whole article need to be translated word-by-word or just some parts? --Jens Schriver 11:59, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
The whole document would be ideal. If you could place it on one of your web sites so that we can link to it from the article that would be great (it would also bring traffic to your site). flavius 13:56, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Unprotected on one condition

Flavius presents a good comprimise, so I will unlock the article on the condition that only reference conversion to superscripts and end notes is permitted. This is a good guideline to cleanup and to prevent edit wars.Voice of AllT|@|ESP 13:30, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Good. First go over the ^ on the references section and see what code name I assign it (like frogs). Then replace the corresponding Harvard notes with {{ref|name}}.Voice of AllT|@|ESP 03:09, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
I'd like to request editors use html comments around any citations they plan to remove (in leiu of deleting them). These citations carry strong evidence of the edit history on the article and are useful for future editors. I trust all editors will find this suggestion amicable. Peace. Metta Bubble 04:49, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Lets stop doing further edits and give VoA a freehand to improve the article

I suggest that we should all stop doing edits and lets give VoA complete freedom (referencing, restructuring, cleanup, etc) to improve this article, if he doesn't mind undertaking this task. We can comment on the final draft using the peer review page. I don't mind further personal attacks as long as you can bring yourself to consider this idea in a positive way. --Dejakitty 17:48, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Any help converting references would be welcome, preferably from the anti-NLP group, so as to avoid accusions if an error where made. The subarticle is still there, and can be edited as desired.Voice of AllT|@|ESP 17:52, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Neuro-linguistic_programming/Archive_8&oldid=1190048306"