User talk:PatrickMerlevede

Hi Patrick, Welcome to wikipedia! Please stick around, we really need your assistance to help clean up this article. This page gets mirrored on hundreds of other sites world-wide so it is important that we get a clean, accurate description of NLP. Metaphors we live by Lakoff is really an influential book for NLP, but I cannot find enough evidence from journal articles to back up this claim. Also, cognitive science is the same, very similar intellectual antecedents, except in my opinion, Bateson really doesn't get enough credit for this contributions to CogSci. --Comaze 10:47, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Given NLP's culture is basically one of not bothering too much with science, the problem is indeed that it will be hard to find any references. The link with Lakoff was pointed out to me by the professor supervising my PhD work - actually, in 1998 I was handed an early manuscript of the book I'm citing... -- User:PatrickMerlevede 11:30, 1 November 2005

Patrick, I've sent you an email via your web site form. I can forward you the references that I do have. Here are my references for Lakoff's connection to NLP:

pp.109,208 Structure of Magic Vol.1 (cites Linguistic and Natural Language, 1970)
Patterns II also cites Lakoff (1970)
Lakoff gets a mention in Whispering in the footnotes of Ch.3 (18) but this is relation to Susan Elgin (a co-author and research partner of John Grinder in the early 70s) challenge to Lakoff.

These book references would normally be ok for NLP, but it is really hard going at the moment, even simple grammar correction are sometimes reverted. --Comaze 11:38, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the references. I think the NLP-sceptical editors of the NLP page were saying that NLP tries to peg itself to Lakoff & Johnson but that this is a one-way link. Frankly, I don't recall seeing links in the other direction. PatrickMerlevede 08:20, 3 November 2005 (GMT-1)

Here is one quote: Mind to Mind Marketing, Harry Alder, says "Some developments in cognitive science and 'mind modeling' draw mainly from neuro-linguistic programming (p.10)" --Comaze 12:06, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you know Harry Adler, he would be "classified" as NLP proponent... PatrickMerlevede 08:20, 3 November 2005 (GMT-1)

Hello Patrick. I'm sure you are welcome to edit, and you seem to be by far the most reasonable NLP affiliated editor. We have had some very odd people here, including Andy Bradbury who seems to talk fluent pseudoscience and strangely enough provided further evidence and citations that prove NLP to be a pseudoscience:) I think the jobEQ thing is very good as it seems dissociated from NLP. The Emotional Intelligence movement does not seem to have the same psychic/new age/pseudoscience push as NLP, and seems to be a far more reasonably ordered set of concerns. I certainly would advocate the total breakage of links between NLP and EQ. There may be a few positive NLP studies among the general unsupported conclusions, but there is so much really damning and cultlike nonsense in NLP. I believe your move away from NLP is very sane under the circumstances, and especially in the light of the cultlike activities of NLP promoters on this article. Its all rather silly. Best regards AliceDeGrey 07:48, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Coming from Alice - who I believe is now known to be Headley Down writing under one of his many pseudonyms, presumably in an attempt to give the impression that his views were widely shared (assuming that Headley himself isn't a sock puppet!) - I take this as a compliment.

Andy Bradbury 10:28, 2 November 2006 (GMT)

My view on NLP is that the worst moment in its history was when John Grinder decided to give up his job as university professor. Ever since, the relation between NLP and fields such as psychology and the need to follow the research criteria from psychology has been downplayed in the NLP field. I've tried to "convert" some NLPers to embracing modern psychological research methods, but have had limited success, outside those that are now using the jobEQ toolset...

When it comes to emotional intelligence research, that "playing field" is divided by real academics (e.g. Mayer, Salovey et al) and more popular writers (e.g. Goleman). At a conference in June 2005, Salovey expressed "mixed feelings", being happy that Goleman helped put the field into the spotlight, but having problems with some claims that have been made that couldn't be backed up with scientific research. With 7 Steps to emotional Intelligence, we tried to show that some NLP models can be used to raise EQ by 10% (as measured by EQ skills tests). PatrickMerlevede 08:20, 3 November 2005 (GMT-1)

NLP Arbitration

This is a courtesy note to those who voted in the Arbitration vote posted Nov 3 on Talk:Neuro-linguistic programming.

Please be aware that a request for arbitration has now been submitted.

The parties involved have been notified on their talk pages, and on the article itself.

FT2 12:16, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of NLP Modeling

An editor has nominated NLP Modeling, an article which you have created or worked on, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NLP Modeling and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you.

copyright question

Please see the talk page for Meta-programs. If you wish to give us a license for this under GFDL, it needs to be done in a formal way as specified by WP:COPYRIGHT, and you need to be aware of the implications for reuse-- among which is that your thesis based on it will also be GFDL as a derivative work, as will any of your commercial work that uses it. That line was in the original 2004 version--has the thesis since then been completed? DGG (talk) 21:22, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]