Talk:Neuro-linguistic programming

[[]]	This article is a former featured article candidate. Please view its sub-page to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.

This discussion page may contain trolling. Before you post any reply, consider how you might minimize the effects of trollish comments. Simply ignoring certain comments may be the best option. Remember to always assume good faith.

Archives

Pre-Oct 2005 Oct 2005 Disputes Oct 2005 (Mediated) Disputes 1 Oct 2005 (Mediated) Disputes 2 Nov 3 - 13, 2005 (Mediated) Nov 13 - 25, 2005 (Mediated ) 2005 Nov 25 - Dec 22, 2005 (Mediated) 2005 Dec 22, 2005 - Jan 14, 2006 (Mediated) 2006 Jan 14, 2006 To ArbCom decision Feb 6 2006 Mentorship begins Mentorship ends, HeadleyDown and many socks blocked The Swish discussion (March 6th - March 9th, 2006) General Workshop discussion (Feb 12th to May 10th, 2006) June 6 2006 to December 31 2006 Longterm abuser trolling/disinformation discussion (December 17 2006 to Present)

NLP and Science (again)

I'm still not clear of the extent to which the founders ever claimed it was a science. Dilts may have been talking through his hat. There seems to be a distinction between the pompous scientific foundations outlined by Dilts and the method driven approach of Grinder and Bandler. Here is Bandler (1979), "NLP is an attitude and a methodology which leaves behind a trail of techniques". There is also a distinction between NLP as therapy and NLP as a set of techniques applicable to anything. They started off looking at therapists, but they were looking at therapists techniques, not the basis of the therapy. Most of the research reviews are from psychology and they totally undermine the underlying principles of NLP. However, there seems to be a separate line of studies which aren't particularly interested in the underlying principles but in aspects of the methodology and techniques. I think this needs to be made clearer.Fainites 20:49, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Well said. Please go ahead. I've been trying to say that for months. 58.178.133.17 22:25, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Dilts is talking through his hat as much as any other NLP author. His is a key view and can be included. <refactored personal attack> just straight reporting. The point is to present their view and say what science views say about it. In this case Beyerstein and Drenth for example say that NLP is dressed up as science - whether NLP authors state that it is science or not it doesn't matter. From just a brief scan of what pseudoscience is about - statements of something being a science don't matter at all. Its how it is made to look like science that matters. Eg calling it Neuro-linguistic programming. AlanBarnet 06:47, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

AlanBarnet. I wasn't suggesting removing Dilts. After all, I put him in on the basis that for something to be pseudoscience it has to claim or imply that it is science. Also those parts in the 'soft science ' section where Drenth etc state it is pseudo science and exactly why. Dilts is bang to rights because he claims NLP has scientific foundations (See earlier talk). Science has pretty much destroyed NLP's foundations. It's just that there seems to be a different, non-Dilts strand of a technique based approach who couldn't care less about Dilts scientific pretensions and just examine various techniques. Fainites 09:22, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

This article by Jaap Hollander NLP and Science-Five recommendations for a better relationship was first published in the a magazine titled NLP World (NLP World: Vol 6.3 Nov 1999). It also was a response to Drenth's criticism of NLP in Holland. Hollander says, "Qualitative scientific inquiry bears a striking resemblance with the process of modelling in NLP. So, NLP, after all, may not be as unscientific as it is often made out to be. Modelling, like qualitative research, uses data from naturalistic settings. Modeling also uses inductive analysis of the data. Rather than testing for the presence of predetermined patterns, the modeller looks for patterns in the observations of the expert, patterns that he or she had not consciously formulated beforehand."[1] --Comaze 23:42, 27 December 2006 (UTC) I've added a quote from Labouchere (ee4, 2004).[2] --Comaze 00:17, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Comaze - (...WP:RPA...) <refactored personal attack>. As to the above - you are clearly presenting the information the wrong way around. Drenth replies to Hollander not the other way around. This is obvious from the paper - promethius chained - thats dated December 1999 whereas Hollander is earlier. Drenth replies to Hollander by talking about "sham maneuvers". The whole of the "soft science" section could be more accurately be titled as "Pseudoscience". AlanBarnet 06:56, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

That's not quite right. Read the article by Hollander. I've put the link to the full article there. Drenth got on the Dutch radio and criticised NLP. According to Hollander, Drenth's criticism of NLP was uninformed. As he lacked an understanding of NLP modeling methodology. --Comaze 08:20, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Just reminding everybody here of the unreasonable amount of edits here yesterday. There were around 80 edits on the article with only a few edits on the talkpage. There is no way that all those edits are being sufficiently discussed. AlanBarnet 06:56, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Alan barnet, if you look, most of the edits were me and most involved re-arrangements, grammar, structure and headings. There has been very little editing of actual content.Fainites 09:24, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Folks. I agree with AlanBarnet on one point; that the section title needs something more. I think it needs to imply "soft science" as well as "pseudoscience" and "philosophy" and "technology" etc. The whole point as I understand this section is to convey the condundrum and different perspective about classifying NLP. Perhaps we should call the section:

• Classifying NLP

Or something like that, and then present all viewpoints on classification. 203.134.139.32 10:59, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Is Classification ok with you? The NLP is implied because the whole article is on that topic. --Comaze 06:24, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

There seems to be Dilts etc saying it's science and then the people who say no, it's pseudoscience. Then there are the ones who say it's soft science, not hard science, and the hard scientists have the wrong end of the stick. Then there are the ones who plead for more scientific research to establish a scientific basis. Then finally there are the ones who ignore the whole science debate and think solely in terms of useful techniques. I think 'Classifying NLP' is a good title. Should there then be subsections? Fainites 11:37, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I think you've captured it here. Subheadlines would be useful to organise the different views. --Comaze 12:31, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

'Soft Science' and 'Hard Science' are too POV. How about"Science, Pseudoscience, Structuralism and Technology".Fainites 14:14, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Had a go at dividing up the soft science section. Jolly difficult.Fainites 15:11, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

The most up to date and reliable views

The most up to date views have been covered up for too long already. The main science views are that NLP is unsupported. The latest science views (post 95) all see NLP as far worse than previously assessed. Not only is it unsupported - but it also shows every sign of being a pseudoscience and a cult. Note that as yet I have left the term - cult - out of the opening. It can legitimately be placed there according to NPOV policy. I've been urged by many editors here to check up on the policies of Wikipedia - and the non-negotiable policies all support what I have written. Those are all the main views of the opening. Devilly represents the most recent views of NLP (basically its finished as a therapy - now its just a minor plaything of HRM minorities) Thus according to due weight rules - those human resource subjects only get minority mention. Up to now Sharpley has had a huge mention but actually only his main conclusion it taken into account nowadays (NLP failed the tests). The more relevant views now are towards pointing out NLP's pseudoscience characters. So thanks for pointing me towards the WPrules people. Looks like they do support good research after all. AlanBarnet 07:44, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

AlanBarnet. What cover up? All the views of the scientists that say there is no validity to NLP are clearly set out, with accurate quotes and citations. The views of the scientists who say it is pseudoscience and why are clearly set out, with accurate quotes and citations. Virtually none of this work was done by you. The claims of scientists that NLP is a cult were put in by you, the references checked by others (despite repeated requests to you to verify your sources), and found in the case of Sharpley and Elich to be inaccurate. We are still awaiting a full quote and context from Eisner from you or any other verified quotes from scientists to the effect that NLP is a cult. So what cover up? Fainites 09:42, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Please Fainites. WP:NOFEEDING. 203.134.139.32 11:13, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

OK 203 Fainites 11:26, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm not quite sure where I should put my comment - but this seems the most sensible place. Feel free to move it to a more appropriate place (this debate seems to be split-up across multpile sections). Let me introduce myself, I'm Grant Devilly and wrote the article people have been mentioning (Power Therapy article in 2005 in Australian & New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry) and was alerted to this page by Comaze. My article started from the premise that the scientific method was a reliable choice of paradigms for inspecting psychiatric practices. This includes the assumption of the null hypothesis until the weight of evidence tips the balance into the other direction. The main point from my article, in general, is that many mental health practices are these days completely unsupported by any form of scientific evidence, have marginal support or don't even attempt to lay the foundations of testable hypotheses. NLP came into the latter category, but it is so well known in this regard that using precious publication space to demonstrate it again seemed pointless (the reviewers and editors agreed). Besides, the VKD section demonstrated it anyway (VKD is a spin-off from NLP). There have been no new randomised controlled trials of NLP (I did a lit search) and the old studies suggest placebo. However, my article was really pointing out the influencing strategies used by those who traffick various products to make a profit, and the subsequent committment to the product made by those who buy or use the product. Some call this cult behaviour - but it all depends upon the definition one sets-up to test. In no way does this mean that other 'mainstream' practices are immune from the same problems. However, the main difference relies upon falsifiability, and NLP is similar to many other products (EMDR, TIR, EFT, etc) in mental health in that at no point have the originators or progenitors of the practice been willing to state the terms under which the practice can be categorically rejected. Showing no replicable evidence of superiority over any other validated method and becoming 'untestable' led to NLP being help-up as the archetypical pseudoscience which enabled me to introduce the new stable of contenders. I did not conduct a new RCT into NLP nor did I conduct a new meta-analysis of the available data. I know some will not like what I have written here, but 'like' is not a 'scientific' word. If people reject science as the yardstick then that's a completely different argument. Hope this helps. Grant 11:53, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks very much Mr Devilly.Fainites 12:50, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes very interesting Prof Devilly - and reassuring to get confirmation. Thanks. AlanBarnet 12:41, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi all. I added the context to Prof Devillys view on NLP being an archetypal pseudoscience. It was removed. I am not sure what can or cannot be added from the authors statements on this talkpage. Any idea what the policy is? AlanBarnet 06:42, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Cults/Psychocults (again)

I've found the article for the 'psychocult' citation. Protopriest Novopashin is the senior priest of the Alexander Nevsky Cathedral and Director of the Information Consultation centres on issues of sectarianism for the city of Novosbirsk. He calls NLP, amongst others, a psychocult. Other targets as dangerous and evil sects are 'neo-Pentacostals', 'Jehovahs Witnesses' and the 'heathen-Mormons'. I think this citation is a bit dodgy without context. At the moment it says it is called a psychocult by journalists and researchers. The only three citations left in after research of the original 6 citations are Singer, Eisner and Protopriest Novopashin. Perhaps it should say 'researchers and a russian priest'.Fainites 15:52, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I see No. 68 has now removed the cult reference altogether. I can't see that Protopriest Novopashin was a sufficiently valid source and no editor has validated either Singer or Eisner.Fainites 23:15, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Following up on the Singer and Eisner references:

• Singer's book "Cults in our midst" does not appear to have any significant references to NLP. NLP is mentioned once, on page 199, as being one component of certain training programs. The context is a chapter talking about certain organisations offering workplace "training" to employees. The full quote is "Aside from complaining that they were being put through programs tantamount to a forced religious conversion, employees also objected to specific techniques being used: meditation, neurolinguistic porgramming, biofeedback, self-hypnosis, bizarre relaxation techniques, mind control, body touching, yoga, trance induction, visualization...". While a perfectly good source, it lacks relevance to NLP, and does not make any further mention of NLP (for example, it does not say whether the organisations it criticises are primarily NLP organisations or not).

• Eisner's book contains the quote "Both Sharpley and Elich et al. conclude that NLP is akin to a cult and may be nothing more than a psychological fad". Following up on the Sharpley ref, Sharpley was also directly quoting Elich. Both Eisner and Sharpley are reiterating what Elich said, without elaborating further on what might have been meant.

In my opinion, neither of these sources are sufficient to back up the statement which was made in the article, that "NLP is sometimes referred to by journalists and researchers as a kind of cult or psychocult", and I support the removal on those grounds.

For looking at the relationship between NLP and cults, I would suggest taking a closer look at "Michael D Langone (Ed). (1993.). Recovery from Cults: Help for Victims of Psychological and Spiritual Abuse". The source documents an "drug rehabilitation clinic", using NLP methods and run by people claiming to be NLP practitioners. The group is described as being highly manipulative, run by a charismatic leader, using criminal methods, and dedicated to "creating a new superspecies". This is a relevant source and is describing a group which fits most people's understanding of what is meant by a "cult". Enchanter 01:48, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

New Superspecies? How interesting... seriously. However, even given Langone's documented example, bringing up the NLP/CULT point here would be like adding a 'cult' reference to the Yoga Wiki because of Aum Shinrikyo taught it and used it in their sect.

It's a clear violation of WP:NPOV:Undue Weight.

Furthermore, it should be recognized that this point all together is a throwback to the work of the Long Term Abuser and vandal of this article known as HeadleyDown, who's banner has been taken up by AlanBarnet if we're to judge by historical edit behavior and tactics.

"HeadleyDown initially acts as the "sweet voice of a reasonable editor", claiming to have a scientific or neutral interest, seeking minor improvements, POV fixes, balance, or a legitimate "scientific/neutral" viewpoint in an otherwise not-bad article. However in practice long-term he is a virulent and destructive subtle POV warrior who ignores bona fide research (sometimes calling it "promotion") and gradually over time using multiple socks forces a massive POV slant until articles end up attacking their own subjects, or twisted to a very one-sided POV, rather than explaining them. This is claimed to be "more concise", "more scientific", "cited" or "more neutral". At times, he has forged cites and credentials, invented material, and deleted bona fide information, to do this. He is quite tenacious and persistent and tries to come back if blocked."

Headley's agenda on the NLP wiki has been to:

• Make sure the NLP article's main POV is that NLP is Pseudoscientific.
• Make sure the NLP article's main POV is that NLP is a cult.
• Make sure the NLP article has references to as many different cults/new age groups as possible.
• Present NLP procedures, techniques and axioms in the most cartoonish light as possible.
• Make sure any information showing NLP may have merit is removed and labeled promotional.
• Make sure anyone trying to prevent his objectives is labeled as violating policy or an NLP cultist.

Now does any of this look familiar? You've guys have been making a lot of headway presenting a more balanced article. Don't let ever returning ghost's of HeadleyDown slow you down. Doc Pato 04:25, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Doc pato. I really think you're on the wrong foot here. I'm clearly not sockpuppeting and I've worked with admin very closely to get problems solved here. I am working reasonably with admin assessments as you can partly see through my notifications of promoter abuse on the ANI article [3]. There are clearly problems with people obscuring views here. Whether you call it cover up – hiding – distorting - minimizing – its all the same and key views should not be obscured and I have presented the most obvious solution to the problem - I’ve been working on getting the lead section into shape by presenting the key issues in proper context and proportion. Unfortunately – Comaze (who's situation I have reiterated from the assessment of admin [4]) has been making sure the majority of key critical issues are not presented there at all. Lead sections should have a summary form opening that include the main issues and the rest of the lead should provide context and criticism. I don’t know exactly how many times Comaze and other anon IPs have removed that information by deleting it from the lead section – but it they are doing it persistently – and they are giving the most unacceptable excuses (for example - its been covered in the article already). It doesn’t matter if its been covered– the main point of the lead is to show with appropriate citations – the main issues of the article – so of course it will be present in the article.

There are pressing problems that need to be sorted out and I am working on solving them to create a properly balanced NPOV article. I’ve worked here without making any personal attacks - Ive only reiterated admin's assessments – I’ve cooperated with admin – and presented according to NPOV policy despite the persistent deletion of key views from the lead section. This will overcome a lot of the promotional obscuring of facts that admin have pointed out as being a problem and help to present a balanced article [5][6]. AlanBarnet 09:38, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi AlanBarnet. You rightly say that the lead section should have a summary that includes the main issues. Doesn't saying that NLP is controversial and after 3 decades remains scientifically unvalidated do just that? Fainites 12:23, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

On cults, Langone is already extensively quoted in that section. He describes the use of NLP by aggressive cults and shows that some past training in NLP is a common feature of types of cult. He does not describe NLP as a cult itself, but rather it's use for mind control and to ensure compliance by cults. Funnily enough for the 'NLP is bunkum/evil cult' fraternity, this would seem to imply that NLP, as a set of techniques, is immensly powerful. The same sorts of points used to be made about hypnotism. If 'Trilby' were written now, Svengali would be an NLP practitioner. As for the last two of the six citations to the cult allegation, what a suprise that neither of those said it was a cult either! Just Protopriest Novopashin on his own then? Fainites 09:19, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi. Yes I left cults out of the opening because I still am unsure as how to properly frame the fact. Open to discussion. AlanBarnet 09:38, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

You see that's the point. If it were a fact that NLP is a cult, there'd be no need to "properly frame" it. It would be clearly evident and citable. You'd have an abundance of reputable references and there'd be no need to parrot the same sources over and over again, or use the opinions of obscure bigoted Russian priests. There'd be no need to make spurious interpretations of researchers who say NLP has achieved "cult status" (i.e. mass popularity), and twist them to mean "NLP is a cult". But playing that ever "sweet voice of a reasonable editor", you continue to distort and POV warrior making the exact same edits and arguments as your previously perma-banned identity. Doc Pato 15:51, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

• "Actually, it may help also if we frame the explanation within the new alternative religion concept. HeadleyDown 02:22, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
• That sociological label seems to be appropriate for the opening to frame the rest of the scientific information that shows the techniques to be mere belief rituals. ATB Camridge (Headlydown Sock) 05:26, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Idiosyncratic language is a funny thing Doc Pato 16:38, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi AlanBarnet. I don't think you should start off with the assumption that it is 'fact' that NLP is a cult. All the citations provided so far have not borne fruit. I don't think Guy from admin counts as a source. If you find any commentators who do say it's a cult I'd be most interested to read them.Fainites 09:47, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I think the tag should be removed from the manipulation section. All the dodgy references to scientists and russian priests have been removed. The remaining two entries are from verified sources.Fainites 23:43, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Popular Culture, Structural Edits and Quote Moves

Fainites, Comaze, 58. and non-sock editors... regarding my changes to structure, groupings of quotes and addition of popular culture/media reception section, I'm not married to anything. Feel free to discuss and/or edit. A note: The education section disappeared a while ago, I think there's a lot of resources out there for that section to come back. Furthermore, I also believe there's a lot of popular media resources regarding the topic that can be expanded on if anyone's up for the task. Doc Pato 19:51, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate you letting us know. I'm more of an edit first discuss later style editor also. If I think a nonconcurrence is important I'll raise it on the talk page. Regarding the education section. Please go ahead; I hope you can keep it to a reasonable "due weight" size (i.e. not too big). 58.178.156.249 23:23, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Drenth and Devilly

Regarding these quotes:

• Drenth (1999)... states "pseudo-scientists flirt with scientific terms and concepts, and suggest that they want to participate in the scientific debate, albeit in an anti-positivist manner." and goes on to say "but even for new theories and hypothetical frameworks, the requirement still holds that they should be scrutinized and tested on logical grounds and, in the case of empirical or experimental science, on the basis of empirical or experimental evidence" .[34]

• Drenth (2003) expands his argument in saying "Unlike diagnosis, predicition of human performance or behavior, and assessment, therapy is not a (applied) sciencific activity. Criteria for therapeutic activity is effectiveness, not verity; at stake is not whether it is true but whether it works". At first sight this would seem to accord with NLP's "what works" philosophy. However, Drenth, using NLP as his prime example, goes on to say "But what brings some of these therapeutic approaches into the category of pseudoscience is the claim that their presumptions are predicated on scientific understanding and scientific evidence." [36]

• According to Devilly (2005) it is common for pseudoscientific developments to set up a granfalloon in order to promote in-group rituals and jargon, and to attack critics.[41] [dubious — see talk page]

Are they talking about pseudoscience in general, or is he talking about NLP specifically, and if not, do these really belong here? I mean, they says it's pseudoscience. We get the point. Include that. However, do we need a lecture about the general nature of pseudoscience in this already bloated article, cited or not? Doc Pato 22:41, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

They're talking about a gamut of dodgy therapies and they lump in NLP too. However, these citations appear fairly general about pseudoscience. I wouldn't suggesting dumping them, when you could see if they fit in the pseudoscience article instead. The "at first sight" phrase is certainly POV and violates WP:WTA. I would suggest leaving the Drenth citations and cutting the commentary. The Devilly citation is fairly general and cryptic and probably doesn't add much to the article really. 58.178.156.249 23:04, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

The Devilly citation should go unless he specifically states that NLP is one of the pseudosciences he is describing. As for Drenth, some editors here got into the habit of citing very full, verified quotations as a defence against the misquotes and false citations abounding in this article. I think the second quote above is more relevant than the first.Fainites 23:18, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually I think Drenth was using NLP as his prime example. I'll check.Fainites 11:19, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

It's in "Prometheus Unchained". After describing pseudoscience, he says 'Let me illustrate what I have said by discussing a movement known by the name NLP'. Fainites 11:23, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi. Right now I don't see the point in any of those passages - especially when they are full of argument (However ....). They may be useful when explaining why some say NLP is pseudoscientific - but I would say they can be added more concisely. AlanBarnet 12:26, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Drenth seems like a wonderful addition to the article. The commentary around the citations however is problematic:

• Drenth expands his argument (implies a value judgement on the original 1999 argument and implies an increasing validity of a mysterious and unmentioned larger argument that somehow applies to NLP)
• At first sight (gives away a bias and violates WP:WTA)
• this would seem (guesses the reader's impression and marks the beginning of an OR interpretation)

I would prefer the following. Cutting down and de-emphasing the 1999 citation in favour of the 2003, something like this:

• Drenth (1999) states "pseudo-scientists flirt with scientific terms and concepts, and suggest that they want to participate in the scientific debate, albeit in an anti-positivist manner." and Drenth (2003) uses the "movement known by the name NLP" to illustrate his descriptions of pseudoscience, stating "Unlike diagnosis, prediction of human performance or behavior, and assessment, therapy is not a (applied) sciencific activity. Criteria for therapeutic activity is effectiveness, not verity;" ... "But what brings some of these therapeutic approaches into the category of pseudoscience is the claim that their presumptions are predicated on scientific understanding and scientific evidence." [36]

I've cut the middle part of the 2003 citation because it is an aside from the core of the citation and confuses the overall meaning too much. Though it still needs work, I think my proposal here lacks the repetition, POV commentary and randomness of the original. If anyone likes it enough, go ahead and insert it by all means. Otherwise, suggestions? 58.178.141.147 12:53, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

It's fine.Fainites 13:07, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

A Balanced Lead Section

I added a lead section that moves closer to what is described in [7] lead section recommendations. Notice it follows NPOV closely. So many times over the past few weeks - main views have been promotionally obscured from the lead. The form is pretty easy to understand. All the key issues of the main body should be presented - including criticisms. Its designed to help the reader understand the article as a whole. So I'm following the format. I invite other editors to make sure all relevant views are presented and no key views or facts are marginalized. AlanBarnet 12:32, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Reverted, due to WP:TROLL. 58.178.141.147 12:53, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi 58. I noticed you changed my opening. While I think Headleydown/AlanBarnet's continued intro revision's are both heavy-handed in the POV dept, and unnecessarily cumbersome referring to specific scientist's so early... I also think that "controversial as a therapy" doesn't really adequately summarize the nature of the controversy around NLP. NLP is not only controversial as therapy, but it's controversial due a number of reasons. The specific nature of these claims, their sources and validity are something for the main article and not the intro... but I think most of the cited concerns can be boiled down to 4 points

• Does it work?/Can it do what it claims? (Efficacy)
• Is it based in reality/science? Or is it pseudoscience? (Validity)
• Are NLPers manipulating or scamming people? (Ethics)
• How do I know an NLPr is qualified (Lack of Standards/Regulation)

I think the following statement covers all 4 reception concerns without bulking up the into or going overboard:

• "After three decades of existence NLP remains scientifically unvalidated and continues to be controversial amongst critics due to concerns of efficacy, ethics and lack of regulation (or standards/control)."

Although I would be agreeable to an equally small CITED and REFERENCED statement that summarizes the "positive" reception as well.

Thoughts? Doc Pato 17:58, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Well on the subject of heavyhandedness Doc pato, you may want to reconsider how you refer to me or anyone else who doesn’t comply with your own worldview. From what I’ve read of NPOV policy - editors of different viewpoints are supposed to at least try to get along. AlanBarnet 03:41, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually Headleydown/AlanBarnet, you're a perma-banned sock of a long time abuser. Trying to pretend to try and "get along" with you would just be playing your game. I'm not interested. And frankly, it's my hope most of your communications, regardless of how sweet sounding and polite, are simply ignored by both editors and administration. Doc Pato 04:54, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Doc pato. I started this section so that a serious problem (identified by admin amongst others) can be fixed according to NPOV. You seem to be engaging in some sort of discussion on balancing the lead section within this section - so I believe thats fairly good evidence my suggestions for discussion on this area have already been positive and constructive and you and others are not ignoring me at all. Inconsistencies aside - I think a thorough examination of NPOV again using the links I provided below will help the discussion even further. AlanBarnet 05:33, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Evidence of 'positive reception' has been a bit thin on the ground so far. Presumably there's some out there. Also, I think there's a distinction, re your starred points above, between being based on reality and being based on science. It seems at times as if NLPers grabbed a variety of ideas and techniques from a huge range of sources, disguised it with semi-incomprehensible jargon, but produced a working method, bits of which are being successfully used as adjuncts to other methods in a variety of settings. How about, 'NLP was and continues to be controversial as to both theory and practice and after three decades of existence remains scientifically unvalidated’ Fainites 21:19, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Doc. All good. I wasn't editing your intro, I was restoring my alteration of fainites suggestion, from before you arrived.

As far as I can tell 99% of all critics are discussing NLP as a therapy. All controversy we cite in ethics and regulation is in regards to NLP as a therapy. All controversy we cite in efficacy is in regards to NLP as a therapy. All criticism we cite of NLP is raised by those assessing and criticising NLP as a therapy. Your personal perspective would naturally be in regards to NLP as a therapy.

But where's the human resources controversy? Where's the education controversy? Where's the management consulting controversy? Where's the sports performance controversy? Where's the new age controversy? Where's the life coaching controversy?

The only other controversy than therapy worth mentioning is that Bandler and Grinder were so acrimonious for so long and that Bandler was charged with murder. Which is some really stupid stuff, but does it consitute saying NLP itself is controversial? Take care. 58.178.141.147 06:04, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi again Doc. I would be amenable to the phrase "therapeutic critics" in your intro. 58.178.141.147 06:09, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Fainites and 58. While theory and practice is a bit better than what we have, I'm wondering if it isn't to broad. And 58, while I certainly agree that the strongest concern in the area of NLP controversy is in regards to mental health and therapy, I'd have to disagree with the notion that it's the only one worth mentioning and that all criticism and controversy we cite of NLP are relating to therapy:

• human resources: Von Bergen's concern that NLP to be inappropriate for management and human resource training.
• Education: The cited assertions that NLP education applications and VAK learning styles aren't' scientifically validated and don't work.
• Manipulation: Lanagone and others with controversy over cults using manipulation techniques
• Modeling Excellence: Can NLP make better soldiers? Edgar Johnson, technical director of the Army Research Institute heading the NLP focused Project Jedi stated that "Lots of data shows that NLP doesn't work...
• Cosmetic Body Changes: Controversy over NLP breast/penis enlargement claims
• Past Legal Controversy: Is NLP private intellectual property? Or Public Domain?
• Controversy and Criticism of a self-improvement technology who's "creator" has been a smoking, alcohol abusing, cocaine addict accused of murder?
• Controversy and Criticism by Christians over NLP being "New Age" or related to the occult.
• Controversy and Criticism over the ethics of NLP seduction applications
• Controversy and Criticism over the ethics of NLP sales applications
• Controversy and Criticism over the fundamental theories, foundations of NLP from a scientific view, regardless of the application.

Furthermore, the fundamental controversy of efficacy is notable in all contexts, particularly when a great deal of NLP trainers, including Bandler himself say they "don't do therapy". And that NLP is about learning how to model success not fixing broken people.

So whether or not you or I agree with these criticisms, it's besides the point when there's plenty of criticism and controversy outside the realm of therapy. With that in mind, regarding my suggested, "After three decades of existence NLP remains scientifically unvalidated and continues to be controversial amongst critics due to concerns of efficacy, ethics and lack of regulation (or standards/control)", I'm curious as to which parts in particular there are issues with and why? Regards :) Doc Pato 04:54, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi again Doc. Re Project Jedi. The project doesn't even officially exist, yet you want us to cite it? For real? We've already establish that reference was fabricated. It isn't even in the internet archives. I certainly disagree with most of what you've said above. NLP is clearly controversial as a therapy. However, being criticised in other fields doesn't make it controversial at all, it merely makes it criticised. It's a recurring mistake you make above that you equate criticism with controversy. There's a fundamental difference in the two terms.

So what's to be said? "After three decades NLP continues to be praised by some and critisized by others?" That's hardly encyclopedic, and actually you could say it about half the topics on wikipedia. No, I think it's best we stick to what we have had for the last half month. It is fine and it is balanced.

I am amenable to Fainites most recently suggested alteration above.

202.67.114.30 12:59, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi 202. A couple of points:

• A)I haven't and I'm not asking you to cite Jedi, nor any of the other things mentioned. My point is that there is plenty of criticism and controversy outside the realm of therapy.
• B)Despite your assertion/mindread/interpretation I am very clear about the difference between criticism and controversy.

Controversy, i.e "a matter of opinion or dispute over which parties actively argue, disagree or debate", exists in regards nearly all the areas I mentioned above. It's debated whether or not NLP is fundamentally pseudo-scientific, it's disputed whether or not it's techniques work within the context of business, education and self-improvement. How can the notion of cults using NLP techniques to manipulate followers, or an substance abusing self-improvement guru not be controversial? If you asked Bandler or even Grinder if NLP was controversial as whole, can you imagine them saying "No.. well maybe only in the therapeutic sense." My imaginings, and yes they are only my imaginings, is that the ole coot (who doesn't do therapy) would say and probably has said "Of course, NLP is controversial...". But of course, my imaginings are besides the point. The very nature of this almost 2 year long struggle to make a balanced article is nearly pointing to the self-evidence of NLP being controversial as a whole, but the crux of the issue is in that these disputes outside the realm of therapy are already presnted in the article, that that my suggested statement merely gives a very brief overview of what's to come later on... without the unnecessary lengthy quotes of HeadleyBarnet.

However, let's ignore the issue of controversy and summarize reception this way:

• ""*While NLP has continued to be popular in a wide range of contexts for over 30 years [8]it remains scientifically unvalidated and critics note concerns over issues of efficacy, ethics and lack of regulation (or standards/control)." or even

*""*While NLP remains scientifically unvalidated and critics note concerns over issues of efficacy, ethics and lack of regulation (or standards/control), it has continued to be popular in a wide range of contexts for over 30 years. [9]it ". Specific objections? Doc Pato 20:45, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Doc and Numbers. Actually, though I'd be happy with my version, I quite like DocPatos second one above. It bothers me that nowhere does the article mention the fact that heaps of therapists, business trainers and the like are cheerfully using the bits of NLP that they find useful without a thought for the underlying scientific principles. And, as has been said before, the fact that mind control type cults also use it is relevant but not a criticism. Hypnosis has been used to implant false memories but that doesn't of itself make hypnosis dubious. Alternatively how about; 'Despite it's popularity, NLP continues to be controversial in all it's forms, particularly it's use in therapy, and after three decades of existence remains scientifically unvalidated’ or is this just ducking the issue? Fainites 22:52, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Opinion redacted: This is fine. Just make sure you cite Sanghera on the 1st part lest some Sock try and remove it to to "commentary" or "promotion" claims Doc Pato 19:09, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Hehe. Sorry Doc, I'm still not convinced, and I've already given my very specific objection why. Your sentences appear to be pretty much Cold_reading to me. They saying NLP is both criticised and praised. In my opinion these things cancel each other out in all areas but in therapy. NLP is no more criticised for it's poor regulation than any other new field. We'd be playing up the amount criticism to note this in the intro. We could equally reverse your coldread/suggestion into:

*""*While it has continued to be popular in a wide range of contexts for over 30 years, NLP remains scientifically unvalidated, with controversy surrounding it's ethics and efficacy as a therapy.

Readers will simply hear what they want to hear. Any specific objections? Of course you have... The simple truth is that Fainites original suggestion is the most even-handed. 202.67.114.30 06:15, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

On a personal note, I love cold reading (Could you tell?). But reminiscent of cold reading or not, the opinion that criticisms and praise in regards to the reception of NLP in areas outside therapy 'cancel each other out' isn't really a reason to not summarize/recognize them in the intro. It's cited and gives a a very breif overview of the nature of criticism that comes up later in the article, which is my main concern.

However, on second thought Faintes suggested version is fine, and your suggested change is fine with me, if we can agree to simply add the word "particularly" as in "*While it has continued to be popular in a wide range of contexts for over 30 years[10], NLP remains scientifically unvalidated, with controversy surrounding it's ethics and efficacy, particularly as a therapy."Doc Pato 18:53, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I will agree to either, although I'm bound to say that I think mine, though lacking detail, is a little more elegantly phrased.Fainites 21:31, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

That's fineDoc Pato 23:38, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll defer to Fainites decision. I think his (hers?) is more elegant also. 58.178.134.120 00:45, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Too kind Fainites 23:07, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

< note: some trolling and disinformation was moved to Talk:Neuro-linguistic_programming/_longterm_abuser_discussion >

Technology

Comaze, what happened to all your papers from other disciplines on NLP techniques and methods that you set out about 2 1/2 inches ago? We seem to have been distracted by other matters. It seems to me that despite the lack of scientific underpinnings, there are people out there doing little bits of research on individual techniques, and indeed using them as tools in other therapies and disciplines. I have Dowlem, Lichtenberg and bits of Brown and Sandhu.

Dowlem (Research Associate at Roffey Park Management Institute) in 'NLP-help or hype? Investigating the uses of neurolinguistic programming in management learning'(1996) concludes; "with regard to communication, the NLP techniques using language patterns appear to be of use in management development. These techniques were found to be of use from personal experience, from the views of others, and are suppoted to a degree from the research evidence. The meta-model questioning techniques also emerge as having merit...There is a disappointing lack of research evidence on NLP and a clear need for further work if NLP is to achieve wider credibility in the developments field. That it is enthusiastically supported by those who practice it is both it's strength and potential weakness"Fainites 16:44, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I've been distracted by all the other discussion. I'm just accessed Esterbrook's dissertation. It has an updated summary of research, plus translation of Russian research on NLP which gives another perspective.

• Esterbrook, Richard (2006) Introducing Russian neuro-linguistic programming behavior modification techniques to enhance learning and coping skills for high-risk students in community colleges: An initial investigation. George Mason University, 389 pages; AAT 3208972 --Comaze 17:11, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Comaze. Estebrook is very interesting on a number of fronts. Firstly the fact that the Russians appear to have had a shot at refining NLP into a more usable form and conducting 'outcome' studies, secondly the bit about previous research being based on the use of NLP to test DSM III diagnoses rather than NLP diagnoses. I haven't seen any other reference to this but I suppose it goes without saying. However, the whole DSM classification system is controversial in parts. Thirdly the results of the study, albeit a small one. Has DocPato seen this Phd? Fainites 23:25, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

The NLP perspective one DSM would be a useful contrast somewhere. The meta model challenges many of those DSM overgeneralisations if they are limiting. The other argument is that the content categories in the DSM also reduces the ability to respond to the client in the moment (sensory acuity). --Comaze 07:38, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

It's not so much criticising the use of DSM diagnosis from the point of view of NLP precepts. More whether there is sufficient difference between the two to make the research questionable.Fainites 23:06, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I believe this was one the methdological flaws in research to date raised by Einspruch and Forman (1985). From memory some of the researchers used anxiety and depression scales to test the effectiveness of some process. One part of NLP is to convince someone who is "depressed" to take ownership of their thought process and behaviours. In this case using DSM like diagnosis scales would be at counteract the NLP model. This is from memory so I'll have to check --Comaze 00:21, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Concepts and Methods

Parts Integration added. Fainites 23:33, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, removed again. It's just one of many patterns, no more or less notable. I'd like to add a request that when we add new sections we integrate the information in such a way that it facilitates a general reduction in the overall size of the article. The article is already far too long. There are daughter articles for this stuff. Keep in the mind that, in giving equal weight to all sides of NLP, when we write long sections on every NLP technique we are also be obliged to write long sections on why NLP is bad, ,pseudoscience, etc. Please keep it short and have the bare minimum about each technique that a complete newbie could understand. 58.178.141.147 05:48, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Two sentences No 58 on Parts Integration. Hardly a long section. Hardly 'promo' either. It also went along with a reduction of 'reframing' from 15 lines to 12. Fainites 08:03, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

You're right. I think I overstated my case quite a bit, and didn't realise the reframing section was a reduction. Still when I read it I thought there's no way I would understand this if I hadn't already studied it. 58.178.100.29 03:21, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

It's a bit dense perhaps. I'll work on it.Fainites 23:17, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Comaze, I think Milton Model, Modelling and Meta Model should come under concepts rather than methods. Perhaps methods should be renamed techniques. Fainites 08:33, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I think methods or techniques could be used. They both seem to be words used in the literature. AlanBarnet 06:37, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup taskforce issues

Thanks, I've been mulling it over. I'll do that now and see how it looks. --Comaze 10:03, 1 January 2007 (UTC) The cleanup taskforce guy really complained about the article being frustrating. I'm looking at ways to use more example and make it really simply. My favourite description is of reframing because it uses examples that anyone would immediately understand. Also, if the article is printed it should be self-contained. Therefore any jargon should be defined or kept very simple. --Comaze 10:12, 1 January 2007 (UTC) I'm finding it very difficult to organise that section because each concepts or method can be described by example as a technique. --Comaze 10:34, 1 January 2007 (UTC) I've converted the Technique section to block prose. I would like this section to be more cohesive and flow nicely between paragraph. I find it difficult to separate the concepts from techniques. I think this issue can be resolved if well written. I can add those subtitles back if it is easier for everyone. --Comaze 11:19, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure I follow why we'd want separate concepts from techniques. There's very little difference from the originators perspectives so it might just come across as OR from us to tease it all apart. Still I'm all for removing jargon. 202.67.114.30 21:54, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Lets get clear, jargon free paragraphs first and think how to divide them up afterwards. Some fall naturally into one group or another. Some don't. Should there be a bit more of a mention of rapport do you think? BTW, the clean-up chap clearly thinks we've all completely lost the plot.Fainites 23:17, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Not now, not ever. Let's never divide this section up. I cannot see why you are pushing to restructure the article. There is nothing wrong with the current structure. Separating concepts and techniques is illogical for NLP. An NLP concept imparts a technique and an NLP technique is interwoven in concepts. Is Rapport an action or is it an idea? It's both. Is a reframe a concept or technique? It's both. And so on for all NLP concepts and methods. Anyway... still working on less jargon. However, the term predicates isn't jargon, we can link it into predicate (grammar). 202.67.114.30 05:56, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

OK OK 202. 'think how we divide them up' includes the possibility of not dividing them up. I agree with you that probably too many methods/concepts are both for a simple division. I think the ones that are clearly major underlying concepts need to go first in order, some are clearly both concept and technique, the few hanging around that seem to be all technique like 'swish' could go at the end, By the way, how about moving the whole history section to after 'concepts and methods?'Fainites 10:41, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

All good. In discussion with Comaze previously we decided to put history first à la Psychotherapy. Works there, no? Works here too? I like history first because it's more tangible for my mind than concepts and methods. I think many articles begin this way. 202.67.114.30 10:53, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps if we included some "concepts and methods" in the history section rather than the current potted political history of scientific debate it would be more accessible and interesting? 202.67.114.30 11:06, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps if we just make sure that the intro. and the first paragraph give a clear enough idea of what NLP is before readers plunge into history. Fainites 11:47, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Comaze, I'm fine with expanding the Milton model. I just think the first line ought to say what the Milton model actually is. Otherwise it's meaningless to non-NLPers who don't know that it's a detailed copy or synthesis of the techniques of a notable hypnotherapist.Fainites 11:52, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Help! Comaze and Numbers. I've tried to fix refs 28 and 29 without success. Both refs are blank.Fainites 21:14, 2 January 2007 (UTC) Thanks ComazeFainites 22:43, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Comaze, do we really need the Norma Baretta reference in 'milton model'? Is there any doubt that they modeled Milton Erikson? They wrote two huge volumes about it. How about "The neuro-linguistic programming model was primarily extracted from a detailed copy and synthesis of Milton Erickson's patterns of hypnotic language and techniques." As I understand it they also modeled his use of body language/rapport etc. Fainites 22:48, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Is it ok now? --Comaze 10:12, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Just a little tweak.Fainites 16:46, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Manipulation

Does anybody object if I remove the 'unverified source' tag from the manipulation section? The two remaining sources contain full and accurate quotations from those two authors. The other seven citations were all false and have been removed. Fainites 23:35, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Not really. I'd like the jargon SHAM to be completely removed. It adds nothing but more anti-NLP thumping. I think it's the kind of stuff that the cleanup taskforce say is labouring the point. In fact, I'll do the edit and see what you think. 58.178.134.120 00:34, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Since I've merged it with commerce, the misinterpretation section tag is still appropriate. 58.178.134.120 00:57, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok. On SHAM, If you look at the book, Salerno is really attacking Tony Robbins, not NLP although he pokes fun at the law suits. I'm not sure Robbins is important as an NLP founder or as a contributor to it's development. He seems to have broken away and renamed his version 'neuro-associative conditioning' and become a sort of guru. It seems to me that if Salerno had wanted to include NLP as such in his definition of SHAM he easily could have done, but he doesn't. If you like I can type the whole of the one page on which NLP is mentioned here for discussion. Fainites 08:33, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I was about to write "move it to Tony_Robbins#Neuro-linguistic_programming" but I notice it's already there. There's no need to duplicate it here. We can link to Tony Robbins for those who are interested. 58.178.134.120 12:22, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Comaze moved it a couple of weeks ago. It doesn't look as if any Tony Robbins supporters have noticed it yet. Re the 'SHAM' quote, the current version, now it's cut down gives a false impression. It's the dependancy on a guru thing Salerno's attacking. The quote left is about SHAM in which he includes Robbins but not NLP as such. Salerno starts off his section on Robbins with stuff about fire-walking and the repetition of the phrase 'cool moss'. Then he goes on "The phrase was one of the earliest manifestations of his growing absorption in neurolinguistic programming (NLP), a way of controllong thoughts and reworking basic assumptions about life developed in 1975 by.......etc.....NLP can be slippery to define succinctly, but it rests on the pithy cliche (at least in NLP circles) that 'the brain did not come with a user's manual.' He then carries on giving a basic explanation of subjective views of the world and some tenets like 'there is no failure, only feedback', saying this is 'now perceived as groundbreaking.' Then he says 'NLP has shown up in many settings inside and outside SHAM, but of late it has acquired particular cachet in business circles for it's usefulness in negotiations and conflict resolution - which is interesting, because Grinder and Bandler ultimately ended up in court, unable to resolve their own conflict over who owned the licensing to NLP. Nevertheless, dozens of firms offer derivative programs today, if not with quite the success Tony Robbins enjoys. Robbins made NLP his own, refining it and personalizing it into what he christened "neuroassociative conditioning". In 1986 came publication of his 'Unlimited Power.'

The rest is all about Robbins, his amazingly expensive seminars, his weird dietary promotions, franchise scandals and so on. I can't see other proponents agreeing that Robbins 'made NLP his own' when he's clearly made it something else. I can't see that most of this is much to do with NLP. Salerno's target is Robbins. We ought to stick to citations from people who have specifically investigated NLP rather than people investigating sham gurus who may have started off in NLP. As I pointed out, Salerno could have included NLP in his SHAM targets if he thought it warranted it. I'd be happy to remove Salerno altogether. I only put in such a long quote in the section in the first place because Salerno was one of the many citations for the claim that NLP is a cult that have all turned out to be fake. Fainites 16:07, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Had a go at Salerno. The problem is, he does not criticise NLP as being one of the systems that gives people imaginary problems and then sells a remedy - only Robbins version of it. Robbins started off with firewalking, then got into NLP but then became a 'lifestyle guru'. It's very difficult to see how to present this fairly as anything that isn't a direct quote gets accused of being POV. Fainites 16:41, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

< note: some trolling and disinformation was moved to Talk:Neuro-linguistic_programming/_longterm_abuser_discussion >

Archiving

Could we archive the inactive threads? It is way too long. --Comaze 17:15, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Done. 58.178.100.29 03:34, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Also created Talk:Neuro-linguistic_programming/_longterm_abuser_discussion for archiving discussion from or about permabanned sockpuppet. All present and future sockpuppet posts will be moved there, especially all the recent trolling and disinformation. I note that all editors are in agreement [11] [12] [13] [14] on the sockpuppet problem on this page. Please post specific feedback on my talk page. 58.178.142.37 05:45, 5 January 2007 (UTC)