Talk:Neuro-linguistic programming/Archive 14 Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Neuro-linguistic_programming/Archive_14

This is an archive of past discussions about Neuro-linguistic programming. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

→

Archive 20

I've asked Grant User:Devilly to pop in here and comment on the article. This might be a good opportunity to get a comment from an expert on the topic. --Comaze 07:35, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Hello Comaze - I'm not overstating anything. I say it straight with no spin because the message needs emphasizing to avoid the facts being obscured. Only a few days ago - properly cited quotes were deleted (and some animosity - you called direct quotes from scientists "tabloid skepticism") and obscured and replaced them with promotional editorializing [1] Some editors have been working together to present exactly the same bias towards obscuring the facts.[2].

Reviews of the research are not at all mixed. Devilly - Singer - Druckman - Sharpley - Eisner - Lilienfeld and the others agree. They all say the same thing - that NLP is unsupported. Science is like that. Its either supported or unsupported. Avoiding black and white articles involves stating what others think of that unsupported finding. NLP authors say it doesn't matter and NLP is about "do what works!". Scientists say it doesn't work and their is concern that NLP is still promoted as a science or validated therapy. There are views on the behaviour of NLP groups also and those have not been presented in the opening - though of course they could be. I'm always open to suggestion - and the suggestion from admin was that facts have being obscured. So I'm just making sure the facts are presented clearly. AlanBarnet 08:19, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

AlanBarnet I am unable to find a review of the literature by Lilienfeld. Neither Devilly, Singer or Einser have published a literature review on NLP. I have read Sharpley and Krugman. Sharpley has been regarded as the major review of that era. Krugman is a minor review. I think my edit was far from promotional [3]. It summarised the mixed reception, the research review and subsequent sporadic support in various disciplines. There is alot of support in the popular literature. Hopefully we can get a comment from Devilly who is a critic of NLP. Also you might be able to assist me in fleshing out an article on power therapies. --Comaze 08:52, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Comaze you seem to me to be looking for the wrong thing. I just had to look again at policies on original research and its fairly clear. Above in discussion you suggested presenting all the studies - minor and major and presenting your own conclusion (that they are mixed - just as you concluded in the opening). Of course they will look mixed if you do that. The above authors (Lilienfeld .....) did their own reviews. Their reviews are published in their respective papers and books as is obvious in the article. Thats called a review. It doesn't matter which studies they mention in their literature - the fact is they're qualified to review the literature and assess it for themselves and which studies or other reviews are relevant or reliable. They will know the difference between a controlled study and a badly conducted one. You or I will not and or own original conclusions are irrelevant to the article according to the Wikipedia article on original research. The conclusions of those reviewers is that NLP is unsupported. Thats the fundamental fact. I'm learning more about NPOV policies here but its mostly just reassurance that the obvious is clear. AlanBarnet 10:03, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I have no intention of including all of the studies and presenting my own conclusions. That would be original research. Any conclusion of systhesis must be attributed to a source. (move to other thread) --Comaze 10:45, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Comaze I believe the problem will not be solved by denying its existence. Here is your presentation above only a few days ago: A whole set of selective studies above and the strategic partnership company you promote NLP with - mentioned on your Comaze company site [4]. [5]. It is obvious there have been or remain multiple lines of your own conclusion (OR) in the article and even in the opening for quite a while - saying the studies are mixed - rather than present the obvious assessment of the most independent reviews (NLP is an unvalidated therapy and has failed controlled studies). So I really do think editors and admin need to find a way somehow of stopping the persistent and promotional obscuring of the basic conclusive findings on NLP. Judging by recent (last 24 hours) edits, it seems to me that the resistence to clear presentation remains a sizeable problem. AlanBarnet 06:48, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Alan Barnet. The citation for Lilienfield in the article gives his introduction called 'Our Raison d'etre' for Vol. 1 of the Scientific Review of Mental health Practice. The context for NLP is as follows; "A wide variety of unvalidated and sometimes harmful psychotherapeutic methods, including facilitated communication for infantile autism (see Herbert, Sharp, & Gaudiano, this issue), suggestive techniques for memory recovery (e.g., hypnotic age-regression, guided imagery, body work), energy therapies (e.g., Thought Field Therapy, Emotional Freedom Technique; see “Media Watch,” this issue), and New Age therapies of seemingly endless stripes (e.g., rebirthing, reparenting, past-life regression, Primal Scream therapy, neurolinguistic programming, alien abduction therapy, angel therapy) have either emerged or maintained their popularity in recent decades. Moreover, in a large-scale study published last year (Kessler et al., 2001), individuals in the general population with a recent history of anxiety attacks or severe depression were found to avail themselves of complementary and alternative mental health treatments (including energy healing and laughter therapy) more often than conventional treatments. Thus, largely untested treatments comprise a major proportion—in some cases a majority—of the interventions delivered by mental health professionals.

According to one recent conservative estimate (Eisner, 2000), there are now between 400 and 500 different brands of psychotherapy, and this number is increasing on a virtually weekly basis. Even many of the most vocal critics of the present state of clinical psychology (e.g., Dawes, 1994) acknowledge that psychotherapy can be helpful in many instances. Yet because most “flavors” of psychotherapy have not been subjected to rigorous empirical evaluation (e.g., randomized, controlled trials), in the majority of cases we have no way of knowing whether such treatments are effective, ineffective, or harmful."

It's a plea for more hard-nosed research and confirms there is no scientific validation of NLP but can we assume it's a literature review? Do you have anything more specific from Lilienfield? Fainites 12:04, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Why is there a worry about whether its a literature review or not? Does NPOV demand literature reviews? The viewpoint is clear. NLP is unvalidated and he even calls it a New Age therapy. Note the very article is in a journal called the Scientific -Review- of Mental health Practice. I had a look at Lilienfelds' book and it gives NLP the same negative assessment (unsupported). Here is a review by another reviewer of Lilienfeld who calls NLP pseudoscientific The disease of Pseudoscience and the hope for a cure Book Review - Science and Pseudoscience in Clinical Psychology Skeptical Inquirer, July-August, 2003 by Brandon A. Gaudiano. He talks about motivational guru Tony Robbins (a practitioner of the pseudoscientific Neurolinguistic Programming).AlanBarnet 07:17, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Lilienfield in the article cited does not include the phrase 'spread myths about how the mind works' as now appears in the intro. Also the intro says 'pschologists' yet only Lilienfield is cited. I have also looked at Lilienfields paper 'Pseudoscience in Contemporary Clinical Psychology: What it is and what can we do about it.' (1998) The Clinical Psychologist 51,3. It makes no specific mention of NLP. Whilst you could argue that NLP fits the definition of pseudoscience, Lilienfield doesn't specifically say it here. Fainites 12:50, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I have put back the second Lilienfield reference that was removed but provided a correct extract from it.It's now in Research reviews but may be better placed under mental healthFainites 18:53, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

VK/D (NLP) is briefly mentioned in "Science and Pseudoscience in Clinical Psychology". In that book they say VKD was excluded from the research review due to lack of experimental research published in the appropriate clinical psychology journals. In 2003 they more or less repeat this... "There are several novel treatments vying for the attention of clinicians treating anxiety and trauma that sometimes have been referred to as the Power Therapies. This moniker derives from the claim that such treatments work much more efficiently than extant interventions for anxiety disorders (Figley, 1997). The Power Therapies include {lists a number of psychotherapies including Visual–Kinesthetic Dissociation (VKD; Bandler & Grinder, 1979)}."[6] --Comaze 01:42, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

AlanBarnet. I have put a more accurate quote from Lilienfield et al in the science review section and restored a citation for him that was previously removed. I have also put a fuller account of his concerns about mental health practice in the Mental health section. What do you think? Fainites 22:01, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Here is another line from Lilienfeld from the introduction. I think this frames the problem pretty well - or at least goes some way to explaining why they are all so concerned about NLP being promoted “All a clever entrepreneur has to do is apply a formula historically guaranteed to be successful: (Quick Fix + Pseudoscientific Gloss) x Credulous Public = High Income. That is why, when TFT, FC, neurolinguistic programming, and rebirthing have traveled the route of electric sleep therapy and the Transcutaneous Electro-Neural Stimulator, new miracle therapies with different acronyms will rise to take their place.”. I think its seems pretty clear that the authors there think NLP is pseudoscientific. AlanBarnet 06:52, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Another bit of research from Beyerstein seems fairly clear on the concern over the spread of myths by NLP. He talks of NLP as in the context of Brainscams "Though it claims neuroscience in its pedigree, NLP’s outmoded view of the relationship between cognitive style and brain function ultimately boils down to crude analogies. NLP basks in effusive testimonials but the NRC committee could unearth no hard evidence in its favor, or even a succinct statement of its underlying theory."

From the section on: "Potential harm?" "In the long run perhaps the heaviest cost extracted by neuromythologists is the one common to all pseudosciences—deterioration in the already low levels of scientific literacy and critical thinking in society. The purveyors of neurobabble urge us to equate truth with “what feels right” and to abandon the common sense insistence that those who would enlighten us provide at least much evidence as a politician or used car salesman. New Age slogans such as “you create your own reality” reinforce our deep seated longings for arcane formulae that will achieve our goals through imagination rather than perspiration. It would be nice if mental and physical limits applied only to those who concede their validity. While distorting the real accomplishments of science and raising false hopes, pseudosciences also divert personal and societal energies from valid efforts to solve life’s real problems." "Instead of deriving techniques from relevant research and subjecting them to impartial scrutiny, the gurus of self-improvement tend to rely on their own experience and alleged insights into “what works”. All we need in the article is a clear unobscured account of the concern over NLP as an unvalidated technique. AlanBarnet 07:08, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps we should expand the Beyerstein quote in the research reviews section. I think the first sentance sums it up best. It's better to stick to verifiable quotes. The use of the word myth comes from Beyerstein, not Lilienfield.Fainites 18:12, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree the second Lilienfield reference makes it pretty clear that he and the others put NLP in the category of pseudoscience. It's a pity this reference disappeared from the article for so long. I still think though we need to be clearer about the extent to which the founders and the major proponents of NLP claim it is scientific. (Dilts claims it is based on established science.) For example, in 'Introducing NLP' by O'Connor & Seymour, a book which has a forward by R.Dilts and a preface by Grinder, it is stated at the outset that NLP is 'the art and science of personal excellence' but I suppose that could just be a figure of speech.Fainites 22:31, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

There are many sources that state that there is a need for further research. There are also criticisms of the research from experimental conselling (Sharpley etc). Reviews by Dowlen (1996) and more recently by Thompson et al (2001), generally agree with Sharpley and Einspruch, but also state that there is a need for further research. Thompson suggests longitudinal studies. There are individual studies that can also be described. These studies have been summarised in reviews. Those studies may have been excluded by the phantom Lilienfeld review most likely because they were published in journals outside of counselling psychology. So we have an issue here. NLP has been adopted in any fields other than counselling. If Lilienfeld did review NLP, he would probably exclude the reviews that are not related to mental health. Devilly would do the same. So would Singer (1997) if she still alive. Eisner (2001) was also writinf about psychotherapy, so he would also exclude Dowlen, 1996 (management) and Tosey & Mathison, 2003 (Teaching theory), as well as the individual studies on NLP in marketing and sales (eg. Skinner etc.). --Comaze 10:44, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

The Von Bergen seems to say it all - unvalidated and inappropriate for management training (human resources). They present about the most solid review - base it on their own assessment of the studies and other reviews. Its fairly recent (1997). There is also a line that keeps getting seperated from the Druckman in the article (Druckman dropped NLP from the research stream). Devilly seems to verify this by inferring researchers havn't done any controlled studies since the "host of controlled studies of the 80s" because its not worth empirically researching pseudoscientific new age techniques. At least thats the message I'm hearing loud and clear from a collection of reliable reviews. AlanBarnet 07:02, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps it will help to assess the impact factor and number of citations of the journals and individual papers we are relying on for the article. It would be difficult to argue against inclusion of articles that are published in peer-reviewed journals and have many citations (some examples might include: Sharpley: counselling, Einspruch and Forman: counselling, Craft, A. in education). And would exclude some minor papers and new papers that have not been cited or reviewed yet. --Comaze 08:35, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

From reading NLP books it is fairly clear that the authors’ strategy is to write a lot and say very little. They write in a very vague way in general. But that doesn’t mean this article should be written vaguely. A lot of the upper portion of the article seems to be very vague and I don’t think its helping much. All the fancy principles are presented first but there is no description of what NLP practicers actually do. If anything - a clear description of that should be near the top so that at least the reader gets some picture to base the abstract ideas on. There seems to be quite a lot of the mind-body activities in the more common NLP books that could help show NLP more directly. AlanBarnet 07:14, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I've ordered the "further reading list based on the number of citations. I think this is a more objective way to check which books have been referenced in the academic literature. It is not perfect but the list matched my intuitions. --Comaze 07:51, 20 December 2006 (UTC) By the way, I do agree with you that the second section could be more descriptive / objective. --Comaze 08:01, 20 December 2006 (UTC) I've just made some changes to the side bar. It now links to the major influences on NLP, and separates this from principles. --Comaze 10:21, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

AlanBarnet/HeadleyDown says

"All the fancy principles are presented first but there is no description of what NLP practicers actually do. If anything - a clear description of that should be near the top so that at least the reader gets some picture to base the abstract ideas on."

Hmmm... that sounds Familiar. I think this is the part where HeadleyDown/Barnet wants to add "Swwwwwwwwishhhhhhh" , talk about magical circles, and chakras. 68.81.139.171 01:08, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

68.81.139.171 - I think you have your answer already: [7]. You don't seem to have an account or user page so I can only reply to you here. I'm not 100% on the rules related to anon editors - and I don't know for certain if you're a sockpuppet - a troll - or whatever. But if you are going to be uncooperative or unconstructive - then you'll probably just get ignored. AlanBarnet 05:48, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I will be a bit more specific - but really I don't see anyone doing anything constructive about this. The upper bits of the article are not written well at all and don't seem to help. There are clear accounts of NLP activities in the peer reviewed papers and some books. I'll add something myself. AlanBarnet 05:48, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Could you post the quotes to verify the context for Williams and Lilienfeld. --Comaze 07:18, 21 December 2006 (UTC) I've moved it to the critics section for now. It might be useful to expand the views of Lilienfeld and Williams there if you verify it. --Comaze 07:31, 21 December 2006 (UTC) I've now incorporated AB's contributions into the milton model (williams) and critics (Lilienfeld) section. --Comaze 09:09, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Comaze. Lilienfeld's definition of NLP is a simple report of science. NLP is unvalidated. I took both those bits of information in the introduction straight from the literature. You can verify them by looking them up. I don't need to add quotation marks for you do to that. NLP being unvalidated is not a criticism. You moved that fundamental fact away from the opening of the article. You also recently today removed a lot of very relevant information from the opening and now all that remains is a tiny unsourced statement. Obscuring facts clearly involves minimising them - moving them out of the way - or crowding them out with less relevant information. It really seems to me that you are still obscuring facts daily. AlanBarnet 09:22, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm actually asking you to post a quote here on the talk page so we can confirm your intepretation of the sources. --Comaze 09:49, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

The quotations from Lilienfield in the article in 'research reviews' and 'critics' as of 11.04 am , 21.12.06 are accurate. The two in the research reviews section are from Lilienfield et al as per the reference. Scott O. Lilienfeld, Steven Jay Lynn, Jeffrey M. Lohr (eds) (2004) Science and Pseudoscience in Clinical Psychology. This is in Amazon online reader. The bit in the 'views of critics' section is a paraphrase from his introduction to the new Scientific Review journal he started, also as per the reference in the article. Unfortunately somebody shifted Lilienfield around and accidently swapped the references.Fainites 11:18, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

AlanBarnet. The details of the science are best set out in the science section. There is a clear chronological run of views expressed by reputable scientists from Sharpley '85 through to Devilly '05 all saying basically the same thing, that NLP is unvalidated. Can anybody argue with a simple statement in the opening that NLP was and remains scientifically unvalidated? We could add every single reference from the science section if you like but putting in a couple of paraphrases and a couple of names in the introduction seems unecessary and seems to be an ongoing argument situation that won't go away. What if it said 'was and remains scientifically unvalidated (see Research Reviews below)' and then the reader could see the whole run of research reviews over 20 years. Fainites 11:18, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the decription of what NLP actually is and what practitioners actually do needs some work. The current sections have clearly been written by people very familiar with NLP terms and concepts but to non-NLPers it's frankly a bit indigestible in parts. Fainites 11:24, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Comaze, I don't see the logic in moving Williams to the Milton Model section. Surely that section should be a description of what the Milton Model is or purports to be from those who created it and use it, whether others think the whole thing is codswallop or not. My understanding of Williams is that he does think the whole thing is codswallop so clearly he should be in a views section, rather than making it look as if he's just describing the Milton Model by putting him in a description section. There's no point setting up Aunt Sally's. Can we have the whole quote and the context from Williams please.Fainites 11:34, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

That's fine. I'll move Williams to view section. I'll request a copy of that book if AB does not have it handy. --Comaze 11:43, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Looks good. By the way, lots of hard, mainly tedious work overnight on references etc. Well done you ( and No. 68). If nobody objects I'm going to redo the Salerno reference. Salerno doesn't actually attack NLP specifically like he does other alleged therapies etc. His description of NLP comes in a chapter where he's actually being very offensive about Tony Robbins. He's sarcastic about the law suits and TR's divorce, but he doesn't cover NLP as one of his SHAM subjects. He goes on to say 'Robbins made NLP his own, refining it and personalizing it into what he christened 'neuroassociative conditioning'. It's after this that you get all the stuff about unlimited power, megahertz in food, colloidals and so on. Salerno does say '...dozens of firms offer derivative programs today, if not with quite the success Tony Robbins enjoy'. His only other mention of NLP is as one of the ingredients of the 'Sedona Method' along with spiritualism, native american rituals and so forth. I'm not sure it's fair to include Salerno's quote on SHAM as if he was including NLP.Fainites 12:26, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I've renamed the further reading list to "List of most cited books" and have based the list on number of citations for each book. This is going to reduce the possbility of spam in that section and help us decide on how much weight to give each source. We could do the same for the journal articles using the impact factor and number of citations. Sharpley and Einspruch and Forman are by far the most cited journal articles. --Comaze 00:16, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Comaze - again I'm not yet that clear on what is acceptable or not here - but yesterday it seems you added about 60 or 70 edits to the article. From looking at other articles such as Journalism - Holland - Dutch cuisine - or even commercially based articles such as Tournism in the Netherlands - no such activity occurs there. The main reason for posting my message on the ANI board was to notify those concerned about the silly amount of undiscussed edits (over 50 per day sometimes) on this article. I don't see how anyone would reasonably view that or your yesterdays edit bonanza as cooperative or constructive. AlanBarnet 05:50, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I do not follow your reasoning. I think the list of most cited books will ony help protect the article from spam. --Comaze 06:19, 21 December 2006 (UTC) There only reason why there were so many edits in one way was because they were all minor editors. I didn't make one big edit because I wanted to document each incremental change so if you disagreed you could comment on it. --Comaze 06:48, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Comaze. Your edit count was amazingly high yesterday and there were dubious edits among lots of insignificant ones. The situation really is the same as before ANI. There's a lot of crowding out and confusion going on. It seems to me to be highly uncooperative. NPOV seems to me to be far more about relevance - and reliability. Why should anyone want to know about how many times something is cited? AlanBarnet 09:30, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Well we need some objective way to decide what books to include and what to exclude. I just wanted to make so very clear so that there was no argument in the future. If you think there were dubious edits then make the changes to correct them. I have a few months off so I want to fix up all of these NLP articles. I've asked the ex-mediator (VoA) to return to help us write in a more objective fashion. The cleanup taskforce should be coming through soon. --Comaze 09:35, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Good work Comaze. I'll remind everyone that the page history allows us to compare diffs on any number of edits. And there's extra tools for tracking changes. There really is no pace that's too fast in any technical sense. Comaze. You will never reach the superfast high edit count of User:Can't_sleep,_clown_will_eat_me and the multitude of editors that have superfast editing scripts installed in their word processors. The wiki the features allow us to follow what you're doing and making any necessary amendments.

AB. If you assume good faith like you should be doing, you really don't have to worry about tracking everything Comaze does. Take care. 58.178.157.33 09:59, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

• Burke, D. T., Meleger, A., Schneider, J. C., Snyder, J., Dorvlo, A. S., Al-Adawi, S. (2003): "Eye-movements and ongoing task processing." Perceptual and Motor Skills. June, Vol. 96(3 Pt 2) pp. 1330-8.

I just found this study published in 2003 which yielded some positiive results for Rep systems and accessing cues in NLP. I've only read the abstract. I'll get the full article shortly: [8] --Comaze 12:22, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Love to see it when you've got it. Seems like there's still people out there, ploughing away with bits of research. Doesn't seem to be the main proponents of NLP ever though does it? Fainites 12:30, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't have access to the full paper yet. But it is not as positive as I thought...

Quote from abstract: The study tested representational systems and eye accessing cues: "...Some subjects' eye-movements reflected ongoing thought processing. Instead of a universal pattern, as suggested by the neurolinguistic programming hypothesis, this study yielded subject-specific idiosyncratic eye-movements across all modalities. Included is a discussion of the neurolinguistic programming hypothesis regarding eye-movements and its implications for the eye-movement desensitization and reprocessing theory."[9] --Comaze 12:51, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I've seen the abstract. From our point of view it conceals more than it reveals. Hope you can get the full paper. This is where we miss HarrisTweed. He obviously had access to an academic database.Fainites 15:06, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

The finding is negative. NLP failed the test again. AlanBarnet 04:29, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Do you have the paper? --Comaze 04:33, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I've redone Salerno with a more accurate synopsis and quotations from the book. However, now it's accurate, is it worth having under 'critics'? He pokes fun at NLP over the law suits and the divorce but doesn't seem to be particularly attacking mainstream NLP itself; more Tony Robbins spin-offs. Aso the Sedona method spin-off. It's a bit like blaming Nietzsche for the Nazi's because they were a spin-off. Can somebody else have a look and see what they think? Fainites 18:07, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

On second thoughts I've moved it to the manipulation section as it's really more about the abuse of NLP Fainites 18:18, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I've inserted the summary of Salerno over at Tony Robbins' page. It will be interesting to see what happens with it there. Is this ok? Should we shorten the version on the NLP page? --Comaze 23:25, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I've just looked at the Tony Robbins page. The words 'pigeons' and 'cat' come to mind. I'll have a shot at shortening this entry. It's longer than it's importance warrants. It's just that the previous interpretation of Salerno was unsustainable I think. He could easily have included NLP as one of his SHAM subjects if he thought it was warranted. Fainites 23:50, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I've shortened Salerno. He has a point to make about the use of NLP in SHAM but I think the bit about the lawsuit is just poking fun rather than serious commentary and the bit about Tony Robbins divorce seems to be some time after he could be considered mainstream NLP Fainites 17:43, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Robbins is directly related to NLP according to the views of the sources so it is relevant. Our opinions are irrelevant on this matter.AlanBarnet 04:28, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

'Related' is not the same as being a proponent or practitioner. You can't just quote every nutter who once did an NLP course at some time in their lives as an example of NLP.Fainites 10:50, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I've move the summmary of Figley to the reviews section. The 'mental health practice' section needs to be revised now. Are you happy with Figley (and the critique by Wilson) where it is now? --Comaze 06:45, 22 December 2006 (UTC) Perhaps we could add a statement about its use in trauma workshops. --Comaze 07:41, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Nice tidying up Comaze. I've shifted Figley up a bit to keep it chronological. What is there about it's use in trauma workshops? Fainites 11:05, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I've revised the Figley paragraph again. I added the actual results of the study for VK/D and hopefully made it clearer. --Comaze 13:10, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Further to our previous discussions about the extent to which NLP claims to be a science and if so, what kind of science, I have put in a section on this point. I think it needs some additions from the original books of Grinder and Bandler. All other suggestions/criticisms/edits gratefully received.Fainites 14:52, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I've read Heap. It seems a pretty comprehensive review of a substantial number of studies. The quotes given are accurate.Fainites 22:50, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I've redone Drenth from 'Prometheus Chained'. None of that stuff about Avatar or 'loathsome pursuit of gain' is in there. However, this is a 1999 article. The other citation for Denth looking back in the history is 'Drenth, J.D. (2003). [Pieter J.D. Drenth (2003) Growing anti-intellectualism in Europe; a menace to science in ALLEA Annual Report pp.60-72'. Has anybody got this please? Fainites 08:59, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

"Growing anti-intellectualism" is adapted from 'Prometheus Chained". --Comaze 11:26, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I've put in a bit more Drenth. By the way the Dowlem stuff is very interesting. I think there's a case for saying that whilst the scientific underpnnings are dodgy, some of NLP's techniques have been shown to be successful in some fields.Fainites 12:02, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

'Growing anti-intellectualism' by Drenth does contain 'loathsome pursuit of gain'. Here's the context "Often pseudo-scientific practices are motivated by loathsome pursuit of gain. We have already seen the economic manipulation of the credulity of NLP-quarries'Fainites 16:01, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Fainites. Comaze. Can Elich be read online? Even via email? Take care. 58.179.135.173 23:53, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

It is available electronically [10]. The methodology of that study was seriously flawed. They were priming for visual images. --Comaze 00:16, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Comaze. 58.179.135.173 14:33, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I have to remind editors (both listed an anon) that there has been a fairly persistent removal of fundamental facts from their correct place of due weight. Considering that there seems to be editors here with a proven conflict of interest - this issue is all the more pressing. I've had to restore information to its correct place in the opening many times over and notify admin of the persistent problem. I've also had to remove more argumentative editing and there is more removal of editorializing to do. Straight reporting please. Please don't maintain the conflict of interest issue as an overwhelming problem. AlanBarnet 04:49, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Can you suggest an objective way to determine weight? Number of citations in academic literature is one way, as this would exclude the minor studies and preference the reviews. This might be important for deciding what how much space we dedicate to each view point. There are a number of competing view points that need to be described. I think that the recent changes are beginning to do this. A recent step forward is ascription of view points to the authors. Perhaps we could do a better job at characterising their world views. We should ensure that any systhesis or conclusion is ascribed to a reliable/reputable source. Perhaps we could also do a better job at characterising and group the world views of different authors. There are some distinct view points emerging. --Comaze 05:47, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Comaze. Firstly you have a proven conflict of interest and that makes your last edits look really bad as has been pointed out to you already by admin Guy. There are many sources stating concern about unvalidated therapies conveying potential harm, spreading misconceptions about psychology, misleading clients to forgo effective treatments, reducing critical thought and scientific rigor, and so on. They all say NLP is one of those "pseudoscientific, unvalidated and quack" treatments. Lots of sources - very much reliable - very reputable - highly relevant. That is the main concern. That is the main issue from a science perspective. You have persistently been obscuring that main view [11] and you've been substituting sourced and verified concise statements for unsourced and mostly promotional gloss. I think thats a fairly objective assessment. AlanBarnet 06:23, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I've restored the introduction and third paragraph as per previous discussion. That evidence and point of view has already been incorporated into other parts of the document. That one-liner sums it up nicely. As previously suggested you could add a link to (see research section) if you want to link to all that evidence. --Comaze 05:58, 24 December 2006 (UTC) AB's other changes were mostly ok with me. --Comaze 06:09, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Comaze. As above - plus your edits are unhelpful to the reader. The reader needs some sort of description of what NLP practicers actually do. You've deleted such helpful descriptions. I will remind you again of your proven conflict of interest. It seems to me to be impossible to edit here without editors such as you - with proven conflicts of interest - coming along and persistently obscuring sourced and relevant facts. AlanBarnet 06:26, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I'll assume good faith here. I like you are trying to find the most reputable sources and quotes to write objectively as possible. I am interested in NLP, but I am writing from the literature, not my personal experience. If you don't like my edits then edit them so that they are more objective. I'm happy to provide quotes to verify any of my sources. --Comaze 06:42, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

AlanBarnet. A great deal of work has gone into obtaining accurate quotes and sources from reputable scientific commentators. Comaze has not removed or obscured any of those that I am aware of. The argument is about what should be in the introduction. What NLP practitioners actually do is difficult enough to understand as it is, particularly when an NLP practitioner tries to explain it. I don't see that a couple of out of context quotes in the introduction helps. I also can't see how stating NLP was and remains scientifically unvalidated is obscuring anything, given that all the major scientific views are clearly set out and all, effectively, say the same thing. Other Wiki articles contain paraphrasing and synopses for the sake of clarification without all this fuss. You yourself do it all the time with statements like the one you put in about cults. Fainites 11:43, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Comaze I am notifying the ANI about your edits because I am unhappy with them in toto. I edit your changes on a regular basis - and you revert my changes. You have a known conflict of interest and it is unhelpful. If you want to help Wikipedia - do it on articles that have nothing to do with NLP. AlanBarnet 11:48, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Fainites. Your edits and arguments are supporting the unconstructive actions of an editor who has a known conflict of interest. I have also obtained a great deal of source info and it agrees with the comment from Admin. I am working forward from the advice of admin. There is far too much promotional obscuring of facts and I am simply making sure that facts are not being obscured. To do so I simply use straight reporting just as it states in NPOV policies. I seem to be up against a group of editors who are against this constructive and admin-cooperative move. AlanBarnet 11:48, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

My edits are not supporting Comaze. I have never removed your edits of the introduction. I have made suggestions to try and achieve consensus. Nearly all of my edits have involved verifying and inserting accurate references and quotations - witness your last edit of Lilienfield where you left in a statement with an inaccurate citation and previous edits where you have reverted to older versions without cleaning up the out of place citations left hanging around. It is not 'supporting Comaze' to ask you to verify your edits. You always say they're proven fact or similar but are very slow to produce accurate quotations and context. If you have a copy of Sharpley's papers and he says NLP is a cult, give us the quote and the context and then nobody can argue with it going in. I for one have no interest in promoting NLP but if you just stick in your own paraphrase it looks like POV. It's each editors responsibility to verify their own edits and on this article it's become crucial.Fainites 12:03, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

On wikipedia need to be careful in describing anything as a cult. A recent edit, see recent diffs misrepresents three sources to state that NLP was a cult. We really need to be careful here. Elich et al (1985) state, "It is as if NLP has achieved something akin to cult status when it may be nothing more than another psychological fad that will go its merry way until it is replaced by the next fad." This is very different to what was implied in the context of that recent edit. Saying that something has reached cult status has different implications. --Comaze 06:38, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Comaze. I quoted Eisner (2000). He uses the term - cult - he cites both Sharpley and Elich et al, it is the latest view on the subject, and that is how I used it in that context. I have to remind you again about your WP:COI. You have a known conflict of interest as has already been mentioned by user Guy [12] In this regard the policy states "we very strongly encourage you to avoid editing Wikipedia in areas in which you appear to have a conflict of interest. Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy states that all Wikipedia articles must represent views fairly and without bias, and a conflicts of interest significantly and negatively affects Wikipedia's ability to fulfill this requirement impartially. Some people with a financial conflict of interest believe they truly can and do provide a neutral view, while abiding by all of the other policies; but the judge of that is other editors, hence the advice to let others actually add the material." I certainly judge you to be incapable of editing here without your known COI getting in the way. This is a big problem and the only solution is that you stop editing any article related to NLP. AlanBarnet 06:48, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

We should try to discuss this first. I agree with WP:COI so I'm holding myself to a higher level responsibility when it comes to wikipedia policy. If you think that an edit is biased then please help us be more objective and descriptive of the any disagreements. I am trying to be more accurate with my paraphrasing and summaries. This is not always easy. Also wikipedia policy says that we should not synthesize without attributing the synthesis to a source. That is part of WP:OR policy. Something that I've only really begun to understand properly with Fainites being around. Perhaps this is what you mean by straight reporting or what Guy meant by more descriptive. I know I'm not the best writer, but I'm working on it. By the way, I've looked up Sharpley, Eisner and Elich. Eisner (2001 p.158) quotes Sharpley who has quoted Elich et al. Normal scholarly practise is to quote the original source when available and in this case it is Elich. This quote is already included in the document. Context is very important with a pejorative like cult. --Comaze 11:39, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Whichever way you put it - the term cult is an important point that needs including in the context of those sources. AlanBarnet 11:42, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Comaze you have done no improving on quality. Admin already said theres been too much promotional obscuring of facts. Most of your edits today include promotionally obscuring facts. You have a known conflict of interest according to admin and other editors keep skirting the issue and even praising you after you obscure facts. Its unacceptable. AlanBarnet 11:42, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

You're getting close to personal attacks now. Please review WP:NPA --Comaze 11:57, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

AlanBarnet. The bit you've cut out from Langone was not argumentative commentary or POV. It was an accurate paraphrase from the text. Might I suggest you read the text. I shall now put in the entire passage. Unfortunately lengthy but apparently necessary. Every single alleged quote from the old version of those sections on manipulation and religiosity that I have looked up so far has been grossly inaccurate. If you can find a reputable source that states NLP is a cult, then put it in and give us the context. But don't rely on old edits. Fainites 10:56, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

We may even go further and paste in the full context of Langone. Does he actually use the term "aquits"? AlanBarnet 11:42, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I have put in the full quote. Fainites 11:48, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Alan Barnet. If you say Sharpley etc call NLP a cult please give us the full quote and context. If Eisner calls it a cult, again, full quote and context. There's not much point in quoting Eisner quoting Sharpley and Elich when we actually have Sharpley and Elich.Fainites 11:11, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes there is a point. It is a point raised by Eisner. It is an important issue. The admin user Guy was not just talking out of his hat you know! AlanBarnet 11:42, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Please give us the reference for Sharpley calling NLP a cult.Fainites 11:48, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

AlanBarnet. Please can you give a quote and context for Lilienfield calling NLP a New Age Therapy. You may well be right but I can't find it in the book. The chapter on New Age Therapies is written by Singer. She doesn't mention NLP. I have already put in the bit where Lilienfield calls it pseudoscience.Fainites 11:34, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Its online [13]. Its blatantly clear anyway. Half the peer reviewed journal papers call NLP a new age therapy including the reviews. AlanBarnet 11:42, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

This is Lilienfields article, not the book. I shall correct the citation.Fainites 11:48, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

AlanBarnet. I now have Sharpley 1987. He says "If it is true that there are data in the clinical files of proponents of NLP that support it in a way different from the experimental data reviewed, then these need to be published and examined according to the traditional methodological yardsticks of experimental and evaluative literature. Until that time the enquirer in this field may be forgiven for accepting the conclusion of Elich et al (1985) "NLP has achieved something akin to cult status when it may be nothing more than a psychological fad" (p625)". Whilst this is relevant, it does not support a bald statement that Sharpley or indeed Elich state that NLP is a cult. If you have anything else from either Sharpley or Elich saying NLP is a cult, please provide a citation, quote and context. Fainites 23:01, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I've added the extra Elich quote to Elich. It clearly belongs with him not Sharpley, although it would be accurate to say that Sharpley said 'an enquirer'... 'may be forgiven' for accepting Elich's conclusion.Fainites 23:15, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Fainites. Just wanted to say that though I changed the section title to "soft science" I'm still pondering a new structure and title that truly captures what that section will best be when it matures. It's seems a little lonely having that major section hang on there all by itself with relatively little content for a major heading. Then there's content in the section that actually fits neatly into all three of the other major sections. Any ideas? 58.178.152.151 17:14, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I've been giving it some thought aswell. It seemed to me that given that there is a tension between hard and soft science, NLP ought to have the opportunity to say where it stands and why. Of course people like Drenth say it posed as hard science and then tried to wriggle out when the going got tough. I think the section ought to make it clear that for some humanist sciences there is a distinction between humanist and positivist approaches to scientific validation, even though all the empiricists think that's anathema. Fainites 18:54, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think moving this material to other sections and then just calling the scientists 'positivists' or 'evidence-based' or whatever really works. Not enough readers would be sufficiently familiar with this to make it clear. Fainites 23:28, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I've expanded Einspruch and Forman who argue that NLP is very complex and it is difficult to test under the predominant conseling research framework. We should probably flesh out Sharpley's response to this. --Comaze 03:08, 26 December 2006 (UTC) Have we captured the heart of these views? --Comaze 03:13, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Sharpley and others have pointed out that NLP is not completely useless in that alot of it is based on tried and tested methods from hypnotherapy, Gestalt therapy and so on. Also some of the stuff on learning is from more specific cognitive fields. One commentator (I shall try and find the reference) said that although none of this was original it had some merit for someone wanting a sort of round up of various techniques as an adjunct to other therapies. It's the overstated, unvalidated, pseudoscientific underpinnings that are the problem.Fainites 11:46, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

It was Sharpley 1987.Fainites 21:17, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I made a structural edit to the Concept and methods section. I've renamed it approach to communication and change, and renamed the subheadlines to make it easier to follow for the layperson. I hope this is ok. I'm sure you'd like to revise it. --Comaze 09:26, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi fainites. Thanks for contacting me. All good. Regarding that quote. There seems to be a tendency for previous editors to have used peripheral quotes from sources such as Elich to prop up their own arguments rather than to actually represent what Elich et al are actually saying. It seemed to me that Elich had far more intelligent and objective things to share other than that NLP is the latest cult fad. It is reasonable to suppose HeadleyDown originally put that quote in purely on the merit of having the word "cult" in it. Personally, I'd like to respect the heart of what authors are saying and not use them as pawns. 58.178.152.151 23:43, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

58.178.152.151, I believe WP:OR talks about this very issue. In an effort to prop up arguments some of the former editors were running around typing "cult+NLP" into their search engines. This can only lead to POV. One of the things I admire about Fainites is that this editor reads the literature and makes an informed contribution. Is there a policy on selecting quotes and how to appropriately use evidence on wikipedia? Surely part of this is separating naration, critique and statements of evidence. I tihnk that this is something that could be improved in the article. --Comaze 13:33, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Can we gather together a set of quotes that best represents the Elich article? And then choose perhaps. 58.178.234.128 05:57, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I've looked at other comparable articles and they simply don't havethe sheer number of direct quotes. The trouble is, any attempt to put in a summing up or to paraphrase is instantly accused of being POV. On the other hand, POV statements go in which are not supported by the literature cited, as in Sharpley, Langorne and Salerno all being cited as having stated NLP was a cult. Unfortunately the only defence against this kind of thing is to put in exact quotes. I think we have no choice but to use direct quotes as much as possible. I agree to 58's proposal. Fainites 11:41, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Great. I think readers will rightly assume whatever quote we use is indicative of the heart of the article, so some care must be taken that we get close to that. I have faith in the editors here. Sleep now. Take care. 202.67.115.1 14:35, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Also rather than including the full quote in the document, it could be summarised or paraphrased and the full quote could be inserted in the list of notes and reference. --Comaze 14:46, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Lets put full quotes in the article first Comaze and then see where we go from there. Fainites 16:47, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. --Comaze 04:40, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I've moved the content from Craft/Tosey to the 'soft science' section. It seemed to fit nicely there. Is this ok? Does everyone have the Craft/Tosey papers? --Comaze 07:37, 27 December 2006 (UTC) I've also merged the principles section other sections including aphorisms into "soft science". Tosey talks about aphorisms, other authors talk about presuppositions of NLP. I'm not sure where they were initiated. --Comaze 10:41, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I think presuppositions is more commonly understood. Fainites 18:10, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Comaze. I'm not a fan of the new headings:

• Basics (this heading passes judgement on the "concepts and methods" of NLP as being "basic". It also isn't clear exactly what it is refering to: the basics of what? The basics of learning NLP? The basics of doing NLP? The basic theory behind NLP? Also, does it mean basic as in "this will get you started"; or basic as in "there is much more to know than this". Either way it's a bit promo-ish.)

• Exceeding the limits of the map (again, this heading implies a positive judgement of NLP. "exceeding limits" = far from NPOV).

I would prefer the more neutral "concepts and methods" and "metamodel" or something else again. Your thoughts? Feelings? Vision? ;) 58.178.133.17 12:56, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Oops. I spoke too soon. Take care. 58.178.133.17 13:03, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I've tried 'Principles and Practice' but I rather like 'Concepts and Methods' though Fainites 13:30, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Let's go back to 'Concepts and Methods' - that section has remained stable for along time with that headline. Do you also want to rename "Unconscious communications" back to Milton model? --Comaze 13:34, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure. There's merit in both. I'm leaning towards Milton Model. 58.178.133.17 14:14, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Sleep on it :) --Comaze 14:17, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

How about 'Milton Model (Unconscious Communications)' Fainites 15:20, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

That's ok with me. I'm leaning back towards just 'Milton model' ... It is cleaner that way. Its a minor issue. --Comaze 08:43, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Comaze, how about two subheadings, one 'concepts, the other 'methods' and then put all the principles, eg maps, prs, submodalities etc in the first and all the techniques, eg goal setting, anchoring etc in the second. Ecology is probably a method rather than a concept. Fainites 12:20, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

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."[14] --Comaze 23:42, 27 December 2006 (UTC) I've added a quote from Labouchere (ee4, 2004).[15] --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)

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

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)

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 [16]. 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 [17]) 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 [18][19]. 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)

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)

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)

I added a lead section that moves closer to what is described in [20] 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 [21]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. [22]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[23], 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 >

A few minor changes to the intro. in pursuit of clarity.Fainites 14:35, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

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)

Sergei Kovalev, whose book is cited in the Esterbrook dissertation, has good credentials. As a professor, he's PhD in psychology; and also he's Grand PhD and full professor of the World University for Development of Science, Education and Society, a private university under the jurisdiction of the Russian Federation Ministry of Education and Science, founded with the intention to bring Russian science closer to the modern advancements (he's vice president of this institution). He's member of Russian Society for Psychology and Russian Professional League for Psychotherapy. He's author of several books on NLP in psychotherapy in the Russian language. Also, he's author of what he called "Eastern version of NLP", his own set of methods for psychotherapy and consulting. Eli the Barrow-boy 12:59, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

What does Kovalev actually say about NLP? Fainites 18:57, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

He uses NLP primarily for therapy; and, according to his works, his personal approach to therapy is eclectic and includes various methods (such as psychosynthesis, transactional analysis, existential therapy etc) besides "pure" NLP. According to the abstract of Esterbrook's dissertation,

Sergei V. Kovalev (2001) has introduced a set of structured NLP interventions that were translated from his book Return from the Edge of the Abyss: Seven Steps to Recovery, NLP - Therapy for Drug or Alcohol Addiction. These NLP interventions are reflected in a three step pilot model that can be applied to help under-achieving community college students use coping resources and successful life experiences in approaching their academic work. The intervention techniques were developed involving applications of cognitive-behavioral exercises (e.g. use of imagery). [24]

What exactly do you want to know him to have actually said about NLP? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Eli the Barrow-boy (talk • contribs) 23:36, 22 January 2007 (UTC).

Has he done or does he cite any outcome research? Fainites 17:20, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I haven't seen one and can't check on that right now for I'm quite busy. I'll try to find this out in a few days, maybe a week or so. He might not have been interested in strict scientific research, as most NLPers do, however I need to know it for sure, since he's got all these credentials, and we may be lucky to find some useful information for Wikipedia. For now the Esterbrook's research is the only research of his findings that I am aware of. Maybe that's temporarily. Eli the Barrow-boy 21:20, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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 >

I wonder of we should move that person who keeps putting his advert for 'NLP and Sales including Firewalking/Glasswalking and Seduction' into 'Associations', into the manipulation section as an example of misuse of NLP by the unethical? Fainites 21:11, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

We could report them to the blacklist. I think he has the same IP every time. 58.179.166.57 01:33, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

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 [25] [26] [27] [28] 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)

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

Watch out for No 86.146.93.137. He just added a huge totally unsourced POV quote into the article with no discussion.[[29]] which was then set out by Headley/Barnet on talk.[[30]]. Looks like a sock of HD/AB The existing Langone quote is at least a quote, Langone being one of the people previously falsly cited as having stated NLP was a cult.Fainites 09:02, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

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

On second thoughts 86, maybe that was a bit hasty. What you say about Langone may well be true, but it needs a verified source. I'll put your edit in here for discussion. Langone was originally in the article as one of the many fake or misleading citations to the proposition that NLP is a cult. This version of Langone makes it clear that he is only referring to the use of NLP by cults, who will, of course use anything. It might be better just to cut out the 'mind is your enemy' bit. Fainites 12:18, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

From 86.146.93.137 "The weakness of Langone's argument is that he makes various invalid assumptions. For example:

The way in which groups and individuals use various NLP techniques does not provide a valid link between NLP and any other person or group, any more than the fact that a hammer can be used to attack and even kill someone means that everyone who owns a hammer is a (potential) murder. Moreover Langone [i]appears[/i] to ignore the fact that many of the most aggressive and infamous cult techniques were already in widespread use in the 1960s and earlier - before NLP came into existence.

More specifically, Langone ignores the fact that the term [i]illusion[/i] is used differently in TM and in Scientology or est (the first being based on conventional Hindu beliefs, the second being the product of a sci-fi-type account of the universe devised by L. Ron Hubbard in the early 1950s). NLP is different again in that it does not claim that the pecieved world is an illusion at all. It says that our perceptions are constrained by our individual physiology and experience and that therefore the [i]accuracy[/i] of our perceptions is irrevocably subjective at a person-by-person level.

By the same token, at no point in authentic NLP literature is there any claim that "your mind is your enemy", especially not in the sense that the phrase is used in TM or in Scientology or est (which are respectively derived from the sources mentioned above) and consequently does not attempt to teach people "techniques for escaping from the mind's grasp". On the contrary, authentic NLP is designed to teach people how to understand and work more effectively within the restraints of subjectivity. In this respect the NLP viewpoint is closer (though NOT the same as) to that of the school of philosophy known as Logical Positivism than TM, Scientology or est (the latter being a variation on Scientology."Fainites 12:18, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

86. There's alot of stuff already on Salerno about 3cms above under 'manipulation'. Suppose it said "We know that NLP is also used by some very aggressive cults because the NLP method can be used by such groups to instill a reliance upon the cult, and provides a conditioning method to further induce compliance." He describes NLP as "a tool for generating change for changes sake". Singer is very clear about what constitutes a cult, including psychotherapeutic and self-improvement cults and 'NLP' of itself does not fulfill her criteria. According to her the original 'brainwashing' techniques were developed in China post WWII and cult leaders have been refining and developing techniques ever since, borrowing from any source. Fainites 16:23, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

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

Hi Fainites. Does Singer state NLP doesn't fill her criteria? I like your approach. The article shouldn't just a string of quotes thrown artitrarily together. We need some logical cohesion in what and why things were said. Good work. 58.178.199.92 21:53, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi 58. I'm working my way through 'Cults in our Midst'. It's actually a very interesting and in-depth book. There is no entry for NLP at all in the index. She doesn't mention it at all specifically; not even in the section on 'psychotherapeutic' cults. She describes two kinds of cults. The first use organized psychological persuasion processes to establish control over members lives. The second are commercially sold Large Group Awareness programmes and other 'self-improvement' psychology based organisations that use similar intense, co-ordinated persuasion processes but do not ordinarily intend to keep their members for life but only until their money runs out. Both types use thought reform processes garnered and refined from many sources over many years. She actually calls them 'ages-old persuasion techniques'. The essence of the vast majority of cults is the Leader and an authoritarian structure underneath him (or occasionally her). Cult leaders centre veneration on themselves and claim special knowledge. An invariable feature of cults is dishonesty and deception in recruitment. They also tend to be totalistic and require major disruptions in lifestyle. They only have two purposes; recruitment and fundraising. Interestingly she has two pages on Milton Erickson and the use of his gentle techniques to elicit initial co-operation. She makes the obvious point that the difference between Erickson and cults is that he is using his skills for the benefit of the patient, not to ensure co-operation to control, manipulate or 'rob' the patient for his own ends. There is invariably a staged process after initial recruitment until control is achieved, whether that involves living within a cult or not. I can't see how the diffuse, confused loose 'NLP community' fits into this at all. I also can't see how Singer could have missed it if she thought it was a cult. It's certainly more widely known than LGAT's or even Syanon. Where are the NLP cult 'survivors' (an important source of information on cults)? It is easy to see however, how NLP techniques, like other techniques, could be used by cultists as is briefly mentioned in a quote on p199, and as Langone seems to indicate is the case, or how somebody who achieves 'lifestyle guru' status like Tony Robbins could be on the borderline (but he's not mentioned). Actually I started off by looking for the cited quote in the article that Singer says in this book NLP is 'a purely commercial enterprise'. I haven't found it yet.

On structure, I had a look at a few other sites on controversial topics like Intelligent Design. They flow better because the editors, though at daggers drawn, allow sensible summarising and paraphrasing to present the arguments whereas we have allowed ourselves to be drawn into this exact quotes only business to the nth degree, mainly out of necessity. I'm all in favour of accurate quotes, but the article in general needs a more descriptive flow. Sorry to go on for so longFainites 22:55, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I concur about descriptive flow. If I understand you correct Margaret Singer is more notable than Langone and she doesn't mention NLP as a cult. To me obviously they should both be on the cutting room floor. However I'd like to start a new section on this topic... 58.178.199.92 23:57, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

The psychotherapeutic cults she decribes are based on professionals deviating from ethically based, fee-for-service relationships to form cohesive, psychologically incestuous groups. sometimes there's more than one professional (or pretend professional) involved. The other types are LGAT's which are religious and philosophical in nature (although this is concealed on recruitment) and use thought reform processes and intense persuasion and group pressure, and management courses which again conceal their true purpose, which is recruitment into cults or further programmes. Singer is at times controversial but she is one of the experts on cults. Certainly she outclasses Langone but that doesn't mean Langone's wrong in saying some cults use NLP. The point is cults will use any psychological technique to gain control and have been doing so successfully since before NLP was invented. As for starting a new section on this topic, I started off assuming it was a topic but now I'm not so sure.Fainites 15:47, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

You know what? I wish we could simply reinstate something simpler like:

• In his book 'Recovery from Cults' Michael Langone states "the NLP method can be used ... to instill a reliance upon the cult, and provides a conditioning method to further induce compliance." Langone says that NLP is akin to some cults but describes NLP as "a tool for generating change for changes sake" that lacks the cultic factor "in which the groups leader is elevated to cosmic importance..."

I don't think Langone is notable or coherent enough for more words than this; so the more concise the better. As long as we make Langones views clear in the context of his outrageous hitlerisms I think we've represented him accurately. I'm not against using other citations to point out how idiotic his tenuous links are, but is it really necessary? Your thoughts? 58.179.184.190 19:19, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

How about "In his book 'Recovery from Cults' Michael Langone states "We know that NLP is also used by some very aggressive cults because the NLP method can be used by such groups to instill a reliance upon the cult, and provides a conditioning method to further induce compliance." He describes NLP as "a tool for generating change for changes sake" . According to Singer, veneration a of leader is an essential part of these types of cults so his comparison which just shows it isn't a cult is redundant. All he's worth quoting for is that some cults use it. We could also add that Singer states cults have been using mind control/thought reform techniques from before NLP was invented. As stated above, she actually says 'ages old persuasion techniques'. We could dump it altogether but there's so much propaganda to the effect that NLP is a cult that we ought to have in what information there is on this issue. By the same token I suppose Salerno remains of some relevance as he's gone on from NLP to become a lifestyle guru.Fainites 19:41, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

On Salerno again (sorry) I've found a reference in O'Connor and Seymours booklist which says; "Awaken the Giant Within. Anthony Robbins. A book about the structure of destiny and the science(sic) of Neuro Associative Conditioning (NAC!) Exciting and motivating, though not strictly NLP" Fainites 20:02, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Tried those two ideas out. Also included some Singer so people can link to find out what a cult actually is.Fainites 20:59, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Also removed the citation for Singer saying it's a purely commercial enterprise as it's not in the 'Cults in our Midst' book. I suspect that or something similar is in her other book 'Crazy Therapies' but I haven't got hold of a copy yet. Will check when I have a copy (unless someone out there already has one).Fainites 21:31, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Fainites. I prefer your version to mine. However, your version includes original research and mine doesn't. So on that basis, I think mine:

• In his book 'Recovery from Cults' Michael Langone states "the NLP method can be used ... to instill a reliance upon the cult, and provides a conditioning method to further induce compliance." Langone says that NLP is akin to some cults but describes NLP as "a tool for generating change for changes sake" that lacks the cultic factor "in which the groups leader is elevated to cosmic importance..."

Will stand the test of time better after we are gone from this article. I mean, do you really know why Singer didn't include NLP in her list? It's pretty speculative isn't it? For me, adding Singer to counter Langone is like taking one loud so what! and adding another equally loud sou what! It's what I reckon the cleanup taskforce were so brutal about. Perhaps we could remove most of langone and leave a note in the text with the full citations and why we omitted them. 58.179.184.190 23:22, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

OK. I see what you mean. But Singer is very clear that one of the main factors distinguishing cults from non-cults is ulterior motive. She cites the Marine Corps as an example of an authoritan, hierarchical organisation that isn't a cult. We wouldn't expect to see an explanation of why it isn't a cult in an article on the Marine Corps, but then the Marine Corps doesn't spend it's time being accused of being a cult. I'm not happy about something that says NLP is like a cult when it's not quite what Langone says and when it lacks the essential elements that make a cult a cult rather than just an organisation or a system of beliefs or a self-improvment therapy or a religion. All of these things share a few aspects of cults but all of them lack essential elements. It's like saying a slice of bread is 'akin' to a sandwich. The only really accurate thing to say from Langone is that NLP is one of many techniques used by some cults. There may be some other sources out there on this topic.Fainites 08:14, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I concur with what you say. Langone is clearly a minority view on this. Why have him in the article at all? He seems to be drawing a rather long bow with no actual information. 58.179.184.190 13:34, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

To be fair to Langone, his book is prefaced by Singer. I just don't see the point of a citation that basically says some cults use NLP. So what? Many cults use hypnotherapy techniques. I'll leave it for a while to see if we get any more views. If not, my inclination would be to remove it.Fainites 15:56, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Again, I concur. I don't see the point either. 58.179.187.123 21:27, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

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

I think an entire article reweighting is indicated based on the cleanup taskforce feedback and recent discussion. They've made it abundantly clear it's a tedious bore to read about who does and who doesn't think NLP is good/bad cultic/effective etc. They just want read about the what, how and why of NLP. The unecessary talkpage debate over the last year has encouraged editors into a direction of "this citation valides NLP" versus "this citation invalidates NLP". I think we can have a lot cleaner treatment of the article these days. It should be fairly simple to focus on what historically happened when various people tried NLP without having to say they henceforth became prominent promoters or they henceforth became notable critics.

Anyway rather than immediately starting a major rewrite I thought a way forward might be to list the kind of specific and real-world questions readers might have in coming to this article:

• What does NLP stand for?
• What did that person mean by saying they're an NLP practitioner? What do they do? Where do they do it? Who pays them for this?
• What did that organisation/person mean by saying they're use NLP to X,Y,Z?
• Where did this NLP stuff come from?
• Is it popular? In what circles is it popular?
• Isn't NLP just another seminar based snake-oil promo thing?
• Why isn't NLP part of mainstream psychology?

Anyway, there could be hundreds of these questions. But if we take it slowly enough, we can work out which are the most pertinent questions, and can get a feel for where we want to head with the article. A major rewrite should be possible and pleasing for all. Want to add some questions? 58.178.199.92 23:57, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Is the ACS Article on NLP written in that style? Keep in mind that it is directed at consumers of therapy when NLP has also been applied elsewhere. --Comaze 01:23, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. It's much better than our article but it's structure is from the perspective that NLP is useful. We can avoid that kind of style if we are careful. Actually, I think it's unclear what style we need here. That's why I suggested a rather obtuse process. I was hoping if we engage in a process like I suggested a clear way forward might emerge. So, what kind of realistic curiosities do you think potential readers will have Comaze? 58.178.199.92 07:24, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh no! Not another total rewrite! Actually in case you hadn't noticed, 58, most of 'concepts and methods' has already been rewritten in the last week or so in an effort to provide a user friendly description of it all. Don't you like it? However, I agree with you that it needs some thought. I think cleanups point about the average reader thinking 'well do I need to be in therapy already or not?' was a pertinent one. I think there's scope for expanding the paragraph before 'history' (I've already tried to clarify it) or merging it with the intro'. The other point, as stated by Sharpley, is that NLP has collected methods and techniques from all over the shop, many of them tried and tested. This seems to me to be a separate issue to the underlying pseudoscience blurb. I think a better explanation of NLP's roots in copying Erickson, Perl and Satir, leading to it's use as an adjunct by therapists, as opposed to it's other incarnations as stand alone systems for modeling experts, therapeutic or self improvement method in it's own right. This probably your question 2. and 3. Your other questions are also pertinent and I'm happy to engage in your process. The article has veered off course with this obsession with research reviews. Well, they're all in now so we can get on with the rest of it.Fainites 16:03, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Hehe. I know, yeah, not another rewrite. Good call. Actually, I like the concepts and methods. It's the history and development section I'd like improved most. The history opening is great. Yet the history section is also meant to be about the development of NLP. In trying to say the history of everything about NLP without omission the section often communicates very little for a casual reader. For example, read this history section of the 80's (I've put comments in bold):

In the 1980s, shortly after publishing Neuro-linguistic Programming Volume 1 [3] with Robert Dilts and Judith Delozier, Grinder and Bandler fell out. politics and name dropping, will the casual reader be searching or rivetted by this information Amidst acrimony and intellectual property lawsuits, NLP started to be developed haphazardly by many individuals. politics, plus overgeneral history says nothing much During the 1980s John Grinder and Judith Delozier collaborated to develop a form of NLP called the New Code of NLP which attempted to restore a whole mind-body systemic approach to NLP. finally some development history but it reads like a promo: systemic mind-body? sounds like snake-oil to a newbie Richard Bandler also published new processes with submodalities and Ericksonian hypnosis as in Using Your Brain: For a Change (1984). some more good development history but submodalities is jargon so our newbie reader is just getting confused now Meanwhile Anthony Robbins who taught NLP in the late 1970s, began mass marketing products incorporating aspects of NLP (renamed as Neuro Associative Conditioning). more politics, more jargon, yay! not Other practitioners and trainers modified, renamed and developed their own variations of NLP. Michael Hall offered NLP with Neurosemantics and Tad James offered NLP with Time Line Therapy™. New and influential developers Judith DeLozier, and Connirae and Steve Andreas also emerged during this time. Given the multiplicity of developers and trainers, there was to be no single definitive system of NLP.[6] mostly politics jargon and name dropping

In the late 1980s, Sharpley's (1984, 1987) research reviews in experimental counseling psychology and by the United States National Research Council gave NLP an overall negative assessment. Thereafter, except for sporadic articles on NLP in different fields, there was a marked decrease in NLP research. more development history

On the whole, this section isn't targetting a casual reader. It's targeting someone who already knows NLP and wants to know the details of the history. Is this really our target audience?

I guess my commentary is a bit harsh but I'm trying to make the point that I think we need some specific language describing stuff NLP practitioners do (without trying to sound like headley here; ahem). Also, we don't really need to name every prominent figure in NLP along with the name of their field and the name of their book. Do we? Again, that's not for a casual reader.

For example, we could say:

• Michael Hall developed a timeline therapy consulting technique < book reference link only > where clients were encouraged to visualise, and perhaps also physically create the timeline of their life (or facets of it) and then alter and improve that timeline.

or even

• A timeline therapy consulting technique was developed< michael hall book reference link only >, where clients were encouraged to visualise, and perhaps also physically create the timeline of their life (or facets of it) and then alter and improve that timeline.

We don't even need to mention peoples names; casual readers often couldn't care less. I think that kind of style is worth a lot more to casual readers than names, jargon and politics; noting that I think we need to repeat the concept of creating representations a few times throughout the article (and in different ways) so that casual readers don't miss that creating and manipulating representations based on specific goals is fundamentally what NLP is about.

Fainites, regarding your point about Sharpley: techniques grabbed from all over the shop. To me, this is really Sharpley's way of saying that NLP people model other people. I think a nice middle-ground is to say "consulting technique X was developed by person Y observing person Z." however, we'd want to minimise that style as it gets tedious quickly. Anyway, too long, your thoughts? 58.179.184.190 18:32, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

On second thoughts, we could just retitle the section "History and politics" and be done with it. :) 58.179.184.190 18:45, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

We could dump the whole lot in 'History of NLP' and start again. I like the user friendly approach. I think your timeline example makes it much more readable. However, it does lead me back to something we discussed earlier. Should we do concepts and methods before we do history? I know it works well the other way round in the psychology article but most people would have some idea of what psychology was. NLP is so eclectic and jargon-ridden by comparison. I think readers will struggle with trying to work out whether it's a therapy or not. Even the proponents seem to struggle with that one. Also, I'm not so sure Sharpleys description is really just modeling. It may be what NLPers call it, but for example 'Parts Integration' seems to be practically a straight copy of Ego-state Therapy [[31]] from psychoanalysis, although they got it from Virginia Satir. I find the whole idea of copying eg Erickson in exact detail and then calling it NLP a strange concept anyway. If you copy Erickson, aren't you doing Ericksonian hypnotherapy? If you copy Erickson, Satir, Perl and goodness knows who else, the same applies. The 'new' idea was trying to reduce copying to a system that could be applied to anything. (What about Gordon Ramsay to be a great chef?). The trouble is, when you then look at things like anchoring, parts integration, swish and so on, it's all therapy stuff and doesn't seem on the face of it to be anything to do with eg becoming a great salesman by modeling the Coals to Newcastle King. Modeling yourself needs more explanantion. Is 'creating and manipulating representations based on specific goals' what it's all about when used as a therapy rather than when modeling another? Am I making sense or displaying my basic ignorance?Fainites 19:32, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

On second thoughts, lets try your way. We can always paste the current history section back in if it doesn't work.Fainites 19:53, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm fine to incorporate concepts and methods into the history section. To me, this solves the problem of people trying to tar all of NLP with the one brush when criticising. I think it's useful to point out what was developed and also what was discarded in a useful chronology. I haven't partaken much in the concepts and methods section yet. Let's do the history section differently and see how it goes, like you say. Who knows, perhaps it will help us reduce some of the excess in the concepts and methods section. 58.179.184.190 23:19, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

That's great 58. Keep up the good work. I'm on holidays for a few days :) --Comaze 23:46, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay. Will get into it this week. Enjoy the break. 58.179.184.190 13:25, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I've cut out as much unecessary verbiage and tautology as I can in the history sections in the hope that if concepts are added in, the overall length will be no worse. 13 lines in total gone without removing any information as yet.Fainites 20:36, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

That's an awesome start. There's another article for a comprehensive history so we can afford to omit boring details here and there. I can do some things, perhaps later. 58.179.137.240 21:43, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

58. If we try concepts first and history second as suggested above we wouldn't have to put too many concepts in history. I've tried it out. What do you think? Fainites 17:33, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Also moved Research Reviews to just after the 'science' section. The Reviews are all hard science so fit better after the science/pseudoscience issue. Humanistic softy science and technology come after. Then Mental health practice I think.Fainites 17:52, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Faintes. I'd like Comaze's input on this also. While I understand there's some pretty fundamental concepts and techniques in NLP. My understanding is also that many of these concepts and techniques have altered over the years to fit with the changing views of Banderl, Grinder and whoever else, but also to address criticisms. So I see the logic in putting concepts and methods first (before history) and then including in history the various alterations NLP techniques themselves have gone through. Anyway, keep going I like your changes to the article. 58.179.167.179 22:35, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Ta very much. I think techniques changing over the years is entirely in keeping with the practical 'what works' approach. However, concepts or underlying principles is different. I was a bit suprised to see the O'Connor/Seymour book 2000 version still had that picture of the man with all the little arrows showing where he's looking, for PRS cues. PRS's that can be inferred from external cues (not representational systems in themselves) are one of the things that's been most tested and most disproved. Real science is supposed to develop in the light of new evidence. Anyway, off to sleep now :) Fainites 22:45, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

The way PRS is used has been changed by atleast some trainers that I know of. I don't know if these changes have turned up in the literature. Grinder for example still uses the PRS but says that calibration of PRS is only valid for 20 seconds. I think reorder improves flow. Having application up the top also makes sense to me. I think that the application paragraph could be more objective. I believe building rapport through matching sensory predicates is still an essential part of NLP practitioner training. This does not have much support in the experimental literature. In terms of the flow, the reorder makes it alot easier to comprehend and avoid going into the politics. I think if we stick the the main models (meta model, milton model, rapport, reframing, PRS, submodalities) then it will be easier to understand. We can still have short descriptions of the other techniques with links for more details. The simpler the better ;) --Comaze 01:20, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I'd like to stick to the main models. The scope of the article shouldn't include Parts Integration, Timeline therapy, etc. 58.179.167.179 03:30, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that parts negotiation and integration is already covered by reframing, and timelines can be explained in terms of submodalities. The general idea in NLP is that people organise their subjective representation of time spacially. Metaphorically speaking, the past might seem to be behind and the future out to the front. Another person might represent past to the left and future to the right. The general idea in NLP is that people will gesture toward the location of their internal images when talking about the past or the future. When someone says their future is looking up, the internal image is literally evalated in their mind. --Comaze 06:16, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Location eh? Thats one of the things Mr Clean-up complained of. There was one paper specifically on sensory predicates somewhere above. I'll have a look later. Fainites 07:34, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I was writing from memory. I'll check the sources. --Comaze 00:04, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Do you think we can reduce the science/pseudoscience/humanistic Psychology/Technology section to summaries with refs (not the Reviews)or is that just asking for trouble given previous attempts at summaries?Fainites 23:16, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Just keep in mind that any synthesis needs to be attributed to a source. To avoid conflict on this article we've overused quotes and extended paraphrases. Fainites' proposal is a necessary next step. --Comaze 00:04, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I was thinking of summaries rather than syntheses. I think it was necessary originally to obtain accurate quotes in context to counterract the previous problems of false and inaccurate citations. However, it has resulted in a rather relentlessly unwieldy heap of quotes with no real linking. We could put some of the quotes on the ref section as you suggested earlier but that doesn't seem to be something much done in general. Lets not rush in though. Also, I removed Williams. I don't see the point of him. All he does is give a potted description of NLP in a book called 'Encyclopaedia of pseudoscience' which has in itself been criticised. We already have a number of prominent scientists stating it is pseudoscience and why and Williams attempt to describe NLP in one sentence is neither here nor there.Fainites 00:18, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

By the way Comaze, Singer says 'Initially Bandler and Grinder stated that each person had a PRS.' That rather implies they dropped it later but she doesn't specifically say so, and it's still in O'Connor and Seymour in 2000.Fainites 00:24, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

There's a summary of the many different interpretation of PRS and a quote from Grinder & Bostic St Clair (2001) here: "John Grinder has recommended that 'anyone using the representational system material (e.g. eye movement patterns, unconscious selection of predicates....), [should] recognize and act congruently with the proposition that 'the temporal value of a representational system diagnosis is 30 seconds.'[32] --Comaze 00:42, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

What a way to write!. Fancy saying 'should recognize and act congruently with the proposition' that, instead of 'ought to know ' that! Fainites 15:01, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

You'd expect more from a linguist. In his defense it was a quote from an interview. --Comaze 02:50, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Comaze, 58. I've reduced the number of links and red names. 'Peer review' didn't like them. The bold coloured bits are a bit distracting. I always feel like the page is shouting bits at me. I thought it best to stick to links directly relevant to the subject. I also removed the bits about Sharpley etc being 'evidence based', or 'skeptics'. All of the scientists in research reviews are hard scientists and as 'reviews' is now in the section labelled science/pseudo science, it's not necessary. The criticism of the process by softy science is in the next section. Fainites 22:48, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

If you do a search for "client" or "practitioner" in the article you'll see that we assume the reader understands the context of these words and yet we never explicitly frame their use anywhere in the article. I think this is an oversight because many readers won't even know why these terms are used. I think it that needs rectifying, to say that NLP happens in seminars and in practitioner to client consultation. Perhaps in the introduction? Your thoughts? 58.179.187.226 17:17, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

How about in 'Applications'? Fainites 19:59, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, how about the first sentence reading 'Neuro-linguistic programming (NLP) is a set of techniques, axioms and beliefs, that adherents use primarily as an approach to personal development, both with individuals in a practitioner/client relationship and in training seminars. Fainites 20:03, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, that's a bit of a mouthful. How about two sentences? 58.178.206.62 21:13, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I've put in mention of practitioner /client in the general description. What do you think? Fainites 21:36, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Yep, that works really well. The general description, in general, is great. Well done. 211.27.105.172 01:14, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Rather than the major rewrites suggested, I've tried some restructuring. Bearing in mind the advice of Mr Cleanup, I've attempted a two sentence description at the beginning, (not quite got it I think) followed by what was the applications section to describe it's use, with the more detailed description now appearing at the beginning of concepts and methods. The much discussed sentence on popularity and lack of scientific validation now appears in General description, as does the point that it's basic underlying principles are unsupported by scientific research, although many techniques appear to have been borrowed from other disciplines. I think this arrangement gives the average intelligent but 'NLP ignorant' reader some idea of what it all is and where, at the outset. Thoughts please.Fainites 14:25, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Comaze, is 'mirroring' part of rapport or something extra or different? Fainites 14:58, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Mirroring is one way to build rapport. It is an essential part of the Milton model that has been incorporated into NLP. Erickson would pace (through matching and mirroring) posture and breathing to build rapport and then seek to lead his clients to other states for therapeutic work. Erickson was the origin of the rapport model in NLP. --Comaze 23:53, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I've separated representational systems (which seem to be pretty standard) from preferred representational systems which seem to be the aspect most researched and most discounted by research. I've also tried to reduce repetition and verbiage in the various science sections without actually removing any information or direct quotes. Then we can see what can and what can't be summarised.Fainites 20:45, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I've looked up Windy Dryden and Albert Ellis, proponents of Rational Emotive Behaviour Therapy who are cited as saying NLP is of dubious validity. In fact this is the only thing they say about NLP which doesn't even appear in the index. It appears in a list of techniques they advise REBTers to be careful of using, including psychoanalysis! As we have approximately 3 million research reviews saying NLP has no scientific validity, do we need Windy Dryden, the proponent of an alternative therapy, repeating the obvious? Fainites 21:17, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

No we don't. All good. Let's see how it turns out. 58.178.206.62 21:19, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi 58. I've just found this in the psychotherapy article

"A distinction can also be made between those psychotherapies that employ a medical model and those that employ a humanistic model. In the medical model the client is seen as unwell and the therapist employs their skill to help them back to health. The extensive use of the DSM-IV, the diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders in the United States, is an example of a medically-exclusive model.

In the humanistic model, the therapist facilitates learning in the individual and the clients own natural process draws them to a fuller understanding of themselves. An example would be gestalt therapy."

Nice eh? They've been allowed to write in essay style, as per Wiki policies as opposed to this anal recitation of quotes that we have here.Fainites 21:34, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Windy's blown out. Underneath him is Krugman. The summary from him says nothing not said elsewhere but it's not a direct quote. Does anybody have access to the actual article so it can be checked? He may well say something interesting, or knowing the way old citations pan out in this article, nothing at all.Fainites 21:40, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I have Krugman article here. I'll check it when I get back to the office. --Comaze 00:02, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I've also deleted Singer saying NLP is a purely commercial enterprise in 'Crazy Therapies' as she doesn't say this or indeed anything like this. I've corrected other quotes of hers elsewhere in the article, particularly her criticism of the use of science type jargon by proponents. NLP is one of 4 therapies she describes as 'Fast, magical-fix techniques'. Her main criticism of NLP is that it's principles have not been borne out by scientific research and the claims made for quick easy cures of almost anything are simply not justified. Whilst this is bad enough, it's not half as bad as some of the criticisms she makes of other 'therapies' like alien abduction, satanic abuse, sexual therapies (with the therapist of course) and so on. Interesting book. I'll see if there's a handy quote to go in that section that sums up the 'quick-fix' view.Fainites 22:42, 14 January 2007 (UTC) The original Singer citation for this quote was 'Cults in our Midst' which of course doesn't cover NLP at all and so was completely fake.[[33]] Fainites 18:53, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Comaze. I think 'mirroring' ought to be added to rapport as it's pretty central to what proponents are trained to do. I just wanted to check that it wasn't intended to be something else from Miltonian rapport. (There's some rather entertaining descriptions in Singer of a couple of practitioners who've totally grasped mirroring but nothing else to the point where the 'therapy' becomes a pantomime! Both patients push off after one session. Still, that's minor compared to what she describes happening to people with most of the 'therapies' she describes.)Fainites 08:02, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

It really depends on who is teaching the rapport. If the mirroring is done deliberately it comes across as a wooden pantomime. Furthermore rapport occurs naturally when people are interested in each other. This is essentially what NLP is trying to capture. Rapport is more like a dance. --Comaze 12:06, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Re your earlier answer on PRS, Comaze, it looks as if it's still being taught and used, even if you have to be quick to spot it. Fainites 08:39, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

If someone is especially adept in one sensory system then it might be a good idea to develop the use of the other systems. Someone who is good with visualisation, might develop their auditory system. --Comaze 12:19, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Comaze. I'll try and add in something on mirroring later, unless you want to have a shot at it. I would have thought that all the best therapists are the ones who are genuinely interested in other people, whatever the therapy :) Fainites 12:54, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I've had a look at Schutz and Platt. Neither actually mention a professional code of ethics, but I suppose it goes without saying that if there's no regulating body there's no regulated code of ethics. I improved Schutz a bit and put him in the general description aswell. Fainites 21:08, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Any advance on Krugman Comaze? Fainites 11:34, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

The study by Krugman et al tested NLP as a single session treatment for public speaking anxiety. A procedure described in Frogs into Princes was compared against Cognitive behavior therapy and waiting list control group. Krugman et al state that "the results of this study cast doubt on the effectiveness of NLP as a single-session treatment for anxiety. On the other hand, they tell us nothing about the effectiveness of these procedures when administered over a more extended period of time." In discussion of the finds they conclude by stating, "Beyond challenging the therapeutic effectiveness of the single-session phobia treatment, the findings of this research argue strongly for continued study of neuro-linguistic programming and other behavior change interventions that have achieved widespread popularity in the absence of data supporting their utility" Martin Krugman, Irving Kirsch, Cynthia Wickless, Len Milling, Heidi Golicz and Anna Toth (1985) Neuro-Linguistic Programming Treatment for Anxiety: Magic or Myth? Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology Vol. 53, No. 4, 526-530 --Comaze 01:36, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for sending the paper Comaze. Interesting and relevant. Clearly designed to test 'quick-fix' claims. It could go in somewhere on that basis, but it doesn't support the sentence the ref is currently attached too. 'Mental health practice' seems right as Krugman is saying to therapists, don't fall for 'quick fix' claims without research back-up. Singers main criticism is of 'quick-fix' magic claims (aside from lack of scientific validity of course). We could add 'Singer criticises NLP as one of a number of 'quick-fix' techniques, unsupported by scientific evaluation'.[User:Fainites|Fainites]] 09:10, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Just as a matter of interest, does anybody know what Erickson thought of NLP? Fainites 19:01, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

In the preface to Patterns of Milton Erickson Vol.1 by Bandler and Grinder (1976), Milton wrote: "Although this book by Richard Bandler and John Grinder, to which I am contributing this preface, is far from being a complete description of my methodologies, as they so clearly state it is a much better explanation of how I work than I, myself, can give... While I would like a still further analyses of the complexities of communication for hypnotic purposes, which would require much more than this book by Bandler and Grinder can encompass, I would also like an analysis of how and why carefully structured communications can elicit such extensive and effective patient responses. Unquestionable, such additional studies will eventually be made. I look forward to Volume II in this series, by Richard Bandler and John Grinder. It has been a pleasure to write the Preface to this book, I say this because long overdue is the fulfillment of the need to recognize that meaningful communication should replace repetitious verbigerations, direct suggestions, and authoritarian commands." Milton H. Erickson MD (Preface, vii-ix). --Comaze 23:23, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Comaze, does the milton model include predicate matching? Fainites 22:46, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Predicate matching comes from the idea that it is important to speak in the client's language. This was probably influenced by Virginia Satir and Fritz Perls. Identifying predicates presupposed in language,first appeared in NLP in Structure of Magic Volume II as part of Representational systems, and predicates. This idea holds that certain sensory specific predicates presuppose that a client is thinking in that specific system. That being said, the Milton model could easily be used to soften the predicate matching and also lead people to use non-dominant systems. --Comaze 23:23, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps predicate matching should be removed from the 'milton model' section then if it's not miltons thing.Fainites 08:06, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

While I agree it was not Milton's thing. Predicate matching has been used with some of Milton's notions of rapport and overloading conscious attention. Overloading conscious attention is achieved by loading language with predicates from all senses. Or conversely removing all predicates (non-specific language) to allow the client to fill in the gaps. --Comaze 09:55, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

It would be interesting to find out what is The Milton Erickson Foundation current stance on NLP. --Comaze 03:18, 16 January 2007 (UTC) Here's an article by Erickson's daughter and Robert Dilts... [34]. I believe that the foundation has otherwise distanced itself from NLP. --Comaze 03:26, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

It's a bit like fan-mail from Dilts really isn't it. Also, he lists the techniques they still use but irritatingly doesn't list the techniques they don't still use!. I suppose a fully informed NLPer could fill in the gap for us.Fainites 09:36, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Can we ask for an interim report from Mr cleanup? i.e. are we going in the right direction.Fainites 15:40, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

We could ask peer review or cleanup taskforce for an interim report. It is probably a good time to open another peer-review. --Comaze 01:18, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

One of the things peer review wibbled about was the refs not being full enough and not containing page numbers. I know alot of work has gone into accuracy and proper citation and wikification of refs since then but we ought to check the page numbers. I'd like to know what Cleanup thinks aswell. We haven't got rid of what he calls 'this childish, redundant, redundant, redundant debate' ie whether NLP is or isn't valid, a science, pseudoscience etc, but it has been pushed back a bit to it's proper place, ie after the reader is given some idea of what NLP actually is. Personally, although we can certainly reduce those sections on science/reviews/technology etc even further to summarised form, I don't really see the harm in leaving them in, if they're not dominating the whole article; but then I'm new to the encyclopaedia business. Thoughts please.Fainites 10:26, 17 January 2007 (UTC)09:18, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Do you think we should mention V/KD or whatever it's called anywhere or change history? Are there any other important principles or techniques we've left out.Fainites 09:33, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Ecology?

I'd also like to hear from Mr. Cleanup and see if we're heading in the right direction. 58.179.191.108 11:01, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, we need something on ecology. Let's contact the Cleanup taskforce to get their advice on the progress (or lack thereof ;) --Comaze 00:03, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Fainites, Comaze, Doc. I think we need to take great care to present the concise details of NLP in the introduction, and I'm not sure that we've been doing that too successfully yet. I think we should be clearly generalising NLP in the intro so that new readers can actually understand what it is all about. I've noticed that some of the current writing attempts to convey NLP so precisely that it reads almost mathematically. This style does not lend itself to a clear exposition for a new reader. It reads a bit like:

• NLP is a great many things, though mostly known as X, it is also Y, because it was first used as Z, yet the underlying theory is A, with parts of B also.

It's just a mess for a first time reader. All we really need to say is:

• NLP is mostly known as X.

The rest can be made clear in further sections, but best kept out of the intro. With this in mind, I've been cutting a few of what I call overly fluffy sentences. Let me know if you want to discuss restoring any.

Also, please be careful how far the criticism of NLP get pushed down in the intro. They need to appear in the first couple of sentences obviously. Take care. 211.26.224.45 00:06, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Good point. Could you fill in the X ? :) --Comaze 01:10, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Fine but I think the description should mention the distinction between therapists in other therapeutic disciplines using NLP techniques and NLP practitioners dealing with personal development individually or things like management training. I think this is an important distinction.Mr Cleanup did complain that as a reader he couldn't glean for example whether he was supposed to be in therapy , was it a therapy or what.I agree about the criticism appearing earlier. How about a briefer description, or longer intro, and then an 'Applications' section? You fill in the 'X' and we'll take it from there.Fainites 07:04, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

All good. I approve. The X is the tricky part. :) But actually, I already filled it in with:

• NLP is mostly known as a therapy and personal development system...

Or something like that. Have you read the sentence I put in? I'm quite comfortable that sums up NLP perfectly for an intro. 211.26.224.45 07:22, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Glad you're comfortable :) Tried a bit more in the intro. I think strictly historically 'metamodel' came first but the models of the therapists is more where it's at. Should 'general description' be renamed 'applications' again?Fainites 20:24, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

There's beenan edit with no edit summary from an anonymous number which simply removes (rather carelessly) the example given for metamodels. Was there anything wrong with the example? Cleanup were quite keen on examples.Fainites 23:22, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I've restored it. I think that example help the reader understand the purpose of the meta model. --Comaze 00:21, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi all. Regarding the above discussion about criticism in the intro, I just thought I'dpost here what Cleanup said about it. We've since added more citations to the main research, two lines below in 'description' where it says the underlying principles are unsupported by research, plus non-scientific criticisms. Cleanup said ' "often being mixed with pop psychology and other applications outside of mainstream." and "remains scientifically unvalidated.[4]" That's fine. Allow one or two more, then enough already. We aint STUPID. Chill out, Vendeta Man. ' Is this now enough? Fainites 17:10, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Just to say Elithebarrowboy has added a contribution to the discussion on Esterbrook in the technology section 2/3rds of the way up the page in case anybody misses it. Also, I still think it's important to make a distinction between existing professional using NLP as an adjunct and people who've just done NLP operating as practitoners, whether for personal development or therapy. Fainites 16:07, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I added an update to the ANI article. Feel free to comment there or not as you wish. [35]AlanBarnet 07:19, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

• Current status: A number of issues have been raised by both projects are being worked on. --Comaze 10:15, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

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

Discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Proposed change: Update wording and tags on the reception section
• Current Status: It appears that we agree to update the wording/tags --Comaze 09:51, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

• Current status: Tentative consensus. --Comaze 10:06, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Assigned to: N/A --Comaze 10:06, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

As a professor of psychology, I'm shocked to read this propaganda about NLP on Wikipedia. Articles this like stand as a shining example of why this site will never be considered a trustworthy source. NLP is extremely controversial, and most in the fields of psychology and counseling consider it claptrap bordering on fraud. Reading this article and it's rambling, pseudoscientific prose, one would think it was well supported by the evidence. It is not. For a more sobering explanation of NLP, read http://www.skepdic.com/neurolin.html. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.5.210.153 (talk) 02:48, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you and attempted some minor edits along those lines (bringing in the skeptics directory). How about being bold and making some more drastic edits? --Snowded TALK 05:42, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

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

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

Should this happen before or after we have a more complete the list of peer-reviewed papers. Some of the current authors are not published in peer-reviewed journals. --Comaze 06:05, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

• Proposed change: summarise the scientific reviews, separate commentary from reviews and discussion.
• Assigned to: Fainites
• Current status: Fainites has written a draft. S/he's waiting for feedback. --Comaze 23:16, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Current status: Comaze is still working on it. I've added some more articles and started grouping into categories and subcategoies: Talk:Neuro-linguistic programming/Peer reviewed sources
• Assigned to: --Comaze 22:48, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Regarding positive reception: I think perhaps I've been confusing popularity with positive reception. I agree that those who have a purely positive and purely academic interest in NLP are few. However, that is a misleading figure. If you look past a mere head-count, some very prominent government and international agencies use NLP; and I think there is implied positive reception by the amount of use internationally. So perhaps the approach for citing positive reception is to not only cite the numbers and fields (e.g. Singer says 38000 practitioners in the US) but also to cite the prominent international agencies using NLP (eg. The United Nations, UK Police force, and others).

Regarding critical reception: A list of peer-reviewed sources is useful. I don't think a abridged summary of science views is ever a good idea. Either individual researchers present their findings summarily or not. Where the findings are too verbose or unencyclopedic footnotes might be a useful comprimise. Take care. 58.178.144.161 03:30, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I have struck and revoked my views from the record above due to restructuring and overgeneralising on this talk page that has altered context and meaning of my original statements. My apologies. I realise you had good intentions. 203.212.136.193 08:57, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

US Federal Probation is another govt agency using NLP. There are many other organisations that have incorporated NLP into their training but don't refer to the source. I'll work on that list of peer review sources including the AAT, ISBN (with page numbers), ISSN and PMID so that these sources can be verified. You (including Fainites) are much better at writing that me, so I'd like to make it as easy as possible for you to look up these sources. --Comaze 12:26, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes. A list like this would be awesome. Can you provide a source for prominent organisations using NLP? 58.178.144.161 14:20, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I've added some URLs to that list Talk:Neuro-linguistic programming/Peer reviewed sources. --Comaze 22:19, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll check it out when I get some time later this week. 58.179.132.208 08:14, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

• Proposed change: Include a list of prominent organisation and their view of NLP. --Comaze 10:18, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Current status: Discussing issues. --Comaze 10:18, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Assigned to: Currently unassigned. --Comaze 10:01, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Everyone knows NLP stands for Natural Language Processing. This article is psychobabble. Fix. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.21.0.76 (talk) 05:03, August 21, 2007 (UTC)

You're looking for the NLP disambiguation page. Other meanings of the NLP acronym are covered there. 74.64.85.88 09:35, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

Like the list of peer reviewed studies. How do I access the 'to-do' list or hasn't it been created yet? By the way, I re-ordered the sections at the bottom, americanised the spellings and put refs at the end of sentences where possible in accordance with peer review before I went off the air. Can't remember if I mentioned this. What's left? Fainites 18:21, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Do you want to use the following todo list? --Comaze 01:59, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Comaze. good work. 203.212.143.5 08:12, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Comaze and Numbers, this summary business is more difficult than I thought it would be. It's the distinction between reviews, individual research and commentary that makes it difficult to organise. i'll try and post something this weekend and see what you think.Fainites 22:29, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

It wasn't disruptive. It was a good idea to concentrate the mind.Fainites 16:00, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh well. Can't hurt to have it in todo list format now (See above). 203.212.143.5 22:04, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

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

Hi Comaze, Doc and Numbers. I thought the article had pretty much settled on American English, hence my spelling edits. The only English English I deliberately left in was in quotations from British authors, eg O'Connor and Seymour. I see you've still managed to find plenty of discrepancies though Numbers! Fainites 08:40, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi folks. I think it would be good to include somewhere prominent that levels of proficiency in NLP are generally known as:

• NLP practitioner
• NLP master practitioner
• NLP trainer

Your thoughts? This seems pretty fundamental and universal. 58.178.176.153 10:29, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, in that somebody reading the article for basic information would want to know what the heiroglyphs after peoples names mean. By the same token, we ought to explain what eg 'NLP practitioner' means. What is such a person supposed to be able to do, or not do?Fainites 12:23, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

My understanding is that a practitioner is qualified to run patterns, a master is qualified to create new patterns, and a trainer is qualified to train people to become the other two. Does that sound succinct enough? 58.178.176.153 21:43, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

We'd need a bit of an explanation of 'patterns' in all that then.Fainites 20:49, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

There is one more level above NLP trainer, which is NLP trainer's trainer. That's the person who trains the people moving from Master Practitioner level to the Trainer level.--Sublime01 (talk) 20:12, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi all. The lovely AlanBarnet has gone at last, although you could say 'better the devil you know'. [36]I must say, I preferred him when he was merely bloody rude as opposed to nauseatingly 'civil' for which he just didn't have the knack. As DocPato said, "idiosyncratic language is a funny thing". It should make the talk page shorter though. Thanks Ryalong. Also thanks Woohookitty if you had anything to do with it. (I contacted Woohoo to tell him AlanBarnet was citing him as a supporter along with Guy.)He'll be back though.Fainites 13:36, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Congrats on your first Headley experience Fainites. I think your voice as a new and independent editor in this headley saga made a huge difference and completely deflated his cabal theory stories. He really is utterly delusional. And thanks everyone for your continued diverse yet civil opinions on representing this controversial/criticized topic of NLP. I'm sure we'll create a balanced and useful article yet. 211.26.243.102 02:16, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

It's quite interesting really. Have you seen his reply on the admin. page? It's as if he actually believes in his own nonsense. I come across this level of self-delusion from time to time at work but it's always fascinating to watch(for a short while).Fainites 08:09, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

The idea is to have a section for mainstream psychology research, reviews and commentary. Then have different sections for other disciplines.

Psychology research and reviews

More than three decades since it's inception, the broad judgement of the evidence-based psychology community is that NLP is scientifically unvalidated as to both underlying theory and effectiveness. There are many pleas for further research and much criticism of the failure of proponents to undertake adequate research. Some go further and criticise it as a pseudoscience in that proponents claim a scientific basis that is not supported by research or current knowledge, and for spreading misconceptions about how the mind works.

Elich et al (1985) tested the model that proposed a relationship between eye movements, spoken predicates, and internal imagery, and found no support for this model. They added "NLP has achieved something akin to cult status when it may be nothing more than a psychological fad" (p625)". Krugman et al (1985) tested claims for a 'one-session' treatment of performance anxiety against another method and a control group and found no support for claims of a 'one-session' effective treatment. They argued for further research into NLP amongst other treatments that have "achieved popularity in the absence of data supporting their utility".

In 1984, Sharpley undertook a literature review of 15 studies and found "little research evidence supporting its usefulness as an effective counseling tool" and no reproducible support for preferred representational systems (PRS) and predicate matching. Einspruch and Forman (1985) broadly agreed with Sharpley but disputed the conclusions, identifying a failure to address methodological errors in the research reviewed. They stated "NLP is far more complex than presumed by researchers, and thus, the data are not true evaluations of NLP" adding that NLP is difficult to test under the traditional counseling framework. Moreover the research lacked a necessary understanding of pattern recognition as part of advanced NLP training and furthermore, that there was inadequate control of context, an unfamiliarity with NLP as an approach to therapy, inadequate definitions of rapport and numerous logical mistakes in the research methodology. Sharpley (1987) responded with a review of a further 7 studies (totalling 44 including those cited by Eispruch and Forman)on the basic tenets of NLP and stated "there are conclusive data from the research on NLP, and the conclusion is that the principles and procedures of NLP have failed to be supported by those data"... "certainly research data do not support the rather extreme claims that proponents of NLP have made as to the validity of its principles or the novelty of its procedures." Also that NLP may be untestable stating "perhaps NLP principles are not amenable to research evaluation. This does not necessarily reduce NLP to worthlessness for counseling practice. Rather, it puts NLP in the same category as psychoanalysis, that is, with principles not easily demonstrated in laboratory settings but, nevertheless, strongly supported by clinicians in the field." Sharpley states that a number of NLP techniques are worthwhile or beneficial in counselling, citing predicate matching, mirroring clients behaviors, moving sensory modalities, reframing, anchoring and changing history, but that none of these techniques originated within NLP, saying "NLP may be seen as a partial compendium of rather than as an original contribution to counseling practice and, thereby, has a value distinct from the lack of research data supporting the underlying principles that Bandler and Grinder posited to present NLP as a new and magical theory". He concluded that the techniques and underlying theory of NLP, as a counseling tool, were both empirically unvalidated and unsupported.

A study by Buckner et al (1987), (after Sharpley), using trained NLP practitioners found support for the claim that specific eye movement patterns existed for visual and auditory (but not kinesthetic) components of thought, and that trained observers could reliably identify them. This study did not cover whether such patterns indicated a preferred representational system and also made suggestions for further research. In a major review the following year, Druckman and Swets (1988) NRC found that "studies fail to provide an empirical base of support for NLP assumptions...or NLP effectiveness. The committee cannot recommend the employment of such an unvalidated technique". They also concluded that matching representational systems to gain rapport was ineffective, however the idea of modeling of expert performance "merits further consideration". In a follow up study on modeling (amongst other matters) by Swets and Bjork (1991) NLP was not included except by way of acknowledgment for the idea. Thereafter it would appear that although individual studies continue to be undertaken in a variety of fields, no further major research reviews have been undertaken and NLP was dropped from the experimental psychology research stream. Similarly in the field of psychotherapy it is stated that the "original interest in NLP turned to disillusionment after the research and now it is rarely even mentioned in psychotherapy".

In 1990 Beyerstein categorised NLP as a ‘neuromythology’ and pseudoscience. Beyerstein asserts that "though it claims neuroscience in its pedigree, NLP's outmoded view of the relationship between cognitive style and brain function ultimately boils down to crude analogies." With reference to all the 'neuromythologies' covered in his article, including NLP, he states "In the long run perhaps the heaviest cost extracted by neuromythologists is the one common to all pseudosciences—deterioration in the already low levels of scientific literacy and critical thinking in society. " That judgement has been supported by others from the mainstream, empirically based psychology community, such as Lilienfield (2002), Drenth (2003) and Devilly (2005) in peer-reviewed journals, and by commentators on the fields of psychology, psychotherapy and counselling such as Eisner in 'The Death of Psychotherapy', and Singer and Lalich in 'Crazy Therapies'. Devilly (2005) states that "at the time of its introduction, NLP was heralded as a breakthrough in therapy and advertisements for training workshops, videos and books began to appears in trade magazines. The workshops provided certification... However, controlled studies shed such a poor light on the practice, and those promoting the intervention made such extreme and changeable claims that researchers began to question the wisdom of researching the area further and even suggested that NLP was an untestable theory"..."NLP is no longer as prevalent as it was in the 1970s or 1980s, but is still practiced in small pockets of the human resource community. The science has come and gone, yet the belief still remains".

As an alternative, we could just remove the commentary from the research section but otherwise leave it as it is, and put the commentary in a criticism section.( By the way, both the reviews in "traumatology', a peer-reviewed journal, describe VKD as effective for PTSD. This should probably go in with psychology.)Fainites 22:20, 11 February 2007 (UTC)All this is referenced by the way.Fainites 23:26, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

By the way, the Heap link leads to a typewritten document called 'Chapter 25'. Chapter 25 of what? It claims to be the written version of a conference address and looks to be heavily sourced in itself. Does anybody knpw what this is published in?Fainites 13:32, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Fainites. This is the source: Heap. M. (1988) Neurolinguistic programming: An interim verdict. In M. Heap (Ed.) Hypnosis: Current Clinical, Experimental and Forensic Practices. London: Croom Helm, pp 268-280. --Comaze 07:43, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Is it peer-reviewed? Fainites 21:01, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Numbers, your opinion please on the summary, or have we moved onto higher things? Fainites 19:44, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi Fainites. Thanks for asking. In general, I think it's great. Well done. I think it reads a lot better in the second half. I found the direction a little unclear in the first half and perhaps the opening paragraph doesn't reflect what follows well yet. The Sharpley paragraph might do with a sentence at the beginning that summarises his opinion... i.e. he says basically, "the non-original parts of NLP work. the original parts don't." Doesn't he?

There is certainly some copy editing that will happen when it gets posted, and some passive voice phrases and long sentences that we can tighten up. Again well done. Here's some ideas for the first para -- but you know, whatever:

Presently, the indication from the evidence-based psychology community is that NLP is scientifically unvalidated in underlying theory and effectiveness. Amid support by clinicians using NLP in their fields, there are pleas for further research to address the failure of NLP proponents to undertake adequate research. Some critics label NLP as a pseudoscience, citing that many proponents claim a scientific basis for NLP that is ultimately not supported by current scientific knowledge.

I've left off the "misconception about how the mind works" statement because that is too much like elucidating the meaning of pseudoscience, and that seems beyond the domain of the section to me. Hope this all finds you well. 58.178.140.91 08:38, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Numbers. I think your opening paragraph reads better, but I'm not sure 'indication' is strong enough. The conclusions of Sharpley and Druckman appear to have been accepted and acted upon by psychology, hence the later commentary's by Beyerstein, Lilienfield and Drenth etc. My word 'judgement' may be a tad dramatic but I can't think of an alternative at the moment. Any ideas? As for Sharpley, how about, in 1984 and 1987 Sharpley undertook literature reviews of a total of 44 studies and concluded that the techniques and underlying theory of NLP, as a counseling tool were both empirically unvalidated and unsupported, but that it also contained many techniques already in use elsewhere in counselling practice and so could be seen as a 'partial compendium' .Fainites 14:45, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

All good. I'm fine with the word "judgement", yet when I saw the phrase "broad judgement" I replaced it with "indication", which is certainly what a broad judgement is. I guess it depends how broad you mean; also could be "overview", "opinion", "feeling", "consensus", and so on.

The particular phrase that caught my attention in Sharpley was "Sharpley states that a number of NLP techniques are worthwhile or beneficial in counselling..." and goes on to say but these results were discarded 'cos they weren't strictly NLP. This highlights for me that Sharpleys results and Sharpleys interpretation of results are two different beasts. I think our paragraph needs to be completely clear not to mislead people (given that Sharpley appears to have discarded results that are attributable to sources before NLP). So where we say Sharpley found yada yada yada, we could highlight Sharpley's criteria as a prelude. I.e.:

In testing the uniquely NLP techniques, Sharpley found yada yada yada.

I'm a bit hurried but I think you get me. 58.178.140.91 16:57, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually that bit where he says it's ineffective but then lists half a dozen 'beneficial' counselling techniques and says it has 'distinct value' as a compendium was always a bit of a puzzle.Fainites 18:10, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Me too. I'd feel a whole lot more comfortable with Sharpley if someone could explain that to me.

Comaze? 58.178.133.41 21:14, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

There are some inconsistencies here. Ashley Dowlen (1996) states "the [Sharpley (1987)] conclusion in this second review is summed up by his statement that: If NLP is presented as a theory-less set of procedures gathered from many approaches to counselling, then it may serve as a reference role for therapists who wish to supplement their counselling practice by what may be novel techniques to them."(p.31) --Comaze 08:52, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

So, if I'm making sense of that (which is tricky enough): In Sharpley's 1985 statement "little research evidence supporting its usefulness as an effective counseling tool", it seems that Sharpley is saying he requires a criteria of both valid theory and effective techniques in order justify an assessment of something being an "effective counseling tool". Since he found only the techniques of NLP worked (and the theory was bogus) he hence said NLP is not effective. Is that what we are to understand by all this? 58.178.133.41 10:17, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Sharpley (1987) stated that the experimental and psychological research on the principles (or theory) underlying is "without general support". He concluded that "future research that can contribute new data on this issue via methodological advances or consideration of different aspects of NLP may be justified". This illustrates that further research should be carried with advances in methodological as raised by Eispruch et al (1985). At the same time Sharpley suggests that the existing data should be analyzed further. It is then up to the practitioners and researchers to present their clinical data and devise more appropriate methodology. --Comaze 11:24, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. So all that beings the case, this quote:

"little research evidence supporting its usefulness as an effective counseling tool"

Is easily interpreted to mean that NLP is utterly ineffective. Since that isn't what Sharpley means I think a better citation would be appropriate in the opening sentence. 58.178.133.41 11:53, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

The actual quote should read, Buckner et al (1987), "NLP [had] gained popularity among practitioners (Harmon & O'Neill, 1981). NLP's popularity [had] developed in spite of little research evidence supporting its usefulness as an effective counseling tool (Sharpley, 1984)." Here's another quote from Sharpley 1987 that is quite strongly worded. He states (1987) As I shall point out, research on NLP has consistently shown very few significant effects that lend support to claims of therapeutic magic (or even any degree of effectiveness at all), either in research designed to evaluate the basic principles of NLP or in the treatment of both "laboratory" and real clients. Perhaps some additional context could be added as well as the later commentary about future research. --Comaze 12:21, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

This gets worse, not better! Sharpley lists the techniques he says are derivative. I think we could be more careful about the selection of quotes. He's quite clear about PRS and predicate matching (ie underlying theory). He's quite clear about the rather extreme claims of a magical new theory. Where it falls apart is effectiveness in relation to the counselling techniques nicked from elsewhere and new ones. The key to this is the studies. On a quick run through all of them relate not only to the underlying theory of PRS from eye movements etc, but also the effectiveness of working in an identified PRS. "Data collected in 44 studies clearly indicate an overwhelming finding that (a) the PRS cannot be reliably assessed; (b) when it is assessed, the PRS is not consistent over time; therefore, (c) it is not even certain that the PRS exists; and (d) matching clients' or other persons' PRS does not appear to assist counselors reliably in any clearly demonstrated manner." The list of useful techniques pinched from elsewhere is "predicate matching, mirroring clients behaviors, moving sensory modalities, reframing, anchoring and changing history". I think this is our answer.

Further, 'modeling' is not mentioned. Nor is there any comparison of whether NLP versions of old techniques are new improved versions. It's the whole PRS thing that's junked. The Buckner study is interesting but limited.Therefore the passage should reflect the findings in relaion to the underlying theories of PRS, identifiying a PRS and effectiveness of working in a PRS.[User:Fainites|Fainites]] 17:50, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

In the closing paragraph of discussion Graunke and Roberts state "that Graunke (1984), in a summary of seven NLP interventions (meta modeling, matching, overlapping, disassociation, resolving incongruencies, anchoring, and changing history), suggested that none of those interventions were based on the PRS concept. For example, Dilts et al.(1980) recommended matching a client's visual-auditory-kinesthetic strategy with a statement like "It looks [visual] like our talking [auditory] about your problems can help you get a handle [kinesthetic] on possible changes." This statement seems contradictory to the past PRS concept but consistent with the recommendation to continuously track and respond to clients' use of sensory predicates. The present authors suggest that further research is required to determine whether sensory predicates or other behavioral cues suggested by NLP are useful as phychotherapeutic tools."(pp.529-530) Bruce Graunke and T. Kevin Roberts (1985) "Neurolinguistic Programming: The Impact of Imagery Tasks on Sensory Predicate Usage" Journal of Counseling Psychology 1985, Vol. 32, No. 4, 525-530. --Comaze 23:14, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

So comaze, fainites. Let's get on track. What's some wording we can use to accomodate these observations above? 58.178.141.124 06:56, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I've adjusted the summary above to incorporate a more accurate presentation of Sharpleys research and Drucman etc. I know it makes the whole thread look a bit weird but it seemed easier than posting the whole thing again :-) Fainites 15:46, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

How about an opening paragraph that says Some critics have described NLP as pseudoscience while others have suggested that its claimed effectiveness results from it's reliance on a range of therapeutic techniques gleaned from other methods rather than any new theories or techniques. Fainites 21:28, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

No, you should have posted the whole thing again. This seems to be an ongoing issue here. Talk pages should only be refactored as a very very very last resort. I'm afraid comaze set a precedent earlier, and I didn't help by removing Headley's crap. I'll make clear what wikipedia policy is: Talk pages should almost never be refactored! The best thing to do is to post a new topic called "New summary".

The opening you propose. I assume it is intended as an opening sentence for the Sharpley paragraph. 210.50.114.65 01:14, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree I set a bad example by refactoring early. Is it ok to use strikethrough? Refactoring ones own posts are ok with me. --Comaze 05:30, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Mea culpa Headmaster. I've restored the original and put the new one below. Please don't put Comaze in detention for leading me astray. It was my own post.

On the issue of content, I've tried it in the opening paragraph of the whole section. Thinking about it, something similar could go in the opening paragraph of the whole article. I've long thought it may be the explanation for why NLP is so totally panned by psychology scientists on the one hand yet continues to be apparently useful in so many contexts on the other. A number of the articles in Comazes list of PMID etc publications point out that the techniques are similar to techniques elsewhere, eg CBT. Fainites 11:11, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Psychology research and reviews

The broad judgement of the evidence-based psychology community is that NLP is scientifically unvalidated as to both underlying theory and effectiveness. Amidst pleas for further research there is much criticism of the failure of proponents to undertake adequate research. Some classify it as a pseudoscience citing that many proponents claim a scientific basis that is not supported by research or current scientific knowledge. Others have suggested that any claimed effectiveness results from it's reliance on a range of therapeutic techniques gleaned from other therapies rather than any new theories or techniques.

In 1984, Sharpley undertook a literature review of 15 studies on the existance and effectiveness of preferred representational systems (PRS), an important underlying principle of NLP, and found "little research evidence supporting its usefulness as an effective counseling tool" and no reproducible support for preferred representational systems and predicate matching. Einspruch and Forman (1985) broadly agreed with Sharpley but disputed the conclusions, identifying a failure to address methodological errors in the research reviewed. They stated "NLP is far more complex than presumed by researchers, and thus, the data are not true evaluations of NLP" adding that NLP is difficult to test under the traditional counseling framework. Moreover the research lacked a necessary understanding of pattern recognition as part of advanced NLP training and furthermore, that there was inadequate control of context, an unfamiliarity with NLP as an approach to therapy, inadequate definitions of rapport and numerous logical mistakes in the research methodology. Sharpley (1987) responded with a review of a further 7 studies on the same basic tenets (totalling 44 including those cited by Eispruch and Forman). This included Elich et al (1985) who tested the model that proposed a relationship between eye movements, spoken predicates, and internal imagery, and found no support for this model. They added "NLP has achieved something akin to cult status when it may be nothing more than a psychological fad" (p625)". Sharpley stated "Data collected in 44 studies clearly indicate an overwhelming finding that (a) the PRS cannot be reliably assessed; (b) when it is assessed, the PRS is not consistent over time; therefore, (c) it is not even certain that the PRS exists; and (d) matching clients' or other persons' PRS does not appear to assist counselors reliably in any clearly demonstrated manner."and "there are conclusive data from the research on NLP, and the conclusion is that the principles and procedures of NLP have failed to be supported by those data"... "certainly research data do not support the rather extreme claims that proponents of NLP have made as to the validity of its principles or the novelty of its procedures." Also that NLP may be untestable stating "perhaps NLP principles are not amenable to research evaluation. This does not necessarily reduce NLP to worthlessness for counseling practice. Rather, it puts NLP in the same category as psychoanalysis, that is, with principles not easily demonstrated in laboratory settings but, nevertheless, strongly supported by clinicians in the field." Sharpley states that a number of NLP techniques are worthwhile or beneficial in counselling, citing predicate matching, mirroring clients behaviors, moving sensory modalities, reframing, anchoring and changing history, but that none of these techniques originated within NLP, saying "NLP may be seen as a partial compendium of rather than as an original contribution to counseling practice and, thereby, has a value distinct from the lack of research data supporting the underlying principles that Bandler and Grinder posited to present NLP as a new and magical theory". He concluded that as a counselling tool, the techniques and underlying theory unique to NLP, were both empirically unvalidated and unsupported but that "if NLP is presented as a theory-less set of procedures gathered from many approaches to counselling, then it may serve as a reference role for therapists who wish to supplement their counselling practice by what may be novel techniques to them."

A study by Buckner et al (1987), (after Sharpley), using trained NLP practitioners found support for the claim that specific eye movement patterns existed for visual and auditory (but not kinesthetic) components of thought, and that trained observers could reliably identify them. However, the study did not cover whether such patterns indicated a preferred representational system. They also made suggestions for further research. Krugman et al (1985) tested claims for a 'one-session' treatment of performance anxiety against another method and a control group and found no support for claims of a 'one-session' effective treatment. They argued for further research into NLP amongst other treatments that have "achieved popularity in the absence of data supporting their utility".

In a major review in 1988, Druckman and Swets NRC found that "studies fail to provide an empirical base of support for NLP assumptions...or NLP effectiveness. The committee cannot recommend the employment of such an unvalidated technique". They also concluded that matching representational systems to gain rapport was ineffective, however the idea of modeling of expert performance "merits further consideration". In 2004 Druckman said of the 1988 study "Our experiences with NLP led to two different conclusions. On the one hand, we found little if any evidence to support NLP’s assumptions or to indicate that it is effective as a strategy for social influence. It assumes that by tracking another’s eye movements and language, an NLP trainer can shape the person’s thoughts, feelings, and opinions (Dilts, 1983). There is no scientific support for these assumptions. On the other hand, we were impressed with the modeling approach used to develop the technique. The technique was developed from careful observations of the way three master psychotherapists conducted their sessions, emphasizing imitation of verbal and nonverbal behaviors (Druckman & Swets, 1988, Chapter 8). This then led the committee to take up the topic of expert modeling in the second phase of its work." The follow up study on expertise by Swets and Bjork (1991) concentrated on cognitive apprenticeship. NLP was not included except by way of acknowledgment for the idea of modeling. Thereafter it would appear that although individual studies continue to be undertaken in a variety of fields, no further major research reviews have been undertaken and NLP was dropped from the experimental psychology research stream. Similarly in the field of psychotherapy it is stated that the "original interest in NLP turned to disillusionment after the research and now it is rarely even mentioned in psychotherapy".

In 1990 Beyerstein categorised NLP as a ‘neuromythology’ and pseudoscience. Beyerstein asserts that "though it claims neuroscience in its pedigree, NLP's outmoded view of the relationship between cognitive style and brain function ultimately boils down to crude analogies." With reference to all the 'neuromythologies' covered in his article, including NLP, he states "In the long run perhaps the heaviest cost extracted by neuromythologists is the one common to all pseudosciences—deterioration in the already low levels of scientific literacy and critical thinking in society. " That judgement has been supported by others from the mainstream, empirically based psychology community, such as Lilienfield (2002), Drenth (2003) and Devilly (2005) in peer-reviewed journals, and by commentators on the fields of psychology, psychotherapy and counselling such as Eisner in 'The Death of Psychotherapy', and Singer and Lalich in 'Crazy Therapies'. Devilly (2005) states that "at the time of its introduction, NLP was heralded as a breakthrough in therapy and advertisements for training workshops, videos and books began to appears in trade magazines. The workshops provided certification... However, controlled studies shed such a poor light on the practice, and those promoting the intervention made such extreme and changeable claims that researchers began to question the wisdom of researching the area further and even suggested that NLP was an untestable theory"..."NLP is no longer as prevalent as it was in the 1970s or 1980s, but is still practiced in small pockets of the human resource community. The science has come and gone, yet the belief still remains".

It's gone in, with refs so you can now all play with it. I've removed the duplication from Mental health. Also Figley who's been rather superceded. It needs a ref for Druckman 2004 added please Comaze. Mental health needs some attention I think. It's a bit of a dumping ground. This is where any notable users in that field ought to go. We also need to add VKD to techniques.Fainites 22:51, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Basis of RFC and concerns: I am concerned that the overall editorial view on NLP is rather fragmented and inconsistent at present. Part of this is a hangover from the POV warfare that's dogged the article for over 18 months now, which placed heavy emphasis on a few critical views rather than balancing them with other evidence, and part of it is due to the tendency to try and improve from this starting point, rather than take a fresh look at the entire question of balance. The concern I have is around how NLP is represented. Following the vandalism, the following notions were heavily argued, and a sense of "fair balance" was lost: Fringe notion / mainstream Pseudoscience / respected Integrated / excluded Widely used by credible bodies / almost unused within credible bodies Often supported by research but more research needed / mostly dismissed by research Becoming more marginalized to date / becoming more widely used The impact of the well known POV vandal was to invent facts, selectively cite results, and heavily misrepresent the balance of findings in research, in order to present and force a view on the article of "pseudoscience". The article ended up attacking its own subject. The problem in addressing this, was that there was so much misinformation in the article that the usual method of reviewing the article itself for balance was no longer viable. Untangling truth from falsehood regarding "independent opinions of NLP" had become impossible based upon the article itself, because the article was that badly damaged. Back around a year ago, I tried to look up these issues myself, independent of the present article (which at that time was heavily slanted and untrustworthy). Instead of any preconceived notion, I and other editors looked up all that could be found of users and usage, and professional views and studies of NLP. It took some time. Only sourced cited works that we could check and others could review too, were accepted, in order to avoid allegations either side of bias. The results were summarized in two reference lists: List of users of NLP - how widely is NLP used? What credible bodies use it, and how do they represent it? List of studies on Neuro-linguistic programming - what research has been undertaken? How well does this support or contradict the views and approaches of NLP? Looking up these questions "from scratch", rather than reliance upon the vandalism influence on the artcile to date, I found very consistent answers were "out there", and that these were sourced, verifiable, and citable. Unfortunately, the articles we have at present, are still greatly influenced by the POV imposed during trolling. The problem which I have submitted for RFC is, to ensure that the articles on NLP fairly and neutrally represent their subject, and to obtain independent help in editing them so that the issues of credibility, usage and research are appropriately addressed and balanced. Editors of this article have been under sustained attack for 18 months that any positive view of NLP is said to be "promotion". So outside help would be useful in ensuring that a genuine balance that is based upon consensus not bias, is created. The following issues are therefore central to the RFC and to getting a fresh, neutral, starting point for the article's representation of its subject: Views on the two lists above (credible usage + research). Other sourced, verifiable evidence related to research, usage and credibility. Bearing in mind these lists, do the articles on Neuro-linguistic programming and NLP and science fairly represent their subject in a balanced manner at present, or is there still a NPOV problem in the present articles? Third party editorial help in editing and removing imbalance or misrepresentation in the articles, so that the article doesn't accidentally swap one extreme for another. (Note that I am not asking for RFC on "what NLP is" or its techniques; but purely on whether credibility, usage, and research are fairly represented in the two main articles, and help from independent editors in rebalancing that aspect if needed. If there is evidence that the two lists compiled by editors are unrepresentative in any way, that of course would be part of the RFC discussion and consensus-finding.) FT2 (Talk | email) 12:58, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Having to concentrate so much on the misrepresentation and falsity surrounding the existing citations has resulted in a skewed article, (although hopefully the false and misleading citations are now all gone). The main view currently represented is empirically based psychology, which tho' important is not the whole story, and the last major review appears to have been 1988. Research has clearly continued thereafter in a variety of fields. The usage list is excellent. How about sections for the research, commentary and usage in different areas?Fainites 13:43, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

The problem, of course, is that NLP is a fringe view that is not generally accepted in the community of clinical psychology. So, aside from the need to accurately describe NLP and its techniques, it's also important to not try and indicate a greater level of validity than the level NLP actually enjoys. Contrary to your statement Fainites, "empirically based psychology" is, in fact, the whole story as psychology is just as subject to the scientific method as medicine, especially in the clinical field. If something cannot be supported by empirical evidence, it is either pseudoscience, protoscience, purely theoretical, or quackery. siafu 13:49, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

It might be the whole story as far as science is concerned but that doesn't mean it's the whole story as far as an encyclopaedic entry is concerned. NLP is only one of many scientifically unvalidated 'therapies' used in mental health. You may well think for example, that the NHS and the police are unwise or worse to use unvalidated methods but if it's a fact that they do why should this be excluded? As for the research that's been undertaken after Druckman, surely that can speak for itself, negative or positive?Fainites 14:04, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

As you can see in my comment, I do believe that it's equally important to accurately describe NLP and its methods. Of course, given that there already exist more than twenty articles (in four categories) on NLP and its methodology, there is potentially a serious NPOV problem of undue weight already. siafu 14:08, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes. The subsidiary articles I've seen rather overdo it. If we can get the balance and the sources right on the main article it should make it easier to clean up the daughter articles. Can something still be a 'protoscience' after 40 years?Fainites 14:18, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

It seems unlikely to me that something can retain "protoscience" status for so long before simply falling into pseudoscience, but that's just my own opinon. siafu 14:22, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Same here. Even if the underlying theories aren't particularly amenable to empirical research, there's always outcome studies of which not enough were done.Fainites 14:49, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Just a note on the above. It is my impression that various psychological and related fields are in a similar boat. Our role here is not to judge what "science/culture's view should be". It is to note the evidence of what it is. For example: The evidence seems to be that NLP is widely used in contexts that suggest a wide range of notable current users consider it credible in some way or another. It is not our job to guess NLP users' motives or guess why they feel that way, whether from experience, or concept, or results, or research, or indeed "just a phase" and "latest fad". We are not being asked to choose between protoscience or pseudoscience, or indeed between these and "not fully tested", or any other category, if reliable credible sources have not done so. We aren't into OR here. The question is, what reliable, credible views on NLP exist, and what would seem to be a balanced way to represent them. So fortunately, we don't have to guess at our own synthesis or opinion. We don't have to ask if it is "right" or not, or if 40 years is "enough" or not. We just have to ensure the article comprises what we feel is a fair balanced representation of reliable, credible, verifiable sources. The purpose of this article is to represent NLP fairly and neutrally. Whether other articles are notable or not is in a sense secondary. The question for this article is its balance and neutrality and representation of verifiable, citable, neutral, credible, factual information. The rest is a little bit tangential. (My $0.02) FT2 (Talk | email) 16:41, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Please clarify:

The evidence seems to be that NLP is widely used in contexts that suggest a wide range of notable current users consider it credible in some way or another.

What do you mean by "widely used" and "wide range of notable current users" and "credible in some way"? It's certainly not widely accepted by the mental health community at large; NLP therapy modalities are not covered by medicaid in my state at least, not covered by medicare anywhere, and most likely not covered by private insurance companies in the United States. That is, if it's only available to those wealthy enough to pay out of pocket in the first place (not many), just how widely accepted can it be? siafu 23:28, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I suppose this is what I meant by clinical psychology not being the whole story. I think I wasn't being clear above. As far as I am aware, the NHS do not offer it as a therapy. Bits of the UK NHS use bits of it for stress issues, communication and staff training. It would be misleading to just say the NHS uses it as that would imply therapeutic use. On the other hand, they are a pretty notable organisation. This kind of use should not be overstated but it does exist. It ought to be possible to ascertain for certain whether any aspect of NLP would be covered by USA private health insurance. Other uses of NLP and research into this is scattered across a variey of fields that have nothing to do with psychology or therapeutic use. Fainites 07:22, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually you referred to "empirically based psychology", not "clinical psychology". The former is, in fact, the whole story, the latter is just a branch of psychology-- but a branch to which NLP belongs, nonetheless. What "bits" of NLP does the NHS use, specifically, and are they uniquely associated with NLP? siafu 12:59, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry. I thought you were referring to clinical psychology. Is NLP only a branch of clinical psychology? Anyway, try this. Page 28. Rapport and pacing. [37]I suppose you could say that's Erikson. If you look in the article under 'technology'you will see a quote from Sharpley to the effect that many 'NLP' techniques' are not new to NLP. Or this. Page 27 [38]. Or this [39]Fainites 18:47, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

The point of my question is that if the techniques being used by the NHS from NLP (which need to be explicitly laid out, if at all possible) are not unique to NLP, it needs to be established that the NHS is using these techniques from NLP specifically and not from their original source(s). If we can't do that, we can't asser that NHS is using NLP techniques. siafu 22:08, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

The three examples I gave here all specifically refer to NLP as such.Fainites 22:16, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Would there be any merit in a list of NLP techniques that already existed in other forms, in which they may or may not be validated? (eg is 'Parts Integration' 'Ego-State Therapy' from Psychoanalysis. 'Anchoring'predates NLP.) Or is this all too esoteric?Fainites 22:22, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

It only has merit inasmuchas as it speaks to the claim that NLP is used by various notable individuals or organizations. siafu 01:50, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm enjoying following this discussion. Much thanks. I read the three citations Fainites provided. It occurred to me that perhaps what matters most is what the organisations themselves believe about the origins of the NLP techniques they use. The first group Fainites posted [40] believes Rapport originates with NLP. Should we take care to highlight how they're wrong? Or should we just report it as they say it? In other words; how do we report noteworthy yet ill-formed citations? 58.178.140.220 09:29, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Just to be clear, what the source referred to specifically says is:

Building rapport is a technique described and practiced in Neuro Linguistic Programming (NLP).

Technically this is true, but it's rather meaningless as building a rapport is described almost every modality in existence. I just skimmed, but is there anything specific to NLP in the following paages about rapport, or is it simply general? siafu 14:24, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

The first one covers rapport, pacing and leading, all of which I understand come from the Milton model, i.e. Erickson did it, NLPers copied it and reduced it to a reproducable pattern. The other 2 cites seem to cover a broader gamut of NLP. The third one (for Guys, Kings and St Thomas's, three teaching hospitals in London, now merged into one)refers to 'medical NLP' and talks about effective communication skills. There are other citations aswell.There doesn't seem to be any reason not to suppose that both providers and users believe they're using NLP. If in fact what they're using is all the bits of NLP that already existed in other branches this could be pointed out. This brings me back to the idea of a list of NLP techniques borrowed from elsewhere. However, would I be right in thinking that modeling as practised in NLP really originated with NLP, even though the idea has been taken up in other disciplines? (I think there was an earlier thread that discussed this weird mixture of pseudoscientific underpinnings, borrowed techniques and possibly new ideas).Fainites 17:25, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

It appears from these quotes that anchoring and reframing was imported from Satir:

• "Virginia received notoriety by Neuro Linguistic Programming (NLP) researchers (Grinder, Bandler, & Satir, 1976) for her uncanny ability to reframe even the most dire circumstances."(p.31)
• "Bandler and Grinder also noted Satir’s ability to anchor desired experiences. By consistently referring to the good feeling of the hands when they lovingly enveloped the face, she anchored a new way to make contact. By repetitiously inviting each parent-child dyad to practice this type of touch, she further anchored a new interpersonal possibility for each of them."(p.32)Haber, Russell (2002) Virginia Satir: An integrated, humanistic approach Contemporary Family Therapy. Vol 24(1), Mar 2002, pp. 23-34 ISSN 1573-3335 doi:10.1023/A:1014317420921 --Comaze 23:20, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

And modelling? Is it original to NLP? 58.178.141.124 06:59, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

NLP modeling was imported from various fields. In structure of magic it credits Korzybski for human modeling methodology. --Comaze 00:23, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh dear. How much imported?Fainites 22:02, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

So far we have "meta modeling, matching, overlapping, disassociation, resolving incongruencies, anchoring, and changing history," from Graunke as not based on PRS and "predicate matching, mirroring clients behaviors, moving sensory modalities (Gestalt therapy), reframing (5 other therapies), anchoring and changing history" from Sharpley as not new. 'Parts' seems to come from Virginia Satir too although it is remarkably similar to ego-state therapy. Is there anything in Graunkes list that isn't in Sharpleys list and was new? Is there anything else new at all (except PRS (apparently discredited))?Fainites 16:08, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Basis and origins of NLP techniques

Techniques/ideas	Based on PRS theory	new with NLP
meta modelling	no	no
overlapping	no	?
disassociation	no	no
resolving incongruencies	no	?
anchoring	no	no
changing history	no	no
mirroring	no	no
moving sensory modalities	?	no
reframing	no	no
modelling	no	yes
parts integration	no	no
ecology checking	no	yes
rapport/pacing/leading	no (it has been claimed that matching PRS can build rapport)	no
swish pattern	no	yes
VKD	no	yes
PRS	yes	yes
rep. systems	no	no
submodalities	?	yes
goal setting	no	no

Some of these overlap. There may be some more. Labouchiere talks of the NLP techniques of 'anchoring, isomorphic metaphor and goal setting'. Miller talks of 'changing submodalities'. As these are the only two positive research papers we have in the article so far it's quite important to ascertain whether or not these are NLP techniques. Can somebody who has studied NLP please fill in the ?'s and add any more techniques. I hope the point of this makes sense. Fainites 19:51, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean by "Original NLP technique"? --Comaze 11:45, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, what was new I suppose, as opposed to 'early'. New in the sense of new as useable in therapy or PD. It's often described as a 'toolbox'. You wouldn't expect a toolbox not to contain hammers and screwdrivers, but then you wouldn't credit the collator of the toolbox with inventing hammers and screwdrivers. Similarly, if anchoring, reframing and rapport are all validated and useful you would expect to find them in any number of personal development systems or therapies. The point is twofold. 1. when people say NLP has been disproved by research, what exactly are they talking about? and 2. what was new in NLP that hadn't been thought of or done in a comparable way before?Fainites 15:51, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Next question Comaze, is isomorphic metaphor the same as resolving incongruencies?Fainites 17:21, 24 February 2007 (UTC)I think submodalities could be an important one. Fainites 19:54, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Re modelling, had a look at Swets and Bjork in the follow up study to Druckman and Swets which acknowledges NLP gave them the idea of modelling. In the follow up they looked at 'cognitive apprenticeship' which includes modelling, coaching, scaffolding, articulation, reflection and exploration. They talk of '2 decades of cognitive science literature on expertise' (in 1991). Looks as if Bandler and Grindler might have been in the vanguard on this one but then outstripped by people who actually do the research. Fainites 18:14, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I've broken my own rule and edited your table above according to what I think you meant. I found the "yes + not" combo and layout could be bettered. Hope that's okay. Now I'm in trouble for refactoring I'm sure. I changed some ? to yeses here and there so that we don't fence sit too much on one side. :D 210.50.232.201 23:12, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

This is what I had in mind when I started but lacked the essential skills.You are forgiven.Fainites 23:14, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Just as a matter of common sense I can't see how VKD, Swish, ecology, parts, modelling or reframing are based on PRS though presumably the practitioner is supposed to keep the supposed PRS in mind throughout.Fainites 23:36, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

There is a myth that people are defined by their PRS, ie. an "NLP practitioner" might say "I'm a visual person" (ie. I think in pictures) or "I'm a kinesthetic person" (ie. I'm think primarily with my feeling). In contrast, the New Code approach seeks to help people gain access to all representational systems. New Code of NLP also stresses the importance of context and that people are constantly using all representational systems. The NLP spelling strategy holds that poor spelling primarily use auditory when encoding and recalling words. The intervention to improve spelling is geared toward helping the client use multiple sensory systems when encoding and recalling the words. This spelling strategy was also part of classic code and demonstrates that Bandler and Grinder understood that people are conscious of different representational systems depending on context. --Comaze 00:40, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I guess one distinction we should make is whether NLP proponents would concede some techniques as flawed if PRS was ever utterly disproven; which is what Sharpley seems to claim. So which techniques are independent enough of PRS to be excluded from Sharpley's research findings? Isn't that what Fainites is trying to establish? 210.50.232.201 09:37, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Come on Comaze. You're the NLPer! Which techniques don't rely on/use/have anything to do with PRS? Fainites 17:42, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

There are many different descriptions and misinterpretations of PRS, there is an recent article by a cognitive scientist who reviewed the research literature[41] (I was partly involved in that research project). I learned PRS as part of sensory acuity and calibration training. I have used PRS to help people access past resource states. It is not required but seems to help people access the states smoothly. A typical change process will involve helping people recall and access past resource states. Starting with the preferred system, you ask the person to remember the resourceful state, see it from your own eyes, hear the sounds around you, and feel what is like to embody that now. When the person is in the desired state it can be anchored for later use. I'm not sure if PRS is required for any process, but sensory acuity, and the ability to shift between sensory modalities most certainly is required. I highly recommend that you read the preferred-rep-system article It has quotes showing the varying interpretations from Bandler & Grinder's original conception as well as the subsequent research literature --Comaze 00:21, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

OK Comaze. I've read the preferred rep article. Even if PRS is not 'required', we need to express in the article the extent to which research on PRS affects NLP processes and techniques. Are you saying you can do the entire gamut of NLP without any reference to or recourse to PRS? I also note that the daughter article on PRS says it was mainly dumped (by Dilts and Bandler no less) in the 80's. Also, where did 'representational systems' come from?Fainites 22:58, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I've tried to flesh out the paragraph on representational systems in the current article. It needs some work and so does the section on PRS and submodalities. Submodalities is very important to many NLP practitioners, especially those trained in the Bandler (or Andreas) lineage. I think this is necessary next step. --Comaze 03:10, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Are you sure that representational systems rather than preferred representational systems came in with NLP? Fainites 07:51, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Something similar to Representational systems can be found in gestalt therapy and can be traced further back to the founder of modern psychology, William James. --Comaze 13:01, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I've added a bit more to Rep systems and PRS. We need to make sure there are explanations in non-NLP language for the uninitiated. I also tried to express the different views on PRS. Is this a fair representation? It probably needs some refs, ie Grinder and Bostic St Clair. Any advances on the table? In particular, what about submodalities?Fainites 00:13, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I've added some more detail to submodalities. If you could do the same sort of edit from a non-NLP perspective that would be great. --Comaze 00:45, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Comaze; goal setting seems to be common to personal development. Is 'well-formed outcome' basically the same thing? Fainites 22:15, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

A simple way to describe the well-formed outcome process would be to say it extends the idea of goal-setting in personal development. It adds the meta-model to get very specific about the evidence and criteria. It also seeks to discover discover what states and other resources would be required to achieve the outcome. During the process sub-goals may be discovered that required further investigation. So, yes, it is basically the same thing are goal setting, however, there are some important distinctions that would be useful for contrast. --Comaze 11:27, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

So goal setting was not new with NLP but they've expanded it a little.Fainites 18:14, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

One important difference is that NLP process is content free. This means that the practitioner guides the client through the process without suggesting a solution. This allows the clients to take ownership and discover the pathway on their own. Classic NLP uses the "Present state"->"Desired state" model which is more general used than well-formed outcome. Essentially both the present and desired states are defined and the steps in between are explored. --Comaze 00:32, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I think we need to add short sections on ecology and well-formed outcome. Anything else?Fainites 22:52, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

How about metaphor? --Comaze 00:32, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Comaze, can you add a ref for New Code de-emphasising PRS if that's what it did. I added O'Connor and Seymour as a standard work still emphasising PRS as it's a book that's endorsed by Dilts and Grinder.Fainites 21:48, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll look it up and get back to you. --Comaze 01:08, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone here have enough German to extract whatever is useful from the German NLP article? If not, I will submit a translation of it about a week from now. Sometime after that I could also translate the Russian article on NLP.Jbhood 11:36, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm trying to cast my net as wide as possible. There are hundreds if not thousands of references back to NLP from other subject areas. The babbelfish translations of the German and Russian articles do look promising. Esterbrook (2006) doctoral dissertation has a literature review of both western and Russian perspectives on NLP (full text available via Proquest/UMI). --Comaze 08:37, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

You don't need to translate the Russian Wikipedia article, because it had already been translated from an older version of this article. But you may translate the English article into Russian, at least parts of it (the latter needs restructuring according to English-article standards), because I completely lack of time to do so. Eli the Barrow-boy 00:40, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Eli, thanks for the info. As it turns out, I also lack the time to translate the German article any time soon, and translating *into* Russian is not my usual direction in any case. Let us hope some one else can tackle that one. Jbhood 02:16, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Re your edits, Comaze, thanks for the refs. The whole psychology section is about the 'evidence based' or 'experimental psychology' research and view. We don't need to characterise each scientist within it. I would have thought that Counselling is included in this, provided it's evidence based. The Mental Health section should show what actually happens in practice, ie it isn't all just evidence based interventions. Where we need different sections is learning and human resources.Fainites 07:31, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Would you consider Sharpley to be an experimental psychologist? By the way, I just read through the article. It is really starting to take shape. Good work. --Comaze 07:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Wouldn't you? (I mean about Sharpley, not taking shape). Fainites 22:50, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Sharpley gave preference to evidence from experimental psychology. He was also looking for aspects of NLP that could improve the practice and theory of conselling psychology which I assume also preferences experimental evidence above qualititative, case studies or outcome based studies. The SAGE handbook on conselling and psychotherapy (2006) which says that research requirements for boundary conditions in traditional conselling psychology is somewhat incompatiable with NLP. Ref: Cooper and Seal (2006) "Theory and Approaches - Eclectic-intergrative approaches: Neuro-linguistic programming" In Feldtham and Horton (Eds) The SAGE Handbook of Counselling and Psychotherapy 2e --Comaze 03:05, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I think this is fairer representation of Bandler and Grinder's argument about theory and it puts it in context of conselling psychology and the APA. Here is a quote from "Relation of theory and epistemology to clinical practice":

The relation between theory and clinical practice is an issue that repeatedly permeates serious discussion of family therapy. For example, Whitaker (35), Haley (14), and Bandler and Grinder (1) have all protested, in different ways, that theory can hinder clinical work. Unfortunately, their theories about the relation of other theories to clinical practice may lead the reader to overlook the necessary connections between ideas and action or, more broadly, between aesthetics and pragmatics. Any effort to disassociate this relation reinforces the false occidental dualism of mind and body. This epistemological error may consequently lead to maintaining various forms of pathology at individual, social, cultural, and planetary levels (see Bateson, 2).

When therapists argue that “theory” is not immediately useful to clinical practice, they are partly correct in the sense that a theory of therapy (or diagnosis or research) is of a different logical level from therapeutic action. However, to regard theory (whether organic, psychodynamic, behavioral, or systems) as completely irrelevant to the clinician ignores the ways in which theory and clinical practice interact. An earlier work on the relation of ecosystemic epistemology to family therapy (17) suggested that it is impossible to have no epistemology, for even the idea that one has no epistemology arises from a particular epistemology. Therefore, a therapist must always be operating from an epistemological base. Reference: Keeney, Bradford P; Sprenkle, Douglas H (1992) Ecosystemic epistemology: Critical implications for the aesthetics and pragmatics of family therapy In Miller, Ronald B. (Ed). (1992). The restoration of dialogue: Readings in the philosophy of clinical psychology. (pp. 477-495). Washington, DC, US: American Psychological Association. xx, 654 pp. --Comaze 03:38, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't lump outcome studies in with qualitative research or case studies Comaze. Nothing wrong with outcome studies from the empirical point of view or indeed to an experimental psychologist as long as they fulfil basic scientific requirements and are repeatable. This is made clear by amongst others, Drenth and Beyerstein.Fainites 12:20, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Fainites, you're correct. I've striked out that bit about outcomes studies. I'll reply to your other thread when I can. --Comaze 12:47, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Thats why the founders and proponents are criticised. It may be true that NLP theories are not amenable to scientific research but anybody can do outcome studies with a bit of care.Fainites 15:17, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I've added a few simplistic descriptions of outcome, VK/D, ecology and metaphor. Feel free to rewrite. Fainites 15:44, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Found a reference.pp's 99-102 [42]. It's the French anti-cult body report. They're complaining about the lack of regulation and quality control of therapists making it possible for guru type groups in more fringe therapies like NLP and TA to become cult-like.Fainites 21:39, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

In my view, the last remaining jobs to do are 1) expand the section on modeling as this is really the focus of NLP. 2) complete the refs, ie page numbers, PMID's etc, 3)add more verifiable users under Human resources etc, 4) make the 'science/humanism/technology sections more readable. Any thoughts? Also, I've added in bits to the techniques about the source of the techniques. Does anybody think a completed version of our table should go in the article?Fainites 22:23, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to see the table in the article. Perhaps it could also have what year the technique was developed or imported for use in NLP and by whom. It would be nice to acknowledge the original sources. I'll work on fixing up the references and add the PMIDs / page numbers. --Comaze 07:20, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Hey, if you think you can work out what year what technique went in where, then good luck to you Comaze! More power to your elbow! I think the important point is that these are all models which is the basis for it all. Fainites 22:33, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Someone has removed the criticism from the lead section and placed it in a separate paragraph. I have no problem with a section for criticism if required, but in my view a summary of the main criticisms/controversies should be in the lead section.[43] There has been extensive previous discussion about this and consensus was reached. Unless there is any opposition I propose to put the summarised criticism back in the lead section.Fainites 22:26, 16 March 2007 (UTC) Reverted Fainites 16:39, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Looking at the "Religiosity and Spirituality" section, there does not appear to be much of genuine substance and relevance. The links between NLP and religion given in the sources cited are tenuous, and it's debatable whether they are notable enough for inclusion in the article. Looking at each part in turn:

• "Sociologist and Christian scholar, Stephen J. Hunt states that NLP "is a technique rather than an organised religion and is used by several different human potential movements" yet that it has an "implied religiosity". The "implied religiosity" quote is potentially misleading, as could imply to some readers that Hunt thinks that NLP is a religion in some sense. However, the whole point of Hunt's book is to explore similarities between different things and religion, and sees religiosity in a lot of places; for example, he also says dieting fads have an "implied religiosity". I don't think you can conclude from the book that Hunt sees anything but a few extremely tenuous similarities between NLP and religion, and the case for including it in the article is not very strong.
• "Skeptics have described NLP as simply a "New Age" development citing the USNRC study which found no hard empirical evidence for its efficacy." The source given, Beyerstein, doesn't have anything much to say about religion or spirituality; its main conclusion is that NLP is unscientific.
• "Dilts states that John Grinder was influenced by Carlos Castaneda's Don Juan in developing the double hypnotic induction, perceptual positions and rechanneling of attention and energy to more appropriate contexts." Not obvious what the relevance of this is.
• "David V. Barrett (2001) in his work The New Believers: A Survey of Sects, Cults and Alternative Religions, describes NLP as a technique or series of techniques, or a process, and notes it is sometimes used by some religious sects. He states that while "the brief biographies of NLP Trainers susually give the names of the people they have trained under... could be seen as similar to new eastern origin religions tracing themselves back through a progression of gurus", and that NLP as a philosophy does exhibit some characteristics which are sometimes found in some religions, "overall the balance comes down against it being labeled as a religion." Another source, similar to Hunt, that explores whether different ideas are religious or similar to religions. Again, the conclusion from the source is that NLP is not a religion, and it's not obvious why we are quoting the sentence which makes the tenuous link between NLP and Eastern religions.

Overall, the sources don't have much to say about NLP and religion/spirituality, other than a fairly consistent conclusion that NLP is not a religion anyway. I would suggest that the whole section is removed, or at least slimmed down. It's potentially misleading and is just not adding much of interest to the article. Any comments? Enchanter 23:00, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I think, like a lot of older versions of this article, the religion section is a left over after all of the fake and misleading citations have been removed. Taking each point in turn;

• I don't see the point of Hunt
• There may be some point in the New Age idea if NLP is part of a whole gamut of ideas/philosophies etc that can be loosely characterised as New Age. The phrase 'New Age' seems to have a more pejorative meaning in the USA than in the UK though. Beyerstein has a slot in the psychology section calling NLP a 'neuromythology' and pseudoscience. It would make more sense to put him altogether.
• Castenada is worthy of inclusion somewhere but I don't see what it's got to do with religion.
• I don't see the point of Barratt as he presumably decides NLP is neither a cult, nor a sect nor an alternative religion. We did have a discussion at some point, given how many people think NLP is a cult, as to whether we should include anything about cults and the fact that major cult commentators such as Singer and Hussan do not say NLP is a cult, but decided against it. Fainites 14:49, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Section now removed. Enchanter 19:30, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Hello Enchanter. I suggest a slightly different and perhaps more subtle approach. The information may turn out to be quite crucial, albeit under a different title. My worry is the information will most likely come back and be presented as out of context as it was before. So I have been working on how to best frame the article, and I see that the later research is more focused on belief change, change at work, and epistemology. As it is we need information that makes the belief aspects of NLP clearer. Here is my bias - I personally feel that NLP is a belief change method par excellence. It is one way to increase all sorts of confidence effects which go beyond placebo. There are also NLP inroads into sports psychology, in one form or another. I think my feeling also reflects the more recent attitudes in NLP and I've looked into NLPworld to find support for this. So here's my proposal:

Title - Beliefs and performance; NLP has been described as a new age therapy but NLP uses beliefs for belief change (described by Barret) at work, Grinder talks of ethics, and NLP is actually a technique (Hunt). Confidence and beliefs are known to be used to increase performance in sport, work, and so on. NLP has been used by ----- in order to increase performance via belief change.

What do you think? Steve B110 03:59, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Good suggestion Steve B110. I made a change as appropriate. 144.214.54.82 05:03, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Hello. Well its a bit better than before but I had some more information from Barrett in mind. For example he is a lot more positive about NLP than the present line states. He writes about belief change for coping and for increasing performance. Bandler also has some key developments in belief change relating specifically to submodalities. I think the Dilts line could possibly go altogether. Also I think we should probably discuss this in more depth before making changes on the article.Steve B110 05:20, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Hello everyone. I found an even fairer appraisal of NLP in relation to belief change. Here is the perspective: NLP is only mentioned in books about new religions because of the belief change aspects. Humanistic psychology is also mentioned there usually for the same reasons. Here is a quote from an author called Partridge (2004) the most recent view on the subject:

"NLP may be best thought of as a system of psychology concerned with the self development of the human being. It claims to provide a set of skills and techniques that enable its practitioners to achieve competence and excellence in any field"(page 402). "It is concerned with the function of belief rather than its nature. It is not concerned whether a belief is true or not, but whether it is empowering or disempowering"(page 403).

I suggest the first line is an absolute must. I don't think the article can get away without handling the belief change aspects and "spiritual psychology" aspects. So I think it would be best to handle it properly for good. I think the belief information should be added to the humanistic psychology section. What do you think? Steve B110 05:56, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi again everyone. Here is my suggestion I've been working on:

Humanistic psychology handles the issue of beliefs is a functional way and this is reflected in the way belief experts view NLP. For example Partridge (2003) states that "NLP may be best thought of as a system of psychology concerned with the self development of the human being" and "It is concerned with the function of belief rather than its nature. It is not concerned whether a belief is true or not, but whether it is empowering or disempowering". Similarly, Stephen J. Hunt states that NLP "is a technique rather than an organised religion and is used by several different human potential movements"^[1]. David V. Barrett (2001) also describes NLP as a technique or series of techniques, or a process. He states that that "the balance comes down against it being labeled as a religion."^[2]. Beliefs can be altered or enhanced by using NLP in order to improve performance and health usually using such submodality interventions, or through reframing (Bolstad et al 2001).

As I said, it should go in the humanistic psychology section I think. havn't checked that last reference by Bolstad, but he's a good developer and it looks ok. Other references may help a bit. Tell me what you think? Steve B110 09:24, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I like the Partridge bit. The second sentence is as important as the first I think. Not so sure about Barrett when he says it's not a religion. Well who ever seriously said it was? I think we need to keep a very clear distinction between the notion of 'belief' as in personal belief system (Partridge) and 'belief' as in belief in an outside entity or force. Hunt and Barrett (the bit that was in) were considering the latter issue whilst Partridge (and Grinder) are talking about the former.Fainites 20:34, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Fainites. Well unfortunately a lot of misguided people do tend to call NLP a kind of new religion. I think it would help the Wikipedia reader if we cleared that up using a reputable ref. Its confusing to some people to talk about belief change. They often jump to the conclusion its about some sort of wierd spiritual conversion. If we have a good source putting it right, the misconception can be squashed in good time. A few sources together saying its not considered a religion or cult is pretty informative. Steve B110 07:39, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Hello. I decided to try out my proposed paragraph in the hum psych section. I think it goes well but it could be a bit more brief. I also think its a good explanation for the LGAT misconception. In reality, NLP can be confusing and I think this article needs to spend more time on explaining the actual intentions of NLP, rather than just quoting the misconceptions of academics out of context. Steve B110 06:46, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

This article has been edited and re-edited, but it reads like arcana. I honestly don't think the basic concepts of NLP are that difficult, although both friends and enemies have made them obscure at times. I realize there is an ongoing battle raging, which has left the article a bit technical. That's unfortunate. Let's make it readable. Yakuman 20:53, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi.Nice to see you here. All suggestions gratefully received. Fainites 20:54, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I have cleaned up the lead and plan to work my way through everything. My intent is to leave fact claims intact, but to make the article more accessible to the intelligent reader. A big part of this is cutting back on jargon and technical terminology. My own views are that while I am not an NLP advocate, I believe that the structure of subjective experience deserves study. While this system may not have the answers, it asks many good questions that researchers should examine under more structured conditions, using traditional canons of examination and scientific method. I believe I can help clean up this article without unfairly biasing it toward one side or the other. I assumed our common goal is a fair, NPOV overview of the subject. Yakuman (数え役満) 10:57, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Hello Yakuman. I have no idea what this article is on about. Please continue with cleaning it up. Nobody else seems to be botherd about it. Looks like its designed to be as clear as mud. At first I thought it was about programming computers. From then on it got more confusing. I think half the terms don't even exist in dictionaries. Good luck. Mibmub 15:03, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Yakuman. The edits are fine. Articles that have been as heavily edited as this one always need a fresh eye. My quibbles would be 1)Devilly does not just say the techniques are scientifically unvalidated. The vast majority of the research was about PRS which was very important in NLP but none of the research supported it. Most of NLP's actual techniques are taken from other therapies, some of which are scientifically validated elsewhere, and 2) Perls, Erikson and Satir are not just inspirations. They modelled them and derived their patterns from the models. If you propose changing anything else factual it would be a good idea to raise it here first as most factual issues have been heavily researched and discussed in the past.Fainites 15:53, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Hello. This seems to be part of the problem. I have no idea what you are on about. You seem to be talking in absurdities. NLP doesn't work, but NLP techniques work? Is that what you are saying? Because that seems to be the gist of the article as it stands. I think Yakuman is doing fine without the illogic. Yakuman, please continue. Mibmub 15:13, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Why don't you read the earlier talk page? The article has to be understood by the average intelligent reader but it also has to be accurate. There is obviously a difference between whether something 'works' and whether or not underlying theoretical principles are scientifically validated. Important underlying theoretical principles of NLP such as the existence of a preferred representational system have not been supported by the scientific research. That doesn't mean none of it 'works'. The fact that NLP borrowed many techniques from other therapeutic systems is not a difficult concept to understand.Fainites 14:21, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Right! The problem I see with this wikipedia article is its not telling the whole story. The bottom line is that NLP is widely accepted. It doesn't matter how many science studies have been published. The fact is it works! I noticed that there are a whole lot of facts missing from the article. OK some studies obviously say that some things about NLP don't show up on the meter. But the brain is more sensitive than the meter. NLP works in real life. NLP authors have turned the tables on the research every time. That hasn't been fairly shown yet. We should see a lot more of the real views on the article I think. Starting with the fact that its about the most popular change technology on the market. I know there are a lot of powerful new technologies out there but NLP really is the most widely accepted. Steve

Hi Yakuman. I added more cleanup and put the views and answers the right way round. I really would like to help out here. Theres a lot of balancing to do. I think the science stuff has the article totally out of joint. I heard a lot of really convincing reasons why the science is all wrong. Its not going to take long to get them into the article as answers. I'm sure they can be quoted from the recent NLP web pages and books. Steve

Hi Steve. Facts stated need to be verified (referenced) and credible. Some of your changes have left references that do not justify your edits. Currently the two references for NLP being popular are Sanghera and Singer. If you want to add stuff about popularity and wide acceptance then you will need some sources to back this up. For example, see the references in the human resources section to the NHS. Fainites 20:14, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Fainites. Yes I have some books in mind. I'll add the ref soon. Steve B110 03:54, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Yakuman. I see you have made some changes to my yesterdays edits. Thanks, they look better. Steve B110 11:10, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

the techniques of neuro-linguistic programming are not new. i use most of the techniques. i've learned to call it "meta-programming" or "meditation" or "whatever".

so there should be two articles: one should deal with neuro-linguistic programming techniques; the other should deal with the marketing aspect of it. that is, an instructional and a bullshit one respectively.

i think i might just redo the fuck out of all of this because it's so unbelievably unacceptable as is.

user harlequence

Hi Harlequence. I'm totally with you on that last line. I think Fainites and other authors have been around a while though. So I think its going to need some careful writing. I want to get it right.Steve B110 03:57, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

No, of course it's not new. The ideas are ancient. Cf. Plato's allegory of the cave and Hamlet's "Nothing's good or bad but thinking makes it so." NLP is also hardly the only field to take up this philosophy. See cognitive behavioral therapy for a much better tested, much more widely accepted psycho-theraputic technique based on these ideas. BTW, "metaprogramming" is also fringe, seems to be only John C. Lilly and certain subcultures (e.g. Leri and offshoots) who use this term. --Jonathan Stray 20:37, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Yakuman, Fainites and harlequence. I can see there are quite a few references that need checking over and there is info from refs that really doesn't need saying at all. Do you know which refs are accessible via the web? That Sharply ref basically concludes what I would say is the overall fact:: that NLP is a collection of diverse useful techniques that can be synergistically used for change under the right direction. But I want to read the thing in full because there seems to be a lot of irrelevant stuff there. There are also some negative reviews that really have been answered many times over by NLP authors. If there are any web access ones I'd be happy to give them the answers I collected over the years from various authorities. Steve B110 11:49, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Steve and Yakumen. I can send you the Sharpley papers by e-mail if you enable your e-mail. Have you looked at earlier discussions? There is a whole discussion on this page about where the various techniques come from. I've added the verified ones to the article in the techniques and concepts section. Do you have any others? You will also see that for ages the article just said NLP had been disproved by science but in fact if you look carefully at the research about the only thing they ever really researched was PRS. The full quote from Sharepley about it being a compendium of techniques is already in the article.Fainites 12:46, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Also Steve, I think all the references have been checked recently. I checked most of the science and all the cult ones myself. This site was under constant attack for about 18 months by an abuser and multiple sock puppets. The POV pushed was that NLP was both completely unvalidated rubbish and at the same time a powerful, evil and dangerous cult! Citations were invented and peverted. Hence the recent checks on references. On the other hand it also gets attacked by people who htink that whether or not it is scientifically validated is the only thing to say about NLP. I think the section on religiosity could probably go altogether. The quotes in it are accurate because they are what is left after all the mad cult nonsense was removed, but they don't actually say anything of any real relevance or interest. What do you think? Fainites 13:46, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

OK Fainites. Whether we add more recent info from NLP authors or doublecheck to see if there were mistakes made with research, it looks like things can only get better. It seems that we can probably clean up that previous abuse fairly pronto. I put my email on my talkpage. Steve B110 14:46, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

The research has been cleaned up in the sense that they are now valid quotations and summaries from genuine sources and the more minor critics have already been dumped. I suppose the issue is whether the science is over or under emphasised and whether there are valid replies to the criticisms made. I think the views of the 'psychology community' are important, particularly given NLP's use in therapy. I think the later section on science/pseudoscience/technology etc is a bit of a mess though. It was an attempt to deal with both what NLP actually is and what it says it is.Fainites 14:55, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Well thats good to know, Fainites. At least we know these are certain statements placed into a certain perspective. I'll see how that perspective looks when other solid statements are placed alongside. Steve B110 16:23, 6 April 2007 (UTC)