Talk:Neuro-linguistic programming/Archive 2 Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Neuro-linguistic_programming/Archive_2

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 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

1. The "Graduate Certificate in Neuro-Linguistic Programming", a government accredited programme in Australia, this course is classified as by the NTIS.gov.au as a "Behavioural Science" [1]
2. Grinder defines NLP in terms from linguistics, information theory, formal systems, philosophy of science and epistemology (Chomsky, Gregory Bateson, etc) (Turtles, 1986) (Whispering, 2001).
3. NLP definitions are well-defined by the developers including, John Grinder Ph.D (Linguistics).
4. Grinder & Bostic (2001) recommend that the field of NLP familiarise itself with Cognitive Science and Cognitive Linguistics so that the NLP researchers can work alongside researchers in other fields.
5. Robert Dilts (scientist and NLP researcher) defines NLP as a behavioural science. While at University of California, Santa Cruz, Dilts used Electroencephalography to test some of the NLP models, including Eye Accessing Cues and Representation systems. The results were published in "Roots of NLP, 1983". Dilts definitions of NLP (Robert Dilts defining NLP (p.2, Modelling with NLP, Meta Publications, 1998))...

"NLP is a behavioural science that provides:

• An Epistemology - A system of knowledge and values
• A Methodology - Processes and prodecures for applying knowledge and values
• A Technology - Tools to aid in the applications of knowledge and values"

Please comment.. Below here :) --Comaze 10:03, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

None of this contradicts the scientific view that NLP is pseudoscientific.

 HeadleyDown 13:01, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

It seems that Headleydown no longer has the concensus that he previously used to shout down opposing views. When and how will the article be revised?

I've reverted it once. HeadleyD reverted it back. I'm hesitant to get into a reversion fight of 2 opinions - so I'd prefer to let someone else make that change (would you like to?). I'd suggest going back to the definition shortly before the pseudoscience definition was made. GregA 14:54, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Um Greg. Sure your reticence to start a war is fine. However, I am not quite sure what you are trying to do with this statement, but we just got to a point where people had stopped removing facts (after weeks of them deleting facts and valid opinions). You seem to be asking people to remove a fact. That's about the same as doing it yourself. Lets keep to NPOV and sensible cooperative and neutral editing please. HeadleyDown 15:18, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

OK chaps. I have come to a decision. I will remove the line myself in order to appease those who's own biased judgments overcome their desire to work with wikipedia NPOV. Anyway, Lets just get on with good NPOV, Right?HeadleyDown 15:47, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

HeadleyD, it is fairly clear from looking at the NLP research database that mixed results have been obtained in many cases, and negative results in others. No-one is disputing the fact that more and better quality research needs to be conducted, and if hypotheses are consistently unsupported then they must be dropped. It is also true that infortunately NLP has been associated by some purported trainers with things like speed seduction and so-called 'psychic' phenomena. No doubt the blame must lie within the field for its inability to control quality and methodological standards. However, the vociferous challenges put up by many contributors here is because these claims are not recognised by most members of the NLP community as NLP. It is also true that there was a lengthy and unseemly legal court case, and that whilst this as ongoing the field fragmented further and any centralised attempts at organisation impossible. Now this is over, hopefully things will improve. Far from trying to evade scientific scrutiny, there is a large movement within the field to try and establish greater scientific scrutiny and cross disciplinary research. Such efforts are admittedly in their infancy, but you cannot criticise a discipline for trying to implement the scientific standards which you espouse here. Time, better organisation, better standards and better quality research will ultimately decide whether NLP has anything valuable to contribute. (Lee 17.28, 20 sept 2005)

Lee, your view seems to favour NLP as a protoscience (rather than a pseudoscience)., "In philosophy of science, a protoscience is any new area of scientific endeavor in the process of becoming established. Sometimes scientific skeptics refer to these endeavors as pathological sciences. Protoscience is a term sometimes used to describe a hypothesis which has not yet been tested adequately by the scientific method, but which is otherwise consistent with existing science or which, where inconsistent, offers reasonable account of the inconsistency."

* Grinder & Delozier offer "reasonable account of inconsistency in Turtles (1986), and Whispering (2001). Also Dilts offers a congruent account in NLP Vol.1 (Dilts, Grinder, Bandler, Delozier, Cameron Bandler, 1979), & Roots of NLP (Dilts, 1983).

Sorry, I meant to add that perhaps we can continue to create a fair and balanced article by acknowledging controversy where it exists and providing arguments and evidence for both sides. For example, we could acknowledge that NLP has been associated with various 'psychic' phenomena by some but this view is not supported by the mainstream of the community providing the necessary links and citations. We could acknowledge the references to NLP as pseudoscience with the relevant study citations, especially making their specific criticisms explicit, and allow the right to respond to such criticisms, again with quotes and citations as necessary. This would seem a fair way to proceed. No information need be supressed, and no-one would feel unfairly represented. I sincerely hope we can proceed in this manner (Lee 19.04 20 sept 2005)

Thanks HeadleyD. I strongly support NPOV and obviously my opinion and yours differed in how to do that - but I wasn't willing for you and I to get into a change/change-it-back situation, hence my request for other people (and their judgements on the situation) to be involved. I like what Lee has suggested, especially the criticism of NLP for being fragmented and having no central control.

Please note that I still do not find the comment to meet NPOV - though I respect that you've moved it from the first line. We still need to make our agreements apparent, and fairly tell "the story" of NLP. GregA 00:33, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

I also strongly support NPOV. And want all views to be fairly represented within a Logical / Scholarly framework. I think I agree with Lee here. For example, in the Eye Accessing Cues/Modality/Representational systems section, I would like to see a definition as defined by the developers of that model (Grinder & Bandler, 1975a). This can be linked to Sensory system article which is what NLP submodality model is based. This can be followed by research that supports Eye Accessing Cues/Rep. Systems (EEG, etc.) and research that that has mixed results. This type of reporting is consistant with other wikipedia articles. Is this reasonable? --Comaze 23:58, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Hello NLP fans. Well, take a look at your statements over the past few days. They have all been desperately directed towards removing a fact from the article, just as has been done over the past few weeks with other facts. If I had not moved it myself, you would have removed it. So far, I can only see evidence for a disregard for NPOV, and a complete misunderstanding of views and reviews of science. Comaze. The research to date, does not support the eye accessing cues hypothesis at all. Take a while to look up the actual references and read the articles. There is more evidence to come. ----- The US National Committee was asked in 1984 to judge the various techniques, and they used 14 different judges in order to do so. The 1988 report said "Individually, and as a group, these 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" (Druckman & Swets, 1988). Since then other objecive and empirical studies have consistently shown NLP to be ineffective and reviews and meta-analyses have given NLP a conclusively negative assessment (Bleimeister, 1988) (Morgan, 1993) (Platt, 2001) (Bertelsen, 1987). You will need to find equally independent overviews and reviews of research in order to controvert these statements.HeadleyDown 01:20, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Well at least we know who the NLPPOV editors are:) JPLogan 02:55, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

• It is important to note that some of the empirical studies of NLP were not properly conducted. For example, Einspruch & Forman (1985) present design & methodological errors found in 36 empirical studies of NLP. This included lack of knowledge of NLP Meta-Model by researchers (Journal of Counseling Psychology, 32(4), 589-596). [See abstract http://www.nlpco.com/research/General/nlp_research_criticism.html]
• I've put some more references for NLP eye accessing cues/representational system research in that area.

That is an old reference and subsequent research will have taken that into account. In fact if you read the research they actually state they took the recommendation into account. That includes the reviews of all the research. JPLogan 02:55, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

The Einspruch & Forman (1985) is still valid because the same design and methodological errors have been repeated in subsequent research. John Grinder Ph.D provides an summary of proper framework for empirical testing of human patterning in Whispering (2001). An interesting place for eye accessing cues research is EMDR. There is also some research using conjugate lateral eye movement CLEM that backs up the Eye Accessing Cues study. Lee Lady has an Biblio for Eye Accessing Cues and Cognitive Style, on his site [2]. But this is probably outside the scope of this article. --Comaze 03:26, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Hello 202.67.127.248 Please provide references for his viewpoint : Also NLP practitioners are very keen to stress that some of the most important information is gathered from physiological cues and signals (gestures, posture, eye movement, breathing patterns, facial expressions including mintute facial color and facial micro muscle changes to calibrate a clients emotional, physiological and mental state, etc), RegardsHeadleyDown 04:47, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

202.67.127.248 Please slow down! Actually I don't see any recent posting to Talk from 202. GregA 06:01, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

AliceDeGrey - you said you've reverted my fact deletion trick? All I did was cut and paste the whole "NLP is not a science" to higher in the criticisms section. It seemed that the ineffectiveness section and pseudoscience section were related and they were better together. I will ask before moving something like that again. Please tell me why you think it's inappropriate though! GregA 06:01, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Hello GregA. I agree. My apologies. But the comparison view showed that you had cut some of the list. However, I had just reverted something by Comaze that was obviously against NPOV. Your very large change does not really sit right with what the recommendations were when the "view of all" page came into effect (small, few, and incremental changes). atb AliceDeGrey 06:07, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

HI AliceDeGrey - I've only come on here recently so I've read some of the histories of interactions here - the main thing I've got from that is

1. Reversion wars are useless
2. If you rewrite a section - do just the one section and leave it 24 hours for others to comment.

All I did was move a subsection so the not-a-science and pseudoscience could be read together. I deliberately made NO changes to the text so that I was playing fair. If you agree making the scientific/evidence/pseudo stuff clear together is useful, I'll let you move it back. If not, no problem :) GregA

GregA, That makes it alot easier to follow. Those two section could probably be merged (maybe by a third party copyeditor)? --Comaze 06:15, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Hello GregA. You clearly did not remove anything. Though if you associate with Comaze, you will probably end up being associated with Comaze's history considering the "cooperation to delete" episode. There may be some merit in the merging. However, I think the other involved editor may want to comment before any more changes are made there. Regards HeadleyDown 06:19, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Hi headleyD. I won't judge a change based on who did it - it's what they do. I guess over time I'll trust some user's changes more than others. Hi comaze - I think it is easier to follow, thanks. When you said "we are working to merge science and pseudoscience - were you taking a guess at my intentions or do you mean there's some discussion about that I've missed? There is a difference between "not a science" and "pseudoscience" which probably should stay (I'm not sure yet). Some aspects of "not a science" could be moved to "pseudoscience" though I'm sure. At the moment I feel this whole things is a bit of a mess - the layout needs an update, and the POV creeping in from both sides.

Damn - I see there's more reversion happening. HeadleyD, for the record, I was hoping that you'd be involved with which you thought belonged to "not-science" and which belonged to "pseudo science". Lets get some feedback and please lets not move anything until anyone else who cares about where it is has a chance to say something here (24 hours?) GregA 06:36, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Ummm... HeadleyD, AliceDeGrey... you both reverted it but neither has said what you actually think of it :) GregA 06:39, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

There was enough said in the summary. HeadleyDown 06:54, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

My apologies headleyD - I assumed you had an opinion on the subject. I do appreciate you enforcing waiting 24hours for changes that may involve some debate. I wouldn't have done it if I thought it was anything other than quite minor. GregA 07:15, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

• Well basically phrases "NLP is not a science" and "NLP as a pseudoscience" are almost synomomous so I just assumed that was your intention. I think that would tidy the article and make it more easily deciphered . --Comaze 06:44, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Do what Comaze? Where's your logic now? Anything that is not a science is a pseudoscience? You've been reading the wrong logic books. I also believe the "NLP is a pseudoscientific..." line should go right back up to the top. Just because a bunch NLP sucking flakes shake in their boots when they hear the word pseudoscience, it does not mean that you should ignore NPOV policy and put science last. CarlOxford 07:23, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

This is just silly and pointless. Just wait for people to respond before replacing after reversions. Its very simple. HeadleyDown 06:54, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Agreed, let's wait 24 hours. --Comaze 07:07, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Hi Everybody. As per my earlier recommendation, can the section not be revised along the lines of citing the studies that evaluate NLP as inneffective, then allowing any relevant responses to that criticism (as per the discussion here) then a final comment agreeable to all. If you want to have the reference to pseudoscience in the article, it would be balanced to say that 'some scientists have evaluated NLP as pseudoscientific (add relevant cites)' and then allow a response to that statement. Science per se does not make statements, only particular scientists working with particular data at particular times. CarlOxford, I don't see how refering to people working in good faith as 'NLP sucking flakes' helps matters. Lets simply cite the evidence available and let people decide. There also seems to be a fairly robust set of criterion for evaluating a pseudoscience in the relevant section which could form the basis for a similar evaluation. No-one here is saying that NLP should not be subject to scientific scrutiny. Furthermore, no one wants to suppress any of the evidence so far, just allow a reasonable discussion about it. The research database currently is way too small, and primarily centres on eye-accesing cues and primary rep systems. There are many other aspects of NLP which need to be properly evaluated. Input on experimental design would be welcomed. Those aspects of NLP focusing on the analysis of language are especially under-researched currently. (Lee 110.15 21 Sept 205)

Hello Lee. Just the other day you said: "No HeadleyDown 'science' does not say NLP is pseudoscientific. You say NLP is pseudoscientific by selectively choosing your sources and choosing to ignore others. You have no justification for claiming to speak for the field of science as a whole. You are trying to appropriate an authority that you do not have. Some scientific sources have claimed aspects of NLP (or purporting to be NLP) to be pseudoscientific, other scientific sources do not support this view." However, you have not provided any scientific sources that say NLP is not pseudoscientific. I looked for those sources and there are none. On the other hand, the sources that do say it NLP is pseudoscientific refer directly to the whole of the NLP research and the research reviews and meta-analyses. A scientific fact can be presented according to NPOV as long as it is not controverted. Your or my opinion about it does not matter. If another scientist states that NLP is not pseudoscientific, then we will have to balance things. But there is no argument. It is an accepted fact that NLP is pseudoscientific. NPOV states that science comes first, and the most important thing is simply to have a name associated with the quote. Regards.HeadleyDown 09:49, 21

Hi HeadleyD, I assume that these are the sources you refer to. 'Sala et al 1999, Thaler Singer et al 1996, Lilienfield 2003, Druckman and Swets 1988, and Carroll 2005 all criticise NLP for this problem.' Are these all independent analyses or do they refer to each other? Give me some time to look these over and the specific criticisms. Any help from other contibutors would be appreciated in this matter, especially in relation to what aspects of NLP were being tested, methodological design etc. My intention here is not to refute these findings, but to get more specific information into the article. As pointed out, the research databse does not universally support the conclusion that there is no evidence to support some of the hypotheses. Furthermore, why do you consider the published article in the peer reviewed Cybernetics and Human Knowledge by Malloy (Psychology faculty, University of Utah) and Grinder/St Clair inadmissable?

Hi. By NPOV standards they can be considered independent and quotable. Sure there are studies out there that say certain techniques work to some extent. However, the overviews or reviews of these multiple studies have shown that NLP gets a statistically negative result. Of course you may quote NLP advocates stating that it doesn't matter. But these are secondary, because they only have pseudoscientist's flim flam to help them, such as anecdotes, passing the buck, and obscurantism. This is all valid to wikipedia. But we do need to organize it in NPOV terms. There are certain priorities that are helpful and clarifying.HeadleyDown 13:02, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Hi HeadleyD. I'm working on the science part of the parallel page. I was wondering if you could clear up a reference for me?

In the pseudoscience section, you wrote:

The characteristics of pseudoscience have been identified in NLP promotion. These are (Lilienfeld et al 2003) [4]:

*The use of obscurantist language and psycho-babble (eg metaprograms, parapragmatics, sub-modalities etc)

*The absence of connectivity (Levelt 1995) (etc etc)

I see from your reference that Lilienfeld did indeed write a list of pseudoscience characteristics which you've listed in its entirety. Are you saying that Lilienfield related these all to NLP, or are you just listing what a pseudoscience is?

Thanks GregA 23:08, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Hi Greg. Sure, Lilienfeld was relating those points directly to NLP. It it best to be clear about how NLP is pseudoscientific, and although the details are in the links, it would be much clearer to state how nlp is pseudo within the article as long as there are not too many words there.

I agree we should make clear what Lilienfeld says. Could you give us a specific quote of a whole paragraph? GregA 05:10, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes Greg. He said "NLP is a pseudoscientific self help development in the same mould as Dianetics and EST. The list of characteristics are more of a definition of pseudoscience, but he also refers specifically to each characteristic within the text about NLP. In order to keep it neutral, I decided not to quote all of that in the article, it is extremely scathing and takes up too much space. As I believe Druckman and Swets said, if the claims of NLP turn out to be unsubsantiated, the verdict will be a harsh one indeed. So, the verdict IS a harsh one indeed, and has been voiced by far more scientists than just Lilienfeld. For the sake of wikipedia, though, we can try to keep it encyclopedic and neutrally toned.HeadleyDown 06:25, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Excellent, thanks Headley. GregA 10:58, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

So lets have those studies in that do support 'certain techniques' as well as those that do not. We can of course cite and discuss the specific criticisms of the studies you cite. (who?)

Sure! They are already in the article. They have been there for months. They took all studies into account. RegardsHeadleyDown 14:59, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

What is clear is that HeadleyD is clearly pushing a personal POV whilst trying to hide behind NPOV. There is no point in trying to try to get a collaborative effort going here because his mind is fully made up and he believes himself to be fully in possession of all the relevant facts.There is only one version acceptable to HeadlyD and that is his which he equates with the entirety of the scientific establishment. As a self-appointed guardian of truth and science, possibly of the professional'sceptic' variety, it is clear that he is determined to pursue his agenda to associate NLP with cult activity, Scientology and the like, based upon the three citations that he has produced to support his viewpoint which actually they do not - they merely state the research so far has produced mixed results. The only way to proceed at this point as I see it would be to engage some kind of arbitration. This seems unlikely as I can find no such facility on Wikipedia. So,the future seems to be a tedious reversion war, a nitpicking over minor points whilst we try and respect the NPOV whilst he flagrantly flouts it at every turn. By the way, to establish whether sockpuppeting is going on, all contributors could forward relevant e-mail addresses to administration to check if necessary (Lee 23.40 21sept 2005)

HeadleyD, the following quote is from the American Psychological Society- distinguishing science from pseudoscience section. 'Distinguish skepticism from cynicism. One danger of teaching students to distinguish science from pseudoscience is that we can inadvertently produce students who are reflexively dismissive of any claim that appears implausible. Skepticism, which is the proper mental set of the scientist, implies two seemingly contradictory attitudes (Sagan, 1995): an openness to claims combined with a willingness to subject these claims to incisive scrutiny. As space engineer James Oberg (see Sagan, 1995) reminded us, we must keep our minds open but not so open that our brains fall out. In contrast, cynicism implies close-mindedness. I recall being chastised by a prominent skeptic for encouraging researchers to keep an open mind regarding the efficacy of a novel psychotherapy whose rationale struck him as farfetched. However, if we foreclose the possibility that our preexisting beliefs are erroneous, we are behaving unscientifically. Skepticism entails a willingness to entertain novel claims; cynicism does not'

Furthermore, this is the verdict from the meta analysis. Quotes taken from article on sceptics dictionary site

'A few years ago Dr. Heap, Principal Clinical Psychologist for Sheffield Health Authority and lecturer at Sheffield University, did a very careful and thorough study of all the research that has been done into certain claims of NLP, citing 70 papers in all.

'This verdict on NLP is .... an interim one. Einsprech and Forman are probably correct in insisting that the effectiveness of NLP therapy undertaken in authentic clinical contexts of trained practitioners has not yet been properly investigated. If it turns out to be the case that these therapeutic procedures are indeed as rapid and powerful as is claimed, no one will rejoice more than the present author. If however these claims fare no better than the ones already investigated then the final verdict on NLP will be a harsh one indeed."

Hmm, case not closed then HeadlyD? (Lee 00.28, 22nd Sept 2005)

Hello Lee. Thanks for the pointers. RegardsHeadleyDown 04:10, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Hello all editors. I must firstly say that there is a lot of unwarranted objection here concerning HeadleyD's edits. I will go through them, and if I see anything that can be made more neutral, I will. I will not delete any cited facts because that is against NPOV. Concerning your comments, I will focus on what is actually relevant to the article. There are many editors here, not just Lee, GregA and Comaze. Like me, they treat wikipedia in a reasonable way, without posting or deleting vast tracts of objection or editing. They will, as you may have noticed, revert any deletion of facts. Take a look and you will notice this has happened over the past few days by Comaze and GregA. On a positive note, this is happening less than before. The prior weeks involved wholesale deletion of facts with Comaze's stated commitment to change the article to Bandler Grinder viewpoint only. That is completely unacceptable. If you want to write a promotional testimonial to NLP then do it elsewhere. The Carl Sagan suggestion is interesting. I have a link to some of his work that will do well in the Pseudoscience section, but I believe explanatory paragraphs will be unnecessary. The Heap reference shows that NLP is scientifically unsupported although that is almost 20 years old. Thankfully, due to NPOV editor's reversion of deleted facts, and editors peace keeping removal of fact from the first line (after objections from obviously NLP promoting people) this article is actually coming along quite well. Lets keep up the good work. JPLogan 02:26, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

• JPLogan, you've misunderstood me, my intention is to write this article according to NPOV. NLP was defined by Grinder & Bandler, with assistance from Dilts, Delozier, Cameron Bandler (NLP Vol.1, 1979). This is a commonly accepted POV (not just my POV). HeadleyDown's mysticism, fuzzy thinking energy, EST, Scientology, Dianetics, engram bias that has been mixed up with some NLP training that he has been exposed to, is simply not NLP, and does not belong in this article (except in a minor way). Gregory Bateson (NLP's foundational mentor) has no tolerance for fuzzy thinking mystical energy concepts. Energy has little or no significance in human thinking or communication. --Comaze 02:45, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

I propose that we to move to negotiation or Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee. An alternative is to work on a temporary version of this page and then allow a neutral party to select the version that is scholarly, logical, and best represents NPOV. --Comaze 23:23, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Is it possible to work collaboratively on a temporary version?

I notice the choice is arbitration or mediation. I see a mediator was involved earlier this month - should we do that again first (arbitration page requests mediation first).

Definitely good ideas GregA 23:30, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

The mediator came through RfC (Request for Comment) on use of the term "Energy". The mediator agreed that "energy" was being used in a non-standard way, and asked that it be defined. He also asked that "high performance" and "excellence" be defined. I suggest that we work on an alternative version of the page, and then move for arbitration. --Comaze 00:06, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Here is the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Template.

Hello Comaze. Considering your history and stated commitment to making the article Bandler Grinder viewpoint only, I suggest that you tread more carefully. I will work on defining the energy statement more clearly, although the suggestion to work on alternative versions is completely unnecessary. All that needs to be done is to use NPOV policy to place an appropriate quote for any of those definitions. Lets keep up the NPOV work.JPLogan 02:30, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

JPLogan, Keep in mind that Bateson has no tolerance for "fuzzy" concepts of energy in human language or thinking process (see example in Index of Angels Fear, Bateson). --Comaze 02:50, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Comaze. I seriously don't like being called a sockpuppet. Here's my email strictly for wiki discussion - alicedegrey@yahoo.co.uk. If Bateson stated something relevant to the article then simply place it appropriately according to NPOV. But there are other views that will be represented.AliceDeGrey 03:13, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

I have (edit out/withdrawn) this implied statement. My appologies. --Comaze 03:35, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Due to constant reversions it looks like we have no other choice other than arbitration. In preparation, I have set up a temporary site Talk:Neuro-linguistic programming(Temp) where I am developing an alternate version of this article. Once this alternate is of high enough quality we can seek to merge and replace sections via arbitration. --Comaze 04:46, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Hello Comaze. Now I'm going to be polite. Please stop with the large section changes. People are going to see it as a distraction or confusion tactic. If you want to make changes, simply do it incrementally, leaving time for people to assess your first proposed change. Nobody has had a chance to comment on it yet. It is easily accessible from the history page. Personally I will say that it is biased towards Grinder, and it should not have the scientific description of its methods removed. Basically do not remove facts. Keep them there, and work cooperatively.HeadleyDown 04:28, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Yeh for sure, the provisional version is not good at all. Firstly, it removes key facts, and secondly it is no way near as neutral as the "view of all" version.AliceDeGrey 05:30, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

The alternate version is not complete yet. I'll ask for comments and opinions from neutral parties and it will be copyedited before an arbitrator is called. --Comaze 05:48, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

The arbitration process has already began. I suggest that you improve the quality of your "version". I will incorporate any of your contributions if they are of high quality and in line with NPOV. --Comaze 04:46, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Hello Comaze. What exactly do you mean by two different versions?HeadleyDown 04:55, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

HeadleyDown, May I suggest that you put your attention towards cleaning up your version by removing POV and commentary, and I'll incorporate any high quality changes in the alternate version, an external arbitrator will be called to settle and resolve any NPOV disputes, and replace or merge the two versions. RfCs can also be called as part of a mediation process before arbitration. --Comaze 05:48, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Hi comaze and Headley and other interested editors. I've no idea whether setting up 2 independent pages will resolve differences, but it's an interesting idea and I'm willing to give it a go. In the interests of eventual merging, I hope it's fair for the "supporting faction" to invite the "pseudoscience faction" (is that a fair name?) and others to make comments in the talk section of each other's pages, so that alternative views can be integrated.

Also, I think it's still worth considering the overall layout of the page for either/both - especially in light of eventual merging (I don't think either is in the desired structure yet!) GregA 12:04, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Neuro-linguistic_programming&oldid=23739724

Hi all. Here is a brief version of the article. This is in response to the other external editor who came a few days ago. My intention is to get the article down to size whilst keeping all the main facts in a readable format. I deliberately cut a lot of the examples as they took up a lot of space and were not really so exemplary. As far as I am aware, I did not cut any referenced material. I took time to explain each of the various parts of NLP (the neuro, the linguistic etc in the overview. I also cut a lot of the critical section down, placing some of the scientific finding in the main article because they are mostly neutral statement of fact, rather than criticisms per se. The article file size is way down.

Oh, I should add, a lot of removal was intended to reduce confusion inherent in NLP, in order for the reader to manage to get through it without having to look up strange NLP obscurantisms. They really do make the language very biased.

Feedback will be appreciated.HeadleyDown 09:16, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Hello Headly. Feedback: The new article is SERIOUSLY biased, concentrating almost entirely on negative claims about NLP but without an intelligent questioning of the validity of those claims. To suggest that this article is unbaised is simply unsupportable.

Hello Lee. I have a chance to be more specific. The views protrayed here are fact. They conform to NPOV.HeadleyDown 11:24, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

For example: A and B say NLP is a cult. OK, now what definition of a "cult" is being used here? How specifically does NLP qualify as a cult within that definition?

Hello again Lee. The defition of cult is clearly spelt out in the literature. It also conforms with wikipedia's article on cults.HeadleyDown 11:24, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Does the fact that the Naziis highjacked the theory of evolution mean that the theory of evolution is an inherently Nazi ideology? No? Then why is NLP to be associated with Scientology and other cults just because those cults use certain techniques which are similar to methods found in NLP, especially when Scientology, for example, pre-dates NLP by around 20 years and so certainly didn't get its ideas FROM NLP.

No, from the article, it is more clear to take a Dianetics-NLP process viewHeadleyDown 11:24, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

If you were to take the time to look at the back of The Structure OF MAGIC l you would wind a lengthy list of the people and books Grinder and Bandler used in developing their ideas. I don't see L. Ron Hubbard in there. Do you?

Hi again Lee. I would restrict your view to the inside of books. Any cover tends to be promotional. Although, I understand that NLP books are about as promotional on the inside as the cover.HeadleyDown 11:24, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

If this version of the article is posted it will be a triumph of pure bigotry, IMHO.

Hello again Lee. I believe your term bigotry is quite biased. Though, I am quite happy to balance it with "scientific" if you like.HeadleyDown 11:24, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

HeadleyD, I note you have been responding to a contributor who has not been signing their ID as Lee. None of these contributions are from me. I take care to sign any contributions. I do not know who the above contributor is, but please do not assume that they from me or respond as if they are. However, assuming that know things when you are mistaken seems to be a strong point of yours Lee1 16:32, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Hello Lee. Actually you have missed signing a few times. Its a little confusing. Doesn't really matter though. As long as you have something factual to contribute within NPOV policy.HeadleyDown 17:30, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Hello HeadleyD. Your version is far better. Very concise and much reduced redundancy. I'll revert it up there myself. I suggest that if anyone wants to add to it, it should be strictly withing NPOV, using very concise language. I will get to work on it straight away. If anyone worries about anything being left out, instead of reverting please paste the passages you think need pasting, and we can get right down to distilling them to encyclopedic status. Great stuff.JPLogan 02:08, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback folks. I have added some things to the article. I gave a concise definition and explanation of principles. A few references were added also. I kept is as clear and well referenced as possible to avoid disputes as much as possible. I did change the order and wording of the research. Actually, I was not the original poster of those pieces of information, so I made the language more neutral and fitting with the actual review/published papers. I removed a few point that were not referenced. Feel free to reference them and paste them back if possible or necessary. regardsHeadleyDown 07:03, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

I also like the brevified/concise version in preference to the longer one.

ps. You may have noticed the other page is largely comaze POV at present. This is not a implicit acceptance of the POV, just my attention is elsewhere for now.

Sure GregA. I understand it is quite hard sometimes to seperate hype from fact. Best thing is to learn as much about NPOV as possible. Your balance has been noted by others also.JPLogan 03:53, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Hi. You have clearly been doing loads of stuff. I'll get my act together and get the linkwords into links to other pages when I have time. TataAliceDeGrey 08:03, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Its extremely good, Headley. It looks much more like an encyclopedia article now. I would say that the principles of NLP do need to be there, or the presuppositions. But they only need to be placed there as a 3 or 4 line paragraph without the NLP hype and boosterisms. I noticed you have removed a lot of redundancy from the whole page. That's great. This is actually the first time I saw you remove anything from the article (unlike other editors). You did it very neutrally as far as my perception goes. I would also like to hear feedback from outside sources. best regardsAliceDeGrey 09:44, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

That version is easier to read and cleans up the critcism section nicely. Good job. I do have a few objection though. Firstly, my concern is that it makes 10 references to Scientology:

• 6 direct references to Dianetics (the original name for Scientology),
• 2 to Scientology.
• 2 to engram (the central concept in Scientology that has been dropped from neuroscience).

Additionally, this version uses Scientology terminology and implied that it is Science terminology (eg. engram, clearing, traumas, ...). References to NLP as a methodology for modeling high performers has also been removed (this is a widely held definition and needs to be represented). Just wanted to bring these issues to your attention so that you can clean it up. But otherwise, a good job in outlining your position. I'll merge it into the alternate version. --Comaze 09:52, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Hey Comaze. The engram is the central concept of anchoring, eye accessing cues, and the mind/body part of NLP. I s'pose its better to be called a sockpuppet than a gurusuckpuppet. C.Oxford@hotmail.comCarlOxford 09:01, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Engram the central concept in anchoring? hmmm, let's see, Pavlov's classical conditioning rings a bell. --211.30.48.164 03:29, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Sure Comaze. I will post in the references to back up the related viewpoints on scientology. From off the top of my head, I believe it was a prof of psycholinguistics who mentioned scientology. BTW, dianetics is still used within scientology. So you could say it was the original name, but it would be more accurate to say they are slightly seperate subjects. Whatever, if a view states the word scientology, then by NPOV, that is the word that will end up in the article. Sure, the reference to engrams and traumas etc was from a Dutch researcher. I will add the reference (if I have not already done so). I can also write, "just as in scientology and dianetics NLP uses the engram concept...etc". But I don't think that will be necessary as it is a widely known concept in psychology (though largely debunked). RegardsHeadleyDown 10:36, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Hi All, I decided to check out further the studies cited by Headlyd as as per his previous quote 'reviews and meta-analyses have given NLP a conclusively negative assessment (Bleimeister, 1988) (Morgan, 1993) (Platt, 2001) (Bertelsen, 1987)'

I started with the most recent. Platt 2001 refers to an article in Tuk magazine, Training Journal, it is not a study - its references are Dylan Morgan as does HeadlyD. So I checked the Morgan reference. Morgan 1993 refers to an article listed in the sceptical dictionary, 'A scientific assessment of NLP'. It is not a study in itself, instead referring to the meta study conducted by Dr Heap quoted above which states that NLP has been insufficiently researched. Contrary to the impression he tries to give, these are articles that all refer to each other! Check this guys refs carefully, he is being misleading in the extreme. In the alternate version for arbitration, I propose we cite the studies such as Dr Heaps VERBATIM (Lee 10.49 Sept 2005)

Hello Lee. If you have been refering to the web versions you will notice that they have been cut short, without the references or the abstract. You will find crossreferencing in some, but that is simply because they are reviews of all prior research. My statements were neutral. Unsupported means that there was no evidence to conclude that NLP's assumptions or efficacy was correct, and if you take time to read what I had written, you will notice that I did write Heap's statement verbatim.HeadleyDown 10:08, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

HeadleyD, from the article... 'For example the conjecture that a person has a primary representational system (PRS) which is observed in the choice of words has been found to be false according to rigorous research reviews (Morgan, 1993) (Platt, 2001). The assertion that a person has a PRS which can be determined by the direction of eye movements found even less support (Morgan, 1993)' - this is a blatant manipulation of the facts. Rigorous research? Morgan is an article referring to the Heap Study, Platt in that bastion of peer review science 'Training Journal UK' referring to the Dylan article selectively misquoting the Heap study to support a misinformed and blatantly biasd POV. You are being deliberately obscurant. Lets submit that sentence to arbitration shall we. (Lee 11.19 22 sept 2005)

For example, I note you left the first half of Heaps quote out -'This verdict on NLP is .... an interim one. Einsprech and Forman are probably correct in insisting that the effectiveness of NLP therapy undertaken in authentic clinical contexts of trained practitioners has not yet been properly investigated' Any particular reason? Not entirely supportive of your POV is it? You should remove all references to Morgan and Platt as being rigorous research and cite their references e.g Heap. (Lee 11.28 22 Sept 2205)

Hi Lee. For the sake of conciseness and precision, scientifically unsupported will do. It is the same thing in science. As I said, of course subsequent reviews will also take into account the prior ones. That is the nature of scientific examination. By NPOV standards they are completely acceptable. RegardsHeadleyDown 10:36, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

'For the sake of conciseness and precision, scientifically unsupported will do' - says who? You, I suppose. The very reason neutral arbitration is required. How is leaving out the one half of the actual verdict precise exactly? 'As I said, of course subsequent reviews will also take into account the prior ones. That is the nature of scientific examination'- nonsense. Neither Platt nor Morgan are scientific reviews in any way as well you know. (Lee 11.50 22 sept 2005)

Hi Lee. I've collected most of the source material from our uni database and library. I don't see any problems yet. The term "scientifically unsupported" is used several times for describing what they conclude about the whole research into NLP. Briefness is absolutely fine to keep the filesize down. I reckon you need to go back to NPOV and also take a proper look through the actual material. Instead of all the silly bickering, why not just work on doing something useful with the NLP page? For example, what do you think needs adding to the provisional page without overstuffing it with hype? I suggest a brief paragraph on principlesAliceDeGrey 10:57, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Hi Alice. Well, we'll just have to agree to disagree about the sources. I'm fine with quoting scientific studies verbatim in a balanced way as per Dr Heap, but to refer to Platt and MOrgan as rigorous scientific research is misleading. I'll incorporate this in the alt version. I will put together a paragraph on principles in coming days as you suggest. (Lee 12.14 22 Sept 2005)

Sounds fine to me, Lee. As long as it is representative. I have a whole bunch more refs coming in BTW. So much to do, so little time!HeadleyDown 12:01, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Great, lets hope they're all of the same high standard as your previous ones. I found this from Druckman Swets report - 'the committee found promise in the importance that NLP attributes to decoding an expert 's behavior as a guide to training a beginner' . More selective editing Headleyd. Really Lee1 15:35, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Hello Lee. I take the view from the latest research. That gives the best overview. From that point it is very easy to see the actual conclusive results of each study. You are quoting from the speculative sections. Really, they were all conclusive studies (No scientific support for the assumptions or efficacy of NLP). This is the general understanding of how published papers are read. The fact is, if it is some significant person's opinion (eg, the views of a scientist), then it will be represented according to NPOV policy.HeadleyDown 16:45, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Great, got some good ones coming up for you. Lee1 18:24, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

HeadleyD - you are right that if a researcher is aggregating research from multiple sources that it is crucial to differentiate between the experimental results and the conclusions generated from those results. Low quality aggregated studies may neglect go back to the source of evidence they're working with. Their conclusions are very important though - they describe how the results fit with other theories and studies, flaws in their procedure and suggestions for further research. If you choose to reinterpret their results with your own conclusions, then you are operating outside of NPOV. GregA 22:46, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Hi GregA. Just make a simple quote. If someone says, "all the reviews of the studies of NLP indicate that the theory and efficacy are scientifically unsupported", then they can be quoted as such. If you get into "this single study says this and that single study says that", you are going make a 500k page. Also, you are not allowed to come to your own conclusions. It has to be other people's work as per NPOV policy. RegardsHeadleyDown 00:43, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Headley, yes you can quote someone as saying something. Though, until it is checked for validity etc, it's anecdotal.

Of course, a finding in a research paper is different, and holds more weight. If I write a paper and quote a finding, then it is not me who said it - though you could quote me as saying whether I agreed or not - though that's my opinion unless I'm adding some new research findings to the fact.

Anyway... lets take this attribution to Platt (2001)

• Most evidence used by NLP practitioners to promote the use of NLP appears to be “unsubstantiated, uncorroborated or entirely anecdotal”
• However, NLP "models" have been rigorously reviewed and tested by independent scientists but the results show that NLP has “no significant scientific support”
• The assertion that a person has a PRS which can be determined by the direction of eye movements found even less support
• Since then objective and empirical studies and review papers have consistently shown NLP to be ineffective and reviews or meta-analyses have given NLP a conclusively negative assessment
• In sum, NLP promotes methods which are false, inaccurate or ineffective
• etc

Platt actually says

• that 11/32 of studies on matching predicates found that they influenced rapport, 21/32 didn't
• 8/35 studies on eye-accessing cues found that using them had a significant impact when utilised in personal interactions. Yes, that means 27/35 found they did not have a significant impact on the interaction (which is also different to us not having eye-accessing cues).
• 7/36 found evidence supporting the use of rep systems - but 29/36 found no evidence to support the use of rep systems. (Note again, this finding is specifically for using the rep systems giving no advantage)
• 5/9 studies found the phobia cure effective

Personally, I've found when using various predicates that for a lot of people they have no impact at all. And then I meet someone who uses one or 2 systems extensively, and when I've deliberately used the systems they don't use they simply do not understand - until I rephrase in their own predicates. I don't know how you'd test for that kind of effect, or if any of the studies Platt read allowed for that kind of effect. And it doesn't matter here for NPOV

All we can say from that perspective is that NLP proponents have criticised psychological studies for not formulating a hypothesis that correctly reflects the pattern discovered and where it is useful. And that NLP teaches that different patterns are useful only in certain situations, and flexibility to choose a relevant pattern is one of the skills taught during training.

We can play the add-up game, though that's not scientific. My point is that Platt DOES condemn eye-accessing cues (etc), but that that is his opinion when reading the above-mentioned research. Platt's summary itself only conclusively shows that the studies are contradictory and inconclusive, and we need better research.

GregA 02:28, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Sure GregA. Good questions. As an encyclopedia article though a breakdown of results will simply be confusing. I can't see how we can do that within the article without causing a mess. I think you may have a slightly different idea of anecdotal from most people:) There are some people who think NLP is the science of attaining an unfair advantage in business, and others who's view is that it is a pseudoscientific grab bag of banality and second hand opinion. Best to stick to clear descriptions and what people's views are, as in NPOV policy (IMHO).RegardsHeadleyDown 03:48, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Of course you can't give a breakdown of results, it would cause a mess and also would not be helpful.

What you can say is that the research varies widely in its results, and more (and better) research is required. You can say that some people believe the different results prove it's not effective, while others believe it proves the researchers didn't perform the patterns appropriately, and that better research is required.

You mention 2 (of many!) biased descriptions of NLP and then say it's best to stick to clear descriptions - how do you define clear, when the scientific opinion is also divided? GregA 04:00, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Hi Greg. Best way is to stick with concluding comments and then quote a name. I'm actually still working on that. I am not sure about divisions though. There is a division in terms of single studies and reviews. The single studies will say some, none, some, no, a little, weak to no support, and on. The reviews all come to the conclusion that NLP is scientifically unsupported. The books that quote the reviews all come to the same conclusion (nlp assumptions and efficacy are theoretically and scientifically unsupported). RegardsHeadleyDown 05:03, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm afraid I detect potential problems in the proposed re-write.

Firstly, I don't see any awareness of the limitations of trying to apply the scientific method to psychology in general. At the start of his book "The Mind's Past", Michael Gazzaniga makes the specific point that "psychology" is not susceptible to the experimental rigor that can be applied in areas such as neuropsychology, neurophysiology, etc.

Nor do I see any recognition that one cannot prove a negative, which in this case means that failure to prove a spwecific NLP concept in a particular experiment does not *prove* - as is usually claimed - that this *disproves* some claim made by NLPers.

Nor do I see any consideration of the viability of the people being referenced. Skimming through the article I almost immediately spotted one person who I know has a highly personal grudge against one particular NLP trainer which he has projected onto NLP in general (I know because we've excghanged several e-mails with the person concerned). Likewise I have been informed that one online author of material highly critical of NLP has never attended an NLP training or group of any description and is therefore making many totally unfounded allegations entirely out of his own imagination/prejudices/second, third, fourth, fifth-hand reports.

Nor do I see any awareness that there all that carries the label of NLP doesn't necessarily belong within NLP. For example, whilst the current articles make numerous references to the work of Robert Dilts, there is a growing awareness that some of his best known ideas - so-called logical levels being a prime example - don't actually make a whole lot of sense and don't fit in with the basic concepts of "true" NLP - see Grinder's comments in "Whispering in the Wind" for example.

It seems to me that what is needed as a starting point for a genuinely useful article on NLP is a far clearer definition of what will and won't be counted as "NLP". I realise whatever result is arrived at is bound to be somewhat arbitrary, but I don't see any way round that. After all, whatever article is produced, it can still carry pointers to other topics as being allegedly associated with NLP.

Please don't get me wrong. I totally agree that some pretty ludicrous claims have been made in favour of NLP, and some of the criticisms are entirely justified. However, this does NOT invalidate NLP itself. The ill-advised actions of the over-enthusiastic neither validate nor invalidate the object of their enthusiasm. If they did then surely the entire article would consist of nothing but "A says this about NLP, but B, C and D say that". Which gives us great insight into what A thinks, and why B, C and D don't agree - but doesn't actually tell us much about NLP.

Rather than take up a lot more space here, may I invite you to visit this FAQ on my website which deals specifically with experiments on the "eye accessing cues" and relates this to the question of scientific testability of NLP in general.

http://www3.mistral.co.uk/bradburyac/nlpfax09.htm

Andy Bradbury (author of "Develop Your NLP Skills")

OH! Hello again Andy Bradbury. Sorry, do you share the same IP address as Lee?HeadleyDown 11:29, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Hi Andy, Thanks for your comments, they're good to see. There are a few of us here who see HeadleyD and JPLogan as hugely biased in their posting - and a few of us are now posting on the (Temp) site (see the pointer at the top of the article). This has meant our articles have started to differ greatly - which will make it hard to pull back together - though it also means we've got a short opportunity to spell out our takes on the subject. The pseudo-science group has simplified their argument and got down to what they are saying. The proponent group is still in progress (and we could do with input or general comments anyone!) towards simplifying it. In that sense, it's been worthwhile.

However, depending on negotiation/mediation/arbitration, we could end up where we started. Hopefully we'll atleast get some of the site matching together through agreement and reading each other's stuff. More when mediation starts, and if that doesn't make it the arbitration will make the final call. Hopefully we'll start a meaningful dialogue soon and get the ball rolling. Thanks again, GregA 10:03, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Thankyou GregA. You are turning out to be a promising source of balance:) RegardsHeadleyDown 10:47, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Hallo Greg. You seem fair enough, and certainly compared to the nlp zealots who have been trying to turn an encyclopedia into a sales pitch competition. From ABradbury's link, I'd say its pretty obvious he knows absolutely zip about science. His books keep going on about how NLP is the most powerful synthesis of psychology in the biz world etc. The books are just like the other nlp books; Completely without any realistic view of psychology, human nature, or work. He even said psychology is not science. Tell that to psychology students who measure people in studies. The link talks about doing good research and how to do it, and then comes back with stuff about science being inappropriate for testing nlp. Its just a lot of confused and frustrated ranting because the results don't agree with nlpee claims. I learned a lot from nlp: Mostly about deception and self delusion. Sorry mate, you've been duped.CarlOxford 09:12, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Hi Carl, I was just chatting to my father yesterday about the NLP school I studied with. I was saying how lucky I was to have picked one that didn't support some of the crap other schools are known for. It was largely luck for me - I picked the school that was a government-recognised training organisation with government accredited trainers... I didn't know how else to pick between trainings. They made no grand claims in their sales, and in class the grandest claim was that NLP patterns are more effective than what psychologists are teaching for change work. What psychologists are teaching is interesting too, I enjoy the theory and some of it influences how I counsel people. It's also interesting in light of the gap between applied clinical skills and the research area which psychologists continually talk about trying to reduce - the scientific rigours are too difficult to apply in some settings, though outcome-based research is a good step in that direction. Anyway - the skills I learned work well, and in combination with my counselling background. I don't choose to use rep systems or eye-accessing stuff, a lot of what I work with is presuppositions, association/dissociation, state management, the meta-model, and ecology - and a lot of that is similar to CBT and REBT stuff. GregA 03:22, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Hello Andy (81.158.79.60). As a contributor to wikipedia it is not acceptable to submit your own work. Please refer to NPOV policy. Concerning grudges etc: It does not matter what anybody submits as long as it falls within NPOC policy (it has to be not your own work, but a stated view of somebody, preferably with a cited name attached (for verification). We should not be promoting our own views, rather building a balanced article. Admittedly, over the past few weeks there has been a reversion conflict. This has led to some extremism and some extensive deletions of cited fact. The dual page effort has led to a level of improvement that has not been possible over the past two weeks. Statements have been properly attributed, comments and partisan views have been removed, tone has been improved, and fact has had a chance to be heard. Balance remains to be attained, and I can see people are working on it. Neutral definitions have been attained with a NPOV policy towards science rather than pseudoscience as stated in the policy of wikipedia. Today, the page has undergone a large deletion of fact, with no NPOV reasoning for it. Under the circumstances, the only remedy is to revert the page. There are far less destructive solutions when you look through NPOV policy and tutorial. Cooperation is crucial here. We will all benefit by working together. RegardsHeadleyDown 10:16, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Headley

Hello Andy Bradbury. I'm afraid that is correct. Your own work is not admissable. It will be taken into account though. Luckilly the page is currently being converted to neutral language and balance and looks to be making grand progress.JPLogan 06:01, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

My sole reason for referencing my web page is because the FAQ in question is approx. 5,000 words long, and whilst it is all about other people's work - with references - I thought that might be a bit large to dump here.

What I would like to know now is how I may go about submitting a genuinely neutral article on NLP. That is to say, an article which presents the facts of the matter without all the spurious references that are presently included, and without trying to arbitrate on which side is "right" or "wrong." For example, ALL of the current content on "pseudoscience" is a pure red herring. NLP never has been a "science" itself, though it is indeed supported in *some* respects by scientific research. As far as I can see, this, like the utterly false allegations of a connection between NLP and Scientology and/or est and/or the Landmark Forum, have been introduced as an excuse to beat NLP about the head (so to speak), which is why I claim your new version is still unacceptably bigoted - not to say poorly researched.

I know precisely where this twaddle has been copied from, more or less verbatim, and you may care to know that - according to the information I have - the person concerned has made this up out of second, third and fourth hand information plus a mountain of imagination and ignorance of the subject. Which is to say, NONE of it, as far as I know, is based on genuine first-hand experience. So what the heck is the point of referencing this stuff as though it were an informed opinion.

As to my reference to the person with the grudge, are you sure this doesn't matter when it has led to the person in question creating lists which include URLs for sites which allegedly refute some aspect of NLP but which in reality don't even mention "neuro-linguistic programming" because they are about some technical aspect of "natural language processing" which the person who created the list clearly doesn't understand? Again - lots of bigotry and hold the fried facts. Is THAT really the kind of material that Wikipedia is looking for?

Hello again Andy. The work done on this version of the article is in the process of being validated by a lot more than one editor. If there are any erroneous references, then they will be eventually removed. If you know for sure which refs are wrong, then it may be useful for us to know. Presently we do have two pages running together. Previously the NLP biased editors were removing verified fact, and this was causing problems. Even today this was done by a committed narrowly Bandler/Grinder biased editor. The plan is to work on each page in tandem. If you work on the parallel page, it will also give you time to check on any refs from this page that you feel may be wrong. If there is any merging to be done, then we can sort out which refs are actually wrong. Bigotry, grudges, and first hand experience really do not come into it. The article simply follows wikipedia NPOV policy. Follow the link and have a look at the tutorial also. RegardsHeadleyDown 16:41, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Headley, how can you tell Andy that his website is personal opinion and inadmissable and then refer to his website to support your own POV?

Hello. NPOV states that your submissions may not be your own work.JP.JPLogan 06:01, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Dear JPL - I take your point, and accept it as far as I can. What I'm wondering now is where you think there is a single entry on the whole of Wikipedia that ISN'T someone's personal opinion? Even the choice of who to quote and who to leave out is a direct demonstration of the writer's personal opinion.

Take the opening line of the page as it currentlyt stands:

"Neuro-linguistic programming (NLP) is a quasi-spiritual behavior-modification (or "performance psychology") technique"

1. In what sense is NLP "quasi-spiritual"? Who says so? We are given O'Connor and McDermott as references - but apart from having written some books about NLP, what part did they have in creating or developing it? None. They are offering an opinion. We are also offered Dilts as a reference. But much of Dilts' work, thougfh he was there at an early stage in the development, is pure nonsense. John Grinder, in his recent book "Whisperiing in the Wind" specifically questions whether ideas developed by Dilts, in particular so-call logical levels, has anything to do with genuine NLP. Bandler has moved on to the study of some genuinely spiritual areas, such as shamanism. But NLP and Bandler are NOT the same thing. Which is why Bandler has invented new names for the various stages of his progress - DHE(tm), NHR(tm), etc.

2. The term "behaviour-modification" has a specific meaning in psychology and relartes to the work of the behaviourists, and to the work of B.F. Skinner in particular. The underpinnings of NLP, however, are akin to cognitive therapy - which was as much as anything a revolt AGAINST behaviourism.

3. NLP is NOT "a" technique - it IS "modeling." All the techniques and methodologies are tools for carrying out the modeling process (of which there are variation), they are NOT actually NLP. Therefore the VAST majority of the Wikipedia article is NOT about NLP but about techniques (PLURAL) intended to support the model process. Source - John Grinder.

4. On a similar note the article quotes a number of sources who CLAIM that NLP is a cult. Duh! I can find numerous sources, even today, who claim the Earth is flat. Just quoting references is greasy kids' stuff. There are certain basic features of a cult which NLP completely fails to meet, which est only partly met, and which Landmark Forums hardly meets at all. For example:

(a) References are made to Large Groups - but this has nothing to do with NLP itself. **Some** NLP trainers currently provide training for a hundred or more people at a time, but the vast majority go for a dozen or two. (b) Who is the sole figurehead of NLP, as in Sun Mung Moon, Ron L. Hubbard, Werner Erhardt, etc.? In desperation Tony Robbins is wheeled out, BUT Tony Robbins is NOT part of NLP. He may have been on courses headed by Richard Bandler, but he has set up his own organization with it's own title and its own agenda. Robbins has had no part in the creation or development of NLP and does not represent NLP in any way, shape or form.

In reality the current article starts in error and proceeds downhill at a rate of knots - not "despite" the referred to sources, but because so many of the sources are worthless. They may indeed have said and/or written what they are quoted as having said/written - but since they are speaking of that which they know not of - so what?.

NEXT

Thank you to Carl Oxford - your post illustrates exactly the kind of argumentation that stands between us and the creation of a genuine neutral article on NLP:

"From ABradbury's link, I'd say its pretty obvious he knows absolutely zip about science."

Actually I did two years of utterly worthless "experiments" in psychology whilst doing a degree in Social Psychology. Now Carl *could* have asked what, if anything, I know about science – just as the “editors” of the article *could* go out and gather some genuine facts - but instead Carl just jumps to a conclusion that fits with the point he wants to make, without asking any questions at all.

"His books keep going on about how NLP is the most powerful synthesis of psychology in the biz world etc."

This is interesting, since it exactly demonstrates my point about invalid sources. It is undoubytedly true that Carl has made this statement BUT it is a load of codswallop. Firstly most of my books have been about programming computers rather than people – I’ve only had one book on NLP (as in neuro-linguistic programming) published to date, though a previous book on Turbo Prolog did feature various stuff on NLP (natural language processing). Secondly, I make the statement Carl quotes just ONCE. Thirdly, Carl has carefully edited the quote. What I actually wrote was

"NLP has ... become what is probably the most comprehensive synthesis of modern psychological knowledge around today."

Note, not "is" but the qualified "***probably*** is", not ALL psychology but "modern psychology", and NOT "in the biz world" but the deliberately vague "around today" - because who knows when things will change, or whether there's a competitor already that I don't know about.

So, since Carl has obviously read at least that part of that book, why, like the editors of the Wiki article, is he indulging in wild and inaccurate generalisations?

"The books are just like the other nlp books; Completely without any realistic view of psychology, human nature, or work."

Actually, after taking a degree in social psychology I have spent rather more than a quarter of a century as a training and personnel manager, training consultant, training manager, business trainer and (for 8 of those years) tutor and deputy principal in a 6th form college.

Now, if Carl had said something like “in my opinion the books are ...” I might point out that I’ve read and reviewed well over 100 books on NLP, and none of them are “just like” my book, or "just like" each other. But I would also be able to agree that Carl is entitled to his opinion, no matter how misguided I may think it is. The article, likewise, fails time and again to distinguish between opinion and fact.

"He even said psychology is not science. Tell that to psychology students who measure people in studies."

I say it, and Michael Gazzaniga and many others say it. Having been one of those students, I stand by my claim. Part of the problem in Carl’s position is that he uses the label “psychology” as a gigantic generalisation. When I was at university there were four different branches of psychology in four different schools. IMO, of the four, only what was then called “experimental psychology” – which covered stuff like sticking probes into rats brains, which would now be more accurately described as neuropsychology – was susceptible to genuine “scientific” investigation.

"The link talks about doing good research and how to do it, and then comes back with stuff about science being inappropriate for testing nlp."

Yes, and I explain why. It seems *to me* that a further problem here is the assumption that NLP “ought” to be subject to scientific investigation if it is to be valid. To which I can only suggest that we prohibit all psycho-therapy until someone scientifically demonstrates the existence of the “id”, the “ego” and the “super ego” and explains exactly where they are located.

Like I say, this whole topic of NLP as a “pseudoscience” is a complete red herring.

"Its just a lot of confused and frustrated ranting because the results don't agree with nlpee claims."

On the contrary, I explain how, if KH and his associates had understood what they were doing, they would realise that they had, if anything, confirmed the claims of NLP. However, I put that forward as a highly qualified observation specifically BECAUSE - and here I would like to return to the question of "pseudo-science" – in the first place the experiment was a model of bad (ineffective) design, and secondly it is not possible IMO to perform psychology experiments, in the area that NLP occupies, which get consistent results. And replicatability is the key issue in turning a hypothesis into anything stronger, according to the scientific method. As a matter of interest I have discussed the experiments, by e-mail, with two of the three people concerned.

Likewise the Wiki article quotes all sorts of stuff about NLP being “pseudoscience” without bothering to explain what each referenced author means by “pseudoscience” and without addressing the fact that NLP has never claimed to be a “science” in the first place.

Hell Andy Bradbury. I have to say, you exhibit the most pseudoscientific thinking I have ever seen. You say: "For many people, one of the most attractive features of the genuine NLP techniques, is their essentially pragmatic nature. That is to say, the various techniques are only there because they have worked for someone at some time in the past, and not because someone has theorised that any particular technique ought to work. By the same token, it is recognised that no technique will work every time, or under all circumstances, or for everyone.

"On that basis, firstly it has to be said that this just one of many models in the NLP toolkit. Even if it turned out that the eye accessing cues model is entirely wrong (and there is no evidence to support that assertion), it really wouldn't affect the validity of any other model or technique, or of NLP itself."

This begs the question of what would falsify the validity of NLP? Apparently nothing can according to you. If NLP cannot be falsified then you have just placed it outside the realm of science into pseudoscience because to be scientific, an idea must be testable and falsifiable. According to what you state here, there is no way to do this because they can just come up with another "pragmatic" idea. However, it is testable, because it has been tested (with negative results).

Another big problem here is with the NLP "modeling" procedure itself. You generalize directly from observations without actually doing scientific studies using statistical methods to really see if you have "modeled" correctly. In the case of eye movements, studies showed that their observations did not stand up to the test of properly controlled research.

And yes, you do reverse the burden of proof. If you think this study was so flawed, this still doesn't address the issue of why NLP proponents have not done studies that they would consider fair tests and then submit them to peer reviewed journals.

There is also a dwelling on minutae that are irrelevant to the criticism of the study (e.g., saying that the author used the NLP jargon incorrectly in calling eye accessing cues a "state"). This is a tactic I've seen often used by proponents of pseudoscientific practices. In short, you are a pseudoscientific thinker. If it were up to you to write this article, you would probably end up convincing nobody but Tom Cruise (and the other NLP idiots who constantly try to use their rotten NLPeeing weaselyness to twist the facts to their map of unreality).RWilkinson 10:11, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Wilkinson See my "three propositions below." Invalidate any or all of those propositions and you effectively invalidate NLP.

Apart from that, as I understand it, you believe that the difference between "eye accessing cues" and "state" is "minutae." This suggests to me that you have very little understanding of even the most basic concepts in NLP and on that basis, since I don't intend to try to bring you up to speed in this forum, I cannot answer you adequately - so in fairness to both of us this is all the answer I'm prepared to give.
Andy

Andy. Let me explain: You write a book stating stuff like "NLP is one of the most powerful tools ever made available to the biz community", you say people are categorized as V,A or K in their thinking styles, using scientific sounding terms, you say it is about the brain and neurology, and you say NLP ignores science. Now, I know that NLP uses as much behavioural science as it does cognitive (eg anchoring). I know that you criticise single experiments on PRS using ad hoc hypotheses after the findings in order to explain them away. You use negative results in order to promote nlp. Your view is a pseudoscientific view, and you have demonstrated all the hallmarks of pseudoscientific thinking and argument. There is a significantly represented view that also says nlp is pseudoscientific. These views come from health specialists, scientists, ex NLPers, cult exit people etc. Perhaps communication is the result you get. You explained very clearly and gave a crystal clear image of your pseudoscientific view. So, your arguments place you together with Ron Hubbard and his dianetics concerns. That is not just my view, and I can quote my sources. This is not a posterboard for "NLP the science, technology, attitude, unfair advantage" etc. This is an encylopedia and will follow NPOV policy. I suggest you read up on NPOV.CarlOxford 03:39, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Carl, firstly, thank you for your courteous communication.

Secondly, I'm afraid I do not accept the argument you put forward, because you are discussing the TECHNIQUES not NLP. You also treat the entire subject as though there were only two options: "science" and "pseudo-science." IMO there are very few things in the "real" world which can be divided into just two groups - and this isn't one of them. There are AT LEAST three groupings: "science," "pseudo-science," and "non-scientific." These are *my* definitions of the three groups:

"science" - the study of phenomena which can be investigated using the "scientific method"
"pseudo-science" - studies of, or reports on phenomena which **purport** to be scientific but which are actually either so badly carried out that they don't warrant the description "scientific," or which claim to be scientific but aren't actually using the "scientific method" in any recognisable form.
"non-scientific" - areas of activity and/or investigation where the "scientific method" is not a relevant item or where it *might* be applicable but isn't being used and no attempt is being made to claim that the activity or investigation is "scientific."

Now, if you were to claim that *some* people within the NLP community are making ludicrous claims about the "scientific" validity of their models then I would definitely agree. In fact another of the FAQs on my own website specifically addresses that kind of behaviour, explains why it's a load of rubbish - giving a specific very well-known example - and deprecates such behaviour as being likely to bring NLP itself into disrepute.

And that is exactly the point I am making below.

If we separate NLP from the techniques associated with NLP then we have, IMO, a genuine basis for substantial agreement.
Andy

Hello Andy. You have some points here, but they are only part of the array of the points of view of all. By NPOV standards the article needs to follow NPOV policy. Some people have stated that NLP is pseudoscientific, and those people are scientists. The general view of scientist who know the subject of NLP is that NLP is pseudoscientific, and that must be represented on the page. There is an explanation of that also on the page, with a list of pseudoscientific factors presented. Subjects do not have to claim to be science to be called pseudoscientific. All they need to do is make claims for efficacy etc. Besides, some NLP people do claim that it is a science. NLP is a confusing subject because of the claims people make about it, and the conflicting ideas internal to it. Presently the article does a good job of organizing those claims and ideas within an encyclpedic format. It will continue to improve and add verifiable fact from diverse sources. RegardsHeadleyDown 01:52, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

There is a basic flaw in this comment Headley - you are NOT distinguishing between NLP and the techniques associated with NLP.

I am willing to bet that not a single scientist has actually stated that NLP is "pseudo-science" or "pseudo-scientific" - if they know what "NLP" is.
BUT,
I agree that there are numerous claims that one or other of the techniques associated with NLP don't qualify as "science" or "scientific." And in some cases I'd even agree with them ;-)
Andy

"Shaman, philosophers, and prophets alike have intuitively known and used the power of metaphor. From Plato's allegory of the cave right through to Valitaire's Zagdig, from the teaching of Jesus and Buddha to the teachings of Don Juan Matus, metaphor is ever present as a tool for changing ideas and effectiing behavior." (Richard Bandler, foreward - p.xi, Therapeutic Metaphor, David Gordon, 1978). It is quite obvious from this quote that Bandler uses Shamanism as a metaphor. --Comaze 03:29, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Hello Comaze. Sorry, here is some evidence for you. Bandler learned shamanism with many teachers and teaches it himself. It also appears in some of the literature. http://www.meta-nlp.co.uk/ http://www.meta-nlp.co.uk/shamanics.htm Regards.HeadleyDown 07:49, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Headley.D, Those URLs do not prove anything. In NLP, shamanism is a metaphor. It is that simple. --Comaze 01:05, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Comaze, it's woth noting that Bandler is "sharing his knowledge of shamanic states of consciousness". This is one reason people think the spiritual stuff is part of NLP. Of course, NLP as the study of subjective experience could have some good insight into patterns people subjectively experience as shamanic consciousness - but of course it's only a thing that's been modeled and is no more "NLP" than sports are NLP. GregA 01:59, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

GregA. NLP does not study subjective experience. NLP studies the structure of "language & behaviour". Any idiosyncratic beliefs are filtered out in the process of modeling. Therefore there is no mystical beliefs in NLP. --Comaze 02:18, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Hang on! Comaze, what is the supposed timeline for this arbitration business? Like, when did it start, what is supposed to go on, and when is the deadline etc? Also, when are they going to chuck you out for spending over a month deleting well researched facts and qualified points of view in favour of Bandler and Grinder doctrine:)? CheersHeadleyDown 14:46, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

For details on the arbitration process, please see Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee. Due dates for submission have not been set. This will probably take some time because the alternate Neuro-linguistic programming(Temp) still needs a major cleanup. We are in the process of checking references. --Comaze 01:05, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Hello all. I have added a crucial link to an experiential proponent of state change--Dave Barry. Have a nice weekend.HeadleyDown 14:58, 23 September 2005 (UTC).

Yes, a little humour also helps to make the article even more interesting. Actually, Barry's view is very refreshing and quite valid as a link. I have done quite a big tidyup. I will continue to NPOV the paras as I go along. I noticed that other outside editors are starting to tidy up grammar etc also and that's great.JPLogan 03:56, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

yeh its great to see it without all the hype and jargon. well done guys JC

Hello all. I have some suggestions, and others are welcome to contribute.

• Keeping clear about NPOV. Stating facts, or points of view (attributable with a name) is very important for the page. This will help keep the page factual, and will help prevent people from removing facts (if they are in quotes they are verifiable).

• Clarifications. (No explaining psychobabble with psychobabble) I'm sure you've noticed how promotional and vague NLP writing and language is. Lots of unscientific jargon and odd terms and phrases that don't have any relation to science at all. This simply takes too much space to explain for one article (and it will never be explained properly because there is no evidence or research for the concepts). The solution here is to refer to NLP using any theories that have been proposed by NLP practitioners (and there are some).

• Lets not treat the article as a "how to". Some very brief half or single line examples are fine, but lets not go listing processes. Lets stick with NPOV policy.

Hi JPLogan!

Point 1 - Yeah, I think we're going to have to keep showing WHERE we get information from (whether fact or opinion). It looks more like a psych paper and less like an encyclopedia, but is probably necessary for now. Perhaps we can make them "hidden" references later?

Point 2 - I agree totally. No explaining psychobabble with psychobabble (I'd like to invite you to look at and criticise psychobabble on the alternate page once more work has been done). I'm not sure what you mean by the solution is to refer to NLP theories? (how does that help?). Also, you say that you can't explain something unless there is evidence - that's not true, even things we know aren't true like "the Tooth Fairy" can be explained very easily!

Point 3 - Removing the "how to" - I agree. We're not teaching people how to do NLP.

Seeya GregA 04:25, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

• I suggest a slight rephrasing of point 2 (IMHO) (don't explain psychobabble with excess psychobabble) - some terms are fine, but this should be clarified by a connection with what scientists think of it. For example, nominalisations in NLP refer to the assumption that words direct how you cognate (ref). SCi- However, this concept has been debunked by empirical research into linguistic relativism (ref).

There have been actual theories or allusions to theories written in the NLP literature as can be seen from the page. I should say they can be used. Anyway, I'm going to work on balance for a while.HeadleyDown 05:28, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Hi all editors. Re the first paragraph 'NLP involves the programming and reprogramming of engrams). I can find no reference to 'engrams', or re-programming engrams in any NLP literature. Even in the link you provide, the authors are discussing the work of neuroscientist Wilder Penfield, make no specific mention of engrams, and say the following regarding the idea 'His first conclusion was that each memory had a specific location. Current research would suggest this is not the case. The brain seems to be organized along functional lines rather than site specific lines. I do not think this claim is therefore warranted without further/stronger evidence. It is just an obvious attempt to further strengthen the spurious case that NLP is in some way associated with Scientology or Dianetics. Lee1 15:53, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Hello Lee. Simply follow all the references and check them out. I have looked at all the engram literature on the article, and it is completely correct, and more is available for support. Really, if all you want to do is remove facts, you are in the wrong place. I suggest you see if you can improve the other version. As far as I have read from the references other people have contributed, NLP is strongly historically, and theoretically connected with the engram concept that is inextricably linked throughout the human potential movement, cybernetics of Maltz, Perl's promotions through Dianetics, Satir's notions of humanistic psychology, and the unconcious competence ideas that run all the way through NLP, including the theory articles that have been written. RegardsHeadleyDown 16:49, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Hi Headley, hope your weekend's been good! AFAIK, Lee has already looked through your references - and remember the purpose of a reference is to allow the reader to easily find the source if they require, so we have to ensure our references are useful in this sense and make them something easily found (assuming the reader has the book or paper, of course). Even with a reference, there are plenty of NLP trainings that don't use the term Engram.

I think it is quite valid for both sides to make some general comments to each other in order to improve the quality of either. And I invite you to at any time of course :). We're still a work-in-progress, and as we get closer we'll request more input.

For now, for instance, you cite "Carroll, 2005" - do you mean the Carroll, 2003, that is in the references? (As a changeable webpage it probably doesn't have a year. http://skepdic.com/neurolin.html )

You then site "Carroll, 2005, Platt 2001" - But when you read Platt 2001 he is directly quoting Carroll. So it's only one source.

There are many examples of this - if you fall for the trick of making it look scientific when it's not, that'd be pseudoscientific right!? GregA 23:29, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Hello GregA. Thanks. Making the article accurate and verifiable is important. All views can be represented, and as NPOV states, attribution to the people with those views is also important for making it a stated fact. The (Carroll 2005) ref needs updating to (Carroll 2003), which is a longer term solution because it is a book. It has more detail in the text etc. Pseudoscience is more about how knowledge is created: Detached principles or values without a clear theory base are the hallmarks of pseudoscience. If a person has a view, and that view is stated in a verifiable source, then it is valid according to NPOV even if the source includes that of another source. Remember there are differences in the text and information in each source. Garry Platt has a master's in education, and Todd Carroll has a PhD and teaches Logic & Critical Reasoning; Law, Justice, & Punishment at Sacremento university, and Critical Thinking About the Paranormal, his most recent university textbook is Becoming a Critical Thinker (2005). RegardsHeadleyDown 02:35, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

What do you mean "if a person has a view, and that view is stated in a verifiable source, then it is valid according to NPOV"?

You're not saying that as long as you can verify they said it it is unbiased, or representative, are you? GregA 04:57, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Hi GregA. Yes I believe you understand. This is an indication of the breadth of wikipedia. A great deal of encyclopedias will only take the scientific view in matters of psychological explanation. Wikipedia is slightly less strict and will even take into account the pseudoscientific view, albeit at a lower priority and with the provision of a scientific conclusion. RegardsHeadleyDown 05:34, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

That doesn't answer my question. Are you saying that you consider someone's opinion, if referenced, to be a Neutral POV?GregA 06:14, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Hi GregA. All I can say really is that someone's viewpoint, when properly referenced becomes fact, and that is NPOV.HeadleyDown 06:47, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Headley, having proof someone said it constitutes NPOV of whether they said it. This is different to NPOV on whether their viewpoint is valid or representative GregA 09:05, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Sure Greg. Most encyclopedias take only a scientific view of valid or representative. Wikipedia is slightly less strict, as I said. Instead of allowing only scientific views of empirical researchers etc, it allows other views to be heard also. So you can include the viewpoints of other more pseudoscientific parties, albeit with a lower status. RegardsHeadleyDown 09:21, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I see the confusion now. When I asked you about the opinion you were quoting I thought you were saying it was valid and representative - instead you're saying it's okay to include low status opinions.

My only response would be that where we can go back to the actual books and papers behind someone's opinion (assuming they have them), we're quoting from a more encyclopedic position - and I would encourage that. Wiki does too GregA 02:16, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes Greg. Its actually a good learning experience. Especially if you take a critical view of all of the different points of view.HeadleyDown 04:32, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

On another note, have you got any thoughts on how our layouts might come closer together?

For one, I've put eye accessing and meta-model under the major heading "NLP Patterns"

That would leave your science headings out though ... perhaps they could have their own major heading

eg "NLP and Science?" - in which we could place a lot of important stuff - including psych studies and epistemology etc etc.

I see you've got an "Overview" after the opening - isn't the opening an overview too? Should they be the same?GregA 06:14, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Headings and such really only have to be logical and clear. The scientific viewpoint should really be placed throughout the article as it is mostly neutral statements of theory or statements of scientific findings. Perhaps overview could be changed to "conceptual overview" or something similar. If it were in the intro, it would make it too large.RegardsHeadleyDown 06:47, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

You have been working hard:) Its looking even better and I notice the language is even more NPOV. I made a few tidy ups, and I have some more scientific point of view that I can paste in as fact when I have the time. Ta!AliceDeGrey 07:26, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Hi Headley, Alice etc. In accordance with your preference for the opinion of scientists in line with NPOV, I thought you might be interested in this link to an article wtitten by a PhD physicist on NLP and Science http://www.mckergow.com/2003/index.jsp?lnk=503_3 (Lee1 20.50 28th Sept 2005)

Thanks Lee. Actually, I have this ref already. It agrees with the NLP view that nothing is objective, and no matter how much research you do, you will not find anything objective from people's perceptions. Of course there was a very funny reply to that article which basically said he was thinking of physics and the only objective thing to him would be dropping a heavy weight on his toe:) Empiricle studies into psychology take both subjective or perceptive measures (feelings and opinions) plus objective measures (results of success at persuasion, spelling, etc) and place them together with other studies for cross referencing and verification. But of course this also goes towards testing NLP. The books state that such and such will lead to success, and the tests follow the rules, and it turns out to be false. Pretty elementary stuff really.HeadleyDown 04:39, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Didn't expect you to agree,as it doesn't fit with your POV Headley old boy. Just pointing out that it meets your 'quotable' criterion ;-) Want to make the job easier when it comes to arbitration (Lee 7.49 29 Sept 2005)

Is it just me or did the layout of the main article just take a turn for the worse? GregA 07:13, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

This is yesterday...:

• Overview
• Goals
• Principles and Presuppositions of NLP
• NLP Modeling
• Background of neuro-linguistic programming
• Eye accessing cues and the preferred representational system (PRS)
  • Meta-model and Milton Model
  • Mind, body and spirit
  • The scientific testing of NLP
  • Is NLP a science?
  • NLP as a pseudoscience
• Criticism of NLP
• plus refs, see also, external links

Headley and JPLogan suggested in 2 separate changes without consultation

• Overview of NLP
• Goals
• Background of neuro-linguistic programming
• Principles and Presuppositions of NLP
• NLP Modeling
• Basic Tenets of NLP
• Eye accessing cues and the preferred representational system (PRS)
• Meta-model and Milton Model
• Mind, body and spirit
• The scientific testing of NLP
• NLP's claim to science
• NLP as a pseudoscience
• Criticism of NLP

There is no doubt that having the meta-model falling under eye-accessing cues was wrong. Having a heading for the set of original patterns is worthwhile. JPLogan seems to have 'suggested' "Basic Tenets" (which comes before eye access, milton model etc... which used to be indented). Comaze has 'suggested' "Early NLP Patterns". What do others think?

Headley has moved history to be much earlier. Personally, and I'm open to discussion of course!, I think the principles belong before the history. Further, having modeling before history is elegant because the reader finds out about modeling first (the 'crux' of NLP, as this page's opening says), and then the history describes the first modeling, which explains where the patterns of NLP came from... and from there they can read those patterns.

For now I will revert Headley and JP's undiscussed changes. Where comaze and Headley agree I will merge that heading (assuming that is SOME form of concensus). Discuss anything here... lets make the whole structure better! GregA 09:18, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

(changes - accidentally said Headley made the changes, when it was JPLogan that did some).

Damn... There are 3 science headings at root level that need to be grouped. I know headley objected to grouping them as 'Science, NLP, & Psychology' - so I invite someone to change it to an appropriate heading... AND lets discuss it, as with the restGregA 09:30, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Well personaly that suits me, Greg. I think the flow is fine for now. I will keep looking for any useful stuff to merge.HeadleyDown 12:02, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Why isn't there a proper place on here to put your comments - if you are, indeed, a Wikipedia "user" and not an academic blowhard!! (For "you" substitute "one".)

I just wanted to put a little comment: and I find this ridiculous piece about a piece that looks like another Wiki article!!

WHAT FOR??????????

My opinion as a user is that no, I DON'T WANT you to merge the two articles. I think it's more honest to have 2 separate ones, because at least it shows that there is a lot of controversy in the scientific (psychological? Psychiatric? Neurological?) community about NLP, something which I personally am just hunting round the edges of...

IT WOULD BE MORE INTERESTING, ACTUALLY, TO SEE **WHO** are the people objecting to NLP's claim to be a treatment, and WHO/WHICH PROFESSIONS are saying that it's a pseudoscience!!

STILL. At LEAST I see more fairness given in Wikipedia to THIS topic; more than is given to say, homeopathy, or that guy who said there was a memory in water.

Knowing WHO the "objectors" are would be FAR more interesting to the general public, than what you guys who edit these things obviously think are interesting! And ANOTHER thing that would be nice with Wikipedia, don't see if it's ever going to happen, is to learn WHO were the main contributors to what are apparently these authoritative and scientific articles - or not??

Until THAT ever happens, I don't think I can ever trust Wikipedia 100%.

And the idea of "Wikiquette" sounds SO RIDICULOUS, that I'm not going to sign my name here just because some idiot thinks I should! Why aren't the articles attributed then???

And it's no good you idiots publishing my I.P. address either; because my service provider uses an ever-changing one; just as well if there are people like you who publish it without permission.

SUMMARY: Resist the "urge to merge": NLP articles are fine as they stand!

With the greatest respect to all concerned, this entire discussion is based on a very basic misunderstanding. Once we recognise the misunderstanding the entire problem is resolved. Monstrous claim? See for yourself:

The disputed versions of the entry for Neuro-linguistic Programming, and virtually all of this discussion, are about TECHNIQUES (eye accessing cues, fast phobia cure, etc., etc.) and their VALIDITY and their APPLICATION.

BUT

THAT is NOT NLP.
NLP is not a collective noun, as so many contributors to this discussion seem to think.
NLP, as explicitly defined by John Grinder, and implicitly defined in Richard Bandler's epigram:

"NLP is an attitude and a methodology that leaves behind a trail of techniques."

Is nothing more than the "modeling" of a person who has a particular skill or ability in such a way that the essential elements of that skill or ability can be identified and used by the modeler and/or and taught to others. These "elements" may include any or all of the following:

Vocal characteristics
Beliefs
Values
Behaviours
Language patterns
and so on.

The "attitude" that Bandler spoke of is the view or belief that this modeling and teaching process is possible.

That's IT.
Whilst other people might chose slightly different words and phrases, THAT is the whole basic definition of NLP.

Everything else is, as Bandler indicated, techniques which are to varying degrees useful tools for use in the modeling process. Not one single technique is an indispensable element of NLP itself. Which is why the contents of the "toolbox" are regularly subject to modification.
Virtually all of this discussion actually ignores NLP and concentrates instead on the techniques, what people say about them, and how people use them.

So, whilst any particular technique may or may not be valid, scientifically verifiable, ethically acceptable, etc., that has no bearing on Neuro-Linguistic Programming itself. Nor do the various theories of what works, how it works, or how people apply the various techniques.
Likewise the question of a relationship between NLP and Scientology is a red herring, because Scientology has nothing to do with MODELING. Nor does est, or the Landmark Forum.
The question of "pseudo science" is a red herring, because no one is claiming that NLP modeling is an exact science.
Tony Robbins, Michael Hall, etc. are red herrings, because each has his or her own set of techniques, which they apply according to their own agenda. But Tony Robbins et al, their techniques, their style of presentation, nor practices such as fire walking, don't have anything to do with NLP itself. [ Unless you happen to be modeling a fire walker, of course ;-) ]

Likewise claims like "NLP can be used for indoctrination" are red herrings.
Taking that specific claim, NLP can certainly be used to MODEL indoctrination techniques, and various techniques which have featured at one time or another in the NLP "toolbox" might be used for indoctrination. BUT the techniques are not NLP, and NLP itself cannot be used for indoctrination.

If I may use a simile, the techniques associated with NLP are like the proverbial icing: not only are they ON the cake (rather than IN it), but all too often they OBSCURE the actual cake from view.

In fact, if every single technique currently associated with NLP in the minds of those both inside and outside the NLP community could be invalidated, that STILL would NOT invalidate NLP.

The ONLY way that NLP itself could be invalidated is if someone could invalidate one or more of these propositions:

1. The elements that enable one person to be more skilled at a given task than their peers can be modeled
2. Having been modeled, the elements that enable one person to be more skilled at a given task than their peers can be taught to others
3. Having been taught the elements that enable one person to be more skilled at a given task than their peers, a person who has the *necessary pre-requisites, and who is willing to adopt those elements in their entirety into their own beliefs, values, behaviour, etc., will be able to replicate the skill or ability of the original exemplar.

• "necessary pre-requites" - it is unrealistic to suppose that a person who is severely overweight will be able to replicate the performance of, say, an Olympic-standard hurdler, no matter how detailed and accurate a model of the hurdler's skill and ability they may have.

So, simply cut out everything that is about the techniques and see what you have left. Not a lot!

This is not a suggestion to "ignore the difficult bits," BTW.
Individual techniques could each be assigned its own entry - allowing far more focused discussions of each topic.

(Sorry about the repeated posting, but my broadband link is shaky and could fall over at any moment.)

No problem. I understand you wish to promote NLP. Unfortunately for you, that is not how Wikipedia works. The goal here is to represent NLP in the way that reflects people's views in a neutral and balanced way according to NPOV. OK, NLP is a fringe subject, so proponents are going to be in the minority already. It also tends to cloud people's perception and cause a lot of evangelical and zealous behaviour, hence the continued hype. So we have scientific views that take NLP hypotheses (yes they are hypotheses for what works eg, you do this, and that happens, you model in this way, and such and such goes on etc), and these hypotheses are tested with certain results. Now, you are certainly taking the pseudoscientific view if you talk of your red herrings. Some people say that NLP is a therapy, and some say it is Tony Robbins walking on BBQs, and some say it is a social phenomenon that is often used to fool people into joining cults and cult followings of all kinds. Basically, you argument leads to the result that NLP is "an attitude that leaves a trail" or "the difference that makes the difference" or the "unfair advantage in selling". Basically, you are saying that NLP is just a sales line. How can that be neutral or encyclopedic?JPLogan 08:26, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

With all due respect, JPL, for someone banging on about "pseudoscience" your use of language is noticeably inaccurate.

To be specific - you do NOT “understand” anything of the kind. You either "assume" it, or you are claiming to understand it for some reason of your own. To clarify the matter, I do not "wish to promote NLP" on this site. I can do that quite adequately through my book which is translated into a number of languages and sells all around the world. In the present context my only interest is to bring some clarity to an unnecessarily convoluted discussion.

Your response does however serve a useful purpose - by illustrating my point that the discussion on this page is almost entirely based on misunderstanding. Because your response does nothing but confuse the WHAT with the HOW. I have set out very clearly the ONLY three propositions/hypotheses/whatever in the WHOLE of NLP - as stated by the originators.

This is entirely separate from all of the techniques - none of which is an unequivocal element in the NLP process and therefore does not belong in the definition of NLP. I say again – if you remove ALL of the techniques and applications from this discussion whatever is left is the “real” NLP. And all you would have left is some version of the three hypotheses I set out.

By the same token you are quite wrong in your statement that "...you model in this way, and such and such goes on etc." There isn’t even an "approved" way to carry out the modeling process. Grinder has one method, Gordon and Dawes have another described another in their new book, Dilts has another, etc., etc., etc. Again, you are ignoring the simple fact that the WHAT of NLP is separate from the HOW. The WHAT is NLP – the HOW is the TECHNIQUES. The WHAT doesn’t change, the HOW can change and do change.

As to "Some people say..." - was there ever such a blatant case of POV?

You write: "Basically, you are saying that NLP is just a sales line. How can that be neutral or encyclopedic?"

Well, that certainly epitomises the bulk of this discussion, I guess, since it is, again YOUR POV, incorrect, and poses a totally spurious question.

NLP was conceived as a field of investigation, a search for the answer to the question: "Is it possible to model 'successful' people in such a way that the bases of their success could be identified and utilised by others. In its origiinal form it was an academic project with no thought of "sales" was involved.
Now that might not be the NLP-slamming Wikipedia entry you would *perhaps* like to see, but it would be a great deal more accurate and useful than the vast majority of the emotive gobbledegook that forms the majority of this often ill-tempered "discussion".
And a lot more relevant to the people who actually USE Wikipedia as a source of information.

Sometimes, as Occam noticed, the SIMPLEST answer is also the most accurate - and the most useful.
Andy

Hello Andy. The L/R brain stuff that is promoted by Bandler, Grinder, Dilts and all, really does make a mockery of the claim to Occam's ideas. They complicate everything.HeadleyDown 12:38, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

"L/R brain stuff" is not promoted by Bandler, Grinder or Dilts. Please check your facts. --Comaze 23:40, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Hello Andy. I understand what you are saying, but this is an encyclopedia. The NPOV policy encourages all views within a certain framework. It is good that you admit to being pro-NLP. Fringe views also have a chance to be heard on Wikipedia. But if you simply want to behave like all the other pro-nlpers and delete facts regardless of validity, then you are in the wrong place. I am interested in keeping this article as harmonious as I can. There are also some very intolerant elements on wikipedia who have no time at all for spamming, hype or self promotion. Considering the relatively neutral state of the article, and the wholly negative press that some have decided to leave out, it is not advisable to provoke them.Regards203.186.238.231 15:51, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Dear 203.186.238.231

1. Has it not occurred to you that people are capable of being both "pro" something AND able to adopt a neutral position on it?

2. To this person - and those others who have so dishonestly implied or stated that I am interesting in promoting NLP in this discussion - I invite you to visit the FAQs page on my website where you will find a number of CRITICAL comments on the way NLP has been hyped, on the attempts to promote certain NLP techniques as though they were genuinely scientific, the misuse of certain techniques by people in the NLP community, etc., etc., etc.

3. I don't remember off hand when I've seen so many implied threats in such a short paragraph - and I especially appreciated that last one:

"it is not advisable to provoke them" BECAUSE?

Am I really supposed to believe that the discussion here is aimed at creating a genuinely NPOV article when threats like that are being bandied around?

Thank YOU - 203.186.238.231 - for making it so abundantly clear where you are coming from. "A Town Called Harmony," perhaps.

Andy 11:32, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi Andy, I agree in this article there is a great tendency to confuse the tool with what the tool is used for (so to speak). However, a few people have told me that some NLP trainings don't mention modeling - if so then we have to reflect what they are teaching and how that relates to NLP too. Notice the non-neutral language in the paragraph directly above this (by 203.186) - "you admit to being pro-NLP. Fringe views also have a chance to be heard". Nice presupposition that pro-NLP is a fringe view eh? It'd be nice to get rid of the language distortions used in this article, get rid of subtle implications and say things outright. GregA 21:28, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

As a matter of interest, I have copied this paragraph from Wikipedia's own definition of NPOV.
It might be interesting to see what this discussion would look like if everyone involved chose to abide by it:

"Perhaps the easiest way to make your writing more encyclopedic is to write about what people believe, rather than what is so. If this strikes you as somehow subjectivist or collectivist or imperialist, then ask me about it, because I think that you are just mistaken. What people believe is a matter of objective fact, and we can present that quite easily from the neutral point of view."
(Bold type added by me for emphasis)

Andy

Hello Andy. So far the only NPOV policy I have ignored is the one that says - do not be scared of making any statements that other people find offensive or objectionable, even if objectively true. I avoided adding those statements so we could write this article without the constant reversions by NLP promoters towards a spammy psychobabbling and hype-riddled article (similar to the present alternative page). There are facts stated by various writers that seem to give NLP an extremely bad press and that I have left out. NPOV policy recommends that those statements be included. If you want me to work strictly with that policy, then just say the word.JPLogan 02:45, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

JPL - so long as you preface the comments with a qualifier such as "It has been claimed" or "Some people believe" AND you include a fair statement of the contrary point of view AND you give approximately equal space and weight to each - go ahead. I'm a great believer in telling the truth - we could certainly do with a whole lot more of it in this discussion.

BUT be sure you know what you are talking about.

If you continue to confuse the issue by failing to distinguish between the WHAT and the HOW - NLP and the techniques associated with NLP - then whatever you produce will be totally inaccurate and utterly worthless. And in the long run it will only serve to damage Wikipedia's reputation.

I am reminded of the last days of the resistance to the introduction of alternative or complimentary medicine into the NHS in Britain - hypnosis, acupuncture, etc.
The rhetoric from the resisters was of much the same quality and content that I've seen here - the demands for scientific validation, the objection to claims made, etc., etc.
They held things up a bit, but in the end it all came to nothing, and the "new" therapies were adopted anyway - though AFAIK no one has yet provided a sound scientific explanation for hypnosis, acupuncture, etc.
C'est la vie, mate - C'est la vie!
Andy 11:50, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Sure, Andy. Science is the top of the pile in most encyclopedias, including this one.HeadleyDown 12:38, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi JPLogan. I would also be reluctant to use that particular NPOV policy here. A good deal of reliable info on NLP turns out to be quite negative. If you write in the stronger statements it just leads to frustration on the part of the promoters and they use any tactic they can to remove the statement. Plus it takes a huge amount of time to show promotional people on the discussion page the validity of such statements. Its up to you though.HeadleyDown 03:26, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi JP. What kinds of changes would you make to the other page? (We need to start that dialogue so we can start remerging the 2 versions - do something ourselves before more official sources get involved - and perhaps even avoid that).

Specifically, are there sections of the parallel page you do accept as NPOV? What do you think of the principles section?

(this version of yours seems to be reasonably stable, is that fair to say? We're still going.)

Neuro-linguistic programming (NLP) is often described as "the study of the structure of subjective experience" (Dilts, Grinder, Bandler, Delozier, 1979) or an epistemology, with the primary focus on human patterning. Raso (2005) describes NLP as a quasi-spiritual behavior-modification (or "performance psychology") technique.

NLP is broadly focused on

1. modeling how a high performer does what he/she does, and
2. processes for change and communication

NLP teaches multiple ways of gathering information from someone, through their language and non-verbal behaviors, to find the patterns of how someone does what he/she does (whether to model them or help them change). They also teach processes for influencing patterns of thought, state management, changing beliefs (O'Connor and McDermot 1996), examining intentions and values, changing habits, and exploring the consequences of choices (for self and others).

The first NLP models were effective psychotherapists - processes for change were modeled on what they did, which when replicated are said to produce the desired change in clients. NLP patterns are often used in therapy and personal development fields. Psychologists have attempted to test some of these patterns with standard psychological methods, with mixed results and opinions (see criticism section).

If a client goes to an NLP practitioner, the practitioner will gather information about what the client wants and what's going on for them by listening to what they say, interacting verbally and non-verbally, and looking for patterns the client is not aware of. They will challenge elements that may not be useful, explore congruency and ecology, and use various processes to attempt a change.

NLP is highly interdisciplinary (Grinder & Bandler, 1975a) (ch.1, Grinder & Bostic, 2001)

• Modeling someone effective can be done in any field (including therapy, sports, business, sales, physics).
• Communication and change processes can be used personally and in business, sales, coaching, therapy, and so on.

Rather than focus on the history (or cause) of a subject's pattern, NLP questions how the pattern is done now, whether it is useful, and what can be done differently - not why the ineffective pattern was made originally. Likewise, NLP processes (intervention patterns) are what NLP found their models doing that was useful and effective (as distinct from being "true").

NLP modeling and processes can be applied in many fields, and practitioners have been encouraged to use what is effective. There are different approaches to where NLP processes are applied and for what purpose, and NLP is not centrally controlled - often what one person calls NLP is different to what another person calls NLP. This difference is not just internal - external groups also approach and understand NLP from various perspectives, as does research on NLP processes (perspectives include therapy, business, sports performance, and psychic abilities). Criticisms of NLP range from NLP processes having no proven effect (and being a pseudoscience), to the unethical use of NLP change processes to manipulate people (including sales and seduction techniques). GregA 22:22, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi Comaze. I believe you are jumping the gun to a certain extent. Take a look at NPOV on openings and summaries. Also, it is not quite up to the standard of the present article. It seems to be more of an argument that a supported or verifiable set of statements.HeadleyDown 02:48, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree that we need some more information on the NLP practitioner paragraph. Outside of that, can you give an example of what you think is not supported or verifiable? --Comaze 03:33, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi Comaze. What I mean is any statements that are written on the current article are generally well cited and can be verified. I have checked up on all the ones that I did not add (most of them) and they check out. Thre are a whole lot of assertions on the alternative page that seem to be unverifiable. A great deal of it looks to me to be argumentative. For example, there is an assertion that "better research is required". It needs a name and a date. If it was made before any further studies, then better research has already been supplied etc. There is a statement that no recent research review was conducted, however, Singer is 1997, Platt is 2001, Lilienfeld and Drenth are 2003.

(see replies to each author comment in references section.

Thanks, glad to see you talking about these GregA 05:00, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

PS... did you actually answer what you didn't agree to in the opening section, as requested by comaze? GregA 05:35, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

H.Down's objections to proposed first paragraph can be usefully be summarised below. We need to attempt to resolve these issues before moving on with the process. The most serious objection would be misrepresentation of Einspruch & Forman (1985), can someone (preferrably neutral) please check this.

1. assertions on the alternative page that seem to be unverifiable (which ones specifically?)
2. proposed first paragraph is "argumentative"
3. Platt, and Druckheim studies "looks to be made up" (see comments from GregA above).
4. "misrepresented" the Einspruch & Forman (1985) study
5. Lilienfeld, Carroll, Bertelsen, Singer and all the other later researchers "call NLP a pseudoscientific subject"

--Comaze 05:48, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Comaze, you say I said "Platt, and Druckheim studies "looks to be made up"".

Please note I say Platt is a summary of abstracts and quotes Heap & Skeptic dictionary, platt is real. As is Druckheim - just that I can't find the quote they gave from Druckheim, and found quotes far more NPOV - check out [3] and [4] GregA 07:40, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Comaze, Headley, JP. I have moved your individual criticisms on references etc to specific locations on those references. It would be a LOT easier if replies are directed to the appropriate areas. GregA 10:23, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Hello Comaze. I also have objections to the alternative page. It seems to me to have a wholly promotional flavour and does not even vaguely adhere to NPOV policy. There may be some parts of it which are appropriate for the current article and I will take a good look. I will offer some advice though. You start the article with statements such as "rather than look at the cause of a pattern, and there is no central control of NLP, and people understand nlp from various perspectives etc. You are starting off with a pseudoscientific argument that will probably lead to the word "pseudoscientific" throughout the article. JPLogan 06:46, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

JP, NLP does not look for the historical cause of the pattern (though it does look at what is happening now including triggers etc). NLP does have no central control. People do have different ideas of what NLP is. The common points lie in modeling and change processes. Are you saying we should not be clear about the way NLP is? None of these is listed by Lilienfeld as a pseudoscientific characteristic. GregA 07:40, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi Greg. NLP makes statements about cause and effect, and these can be tested. Scientists test theories and models. Dilts et al, 1980 claim to make models. These are tested. Sure, there are conflicting theories and conflicting views in NLP. Those can be summarised. Conflicting theories is something that Lilienfeld talks about.HeadleyDown 12:38, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

It sounds like you're agreeing with what I said - there are patterns, triggers (as separate from why the patterns were formed). What are you actually answering here? JP expressed concern that I stated certain things about no central control etc, which I responded to. Maybe you're replying to something else?

Saying that Lilienfeld talks about conflicting theories isn't useful. Have you got something particular in mind?GregA 14:00, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Comaze summarised the objection to the proposed opening. Most of those comments were directed at the whole alternative article. Have you (Headley, JP, anyone) got any further comments about the opening? - particularly the "promotional flavour" stuff? It is promotional only in the sense that it says what NLP says (warts and all) - as JP noted in his advice, some of those things concur with what you are saying. GregA 10:23, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

It's been about 3 days and no comments on the suggested changes to the opening paragraph. I have modified it (above) some (look at the differences) to include the NPOV comments made earlier and to include some of the description from this page's version of the opening. Engrams and PRS are not included as they are contentious and really not required to introduce NLP in the opening. I'm undecided on whether I should just put it up, I would have preferred some input. GregA 22:22, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Note that I am not endorsing the alternative above as NPOV, there are parts I disagree with, and parts I don't think need to be in the opening - I'm merely looking for something we can agree on.

Okay so you saw me put in this opening at 21:03, 11 October 2005. I saw you revert it. If you are at all open to discussion how about actually saying something?

Saying that someone is or isn't doing something, writing "NPOV" near changes - these mean so little in comparison to your actions here. GregA 09:41, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

You also use phrases such as "but it is important to note that" etc. I really don't see any effort on your part to meet NPOV. The Occams razor section is really funny. Do you have an NLP source for that? You also seem to be adding lots of extraneous images that seem to be appropriate for articles other than that of NLP (eg, Tesla etc). JPLogan 06:46, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree largely here. I know some trainers have mentioned Occam's razor but I don't think it's common enough to put in - better to use something from modeling regarding necessary and sufficient elements of the pattern. I also don't like the images.GregA 07:40, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, the Ockham's razor stuff is really hilarious. It makes a mockery of science.HeadleyDown 12:38, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Greg, Ockham's Razor is an essential principle of NLP. I'm surprised that you have not been taught this in your training. This is used in NLP modeling, after unconscious uptake and when the criteria has been achieved then Ockham's Razor is used find the minimalist coding for the model. Examples include, TOTE, 4-tuple, etc., --Comaze 09:10, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Comaze, I've heard of Ockham's razor and the term was probably used in my training in exactly the manner you suggest - what you're calling 'minimalist coding' I'm calling "necessary and sufficient elements"... I just didn't use the term Ockham's razor. Also the principle is slightly different isn't it - rather than picking between 2 completely different alternatives, we're talking about 2 versions of the same alternative, where one is simpler than the other. Maybe I should read the def of Ockham's razor :) GregA 10:47, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

I stand corrected. "Another is a preference for the simplest subset of any given theory which accounts for the data.". Thanks.

Okay... I was looking for how Grinder describes the reduced representations of a pattern when modeling, and he uses the term elegance, and refers to Occam's Razor (Whispering, pg 55). The principle is a critical part of NLP patterns... I just think of it differently to "Occam's razor". GregA 12:30, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

FYI "Ockham" is, or was, a place in England. The guy with the shaving equipment was "Occam." Grinder does IMO hold to the principle of Occam's Razor in that he looks for the least complex version of a process which is effective. This was at the heart of Bandler and Grinder's original modeling technique - start with everything and see how much you can discard whilst still getting the required results.

Andy 14:35, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Mmm!, Start with science, and end up with pseudoscience!HeadleyDown 12:38, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Headley!!!!! You're not saying that using Occam's razor turns something into a pseudoscience are you!!!!! Wow!! As I've said, I don't express it as Occam's razor and I think there are better ways of writing it... but the concept is sound GregA 14:00, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

I was being ironic about Ockams razor. Basically, NLP is extremely complex and complicated in that it mixes unmixable theories, and uses complex pseudoscientific models. If ockhams razor was ever appropriately applied to NLP, it would involve the user dropkicking NLP out of the window as a result. HeadleyDown 14:41, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

What unmixable theories? (seriously!). GregA 07:13, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Occam's Razor (also spelled Ockham's Razor)... a nice quote from William of Ockham which is congruent with NLP (especially Grinder's) idea of elegance in NLP modeling...

Ockham's razor, which states that one should always opt for an explanation in terms of the fewest possible number of causes, factors, or variables. -- --Comaze 00:23, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi Andy. Do you think there's a better way of saying that (the least complex version of a process which is effective), that would be more reflective of NLP principles than "Given two equally predictive theories, choose the simpler"? GregA 13:57, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Your history section looks like a cover up. There are tons of extra claims that NLP people attach to NLP which are entirely spurious (turing machines, and plenty that are guaranteed under examination to give nlp a bad press (cybernetics, epistemology, and Farrelly and his amazingly brutal confrontation therapies). You argue that Bateson thinks energy is fuzzy etc, although that does not relate specifically to NLP. It looks like another spurious pseudosci argument. JPLogan 06:46, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Any field will have intellectual antecedents... just because Turing is respected doesn't make NLP respected - nor can problems with NLP reflect on Turing. LIkewise, NLP patterns can't be judged based on how a cult uses them. ANyway, I think we should cut this down to the basic antecedents personally.GregA 07:40, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

In short, you have tried your best to make a simple scientific statement (nlp is scientifically unsupported) into "we don't know and are trying to find out" (which is a nonsensical pseudo argument), and clearly demonstrating that nlp is pseudoscientific (I actually don't mind you doing that, but it will end up with the conclusion that NLP is pseudosci). JPLogan 06:46, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

"we don't know and are trying to find out" is not a characteristic of a pseudoscience, is it?

Perhaps you are right though - NLP does have evidence - that is an integral part of the modelling process - and we haven't made that clear. What NLP doesn't have is psychologically researched evidence, there are moves to find out more.GregA 07:40, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

You have collected a whole bunch of NLP excuses and spurious hyperbole, and done very little work on researching an encyclopedic article. I will try to extract the least spurious arguments from the alternative page, and check if they actually are real sources, and if they are, make them NPOV and brief. When I have timeJPLogan 06:46, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Earlier I asked you to comment on the Principles page that your version has. The interpretations of what positive intention means has no basis, nor failure is feedback. Perhaps you can comment on that section and justify your versions take... or that could be a good one to start merging? GregA 07:40, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

No worries chaps. Considering the deletions that Comaze has predictably tried to make during the last few edits, not much damage has been done. I believe we can continue to edit slowly over the next few days. I also believe you are trying to make "scientifically unsupported" into "don't know", which in the light of scientific understanding is totally wrong. NLP is scientifically unsupported full stop! A lay term would be "doesn't work". I believe editors are being kind by being scientific. Unsupported is exactly right and that is the conclusion. I do have texts of other reviewers who explicitly conclude that it doesn't work. Unfortunately they are extremely damning to NLP. Lets try to merge things without the surreptitious deletions, ok?.HeadleyDown 11:36, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Hey comaze... why move "Modeling" before "principles"? In the parallel page it's after principles, Headley wants it after principles... lets leave it eh?

Headley - repeating something is different to justifying it. I asked several questions of you higher up in this section regarding the articles you cite as evidence for no-scientific support. I look forward to your response! :) GregA 12:16, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

GregA. In NLP, modeling comes before principles (modeling occurs first), and the principles or concepts (The intellectual backfilling) are found later. This quote from Grinder & Delozier, 1986, summarises my position on this matter, "The transforms of Bateson; the process tools of the 4-tuple, representation systems, synesthesia patterns, Meta-models of language: all are cornerstones in the exploration of this mapping between sense impression and concepts." (Grinder & Delozier, Turtles 1986). The general rule is... {get sense impressions (modeling) -> concepts} (not the other way around). --Comaze 00:23, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

1. overly promotional (which sections?)
2. does not adhere to NPOV
3. Questions source of Occam's Razor (NLP's metholodological reductionism)
4. Questions use of images (eg, Tesla etc).
5. JPL says, "Your history section looks like a cover up." (how specially is it a cover up?)
6. Says references to intellectual antecedants of NLP includeing turing machines, cybernetics, epistemology, and :Farrelly are spurious or will "give NLP a bad press".
7. Says that Bateson, Grinder & Bandler's intolerance of fuzzy kinds of energy does not relate to NLP
8. says, "we don't know and are trying to find out" is a nonsensical pseudo argument
9. Says the editors have done very little work on researching to an encyclopedic standard
10. Says NLP not being initially concerned with the cause of a pattern is pseudoscientific.
11. JPL also criticises,

1. "There is no central control of NLP"
2. "people understand nlp from various perspectives etc."
3. "practitioners often explicitly formulate these as presup..etc".
4. phrases such as, "but it is important to note that" etc.

--Comaze 07:45, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Comaze. I don't think people are interested in excuses. Some people are kind enough to indicate the parts of your arguments are wrong. I doubt if you will get much done by arguing.CarlOxford 09:13, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

CarlOxford, First, let's establish what is NOT in dispute, then we can argue about the sections in dispute. --211.30.48.164 10:20, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

H.Down, GregA, and everyone. Are there any sections on Neuro-linguistic Programming(Temp),not in dispute, that can be merged now? I've merged in the 'NLP modeling' section. --Comaze 05:29, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi Everyone. I've merged in the Principles and Presuppositions paragraph from the Neuro-linguistic Programming(Temp) page. best regards. --Comaze 23:35, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Ok, next I want to merge the NLP Applications sections from Neuro-linguistic Programming(Temp). --Comaze 00:34, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

I think a lot of that section is disputed - particularly the "unethical use" section.

It may be possible to merge the first 2 pieces (psychotherapy and coaching) just before the "criticisms of NLP" section. Possibly the 3rd section (spirituality), since it's an important piece - but lets see if anyone contests that here first. GregA 02:16, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Excellent. Let's wait 24 hours so people can comment on it. --Comaze 03:44, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

24 hours may be a long time in reversion wars, but with good editing, it is about a third of the way towards clear consideration.HeadleyDown 12:38, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

What are you saying?

On another note - I'd like to suggest that spirituality section be included as well as the first 2.GregA 14:00, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

I've merged in Eye Accessing Cues section (myths and criticism). I agree with the spirituality section. --Comaze 21:47, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Ummm. what?!. That's nothing to do with the Applications section.

Well it's been several days with no comments or disagreements in this area. I'll add in those 3 sections. I suggest that over time we look at other sections that repeat the info in psychotherapies, coaching, and spirituality - and ensure it's moved to (and included in) the Applications section. GregA 08:17, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

While adding those 3 sections I noticed a huge overlap in spirituality. I dumped some of both versions and pulled together a new version (also removing any arguments by association). My main thoughts are

1. Some of the opening for NLP Applications is better explained in the main opening (which I've asked about elsewhere.
2. SOme of the spiritual stuff from Headley's page included Mind-body concepts. Perhaps mind-body concepts need to be included either in principles or elsewhere?

What do you think? GregA 08:59, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi Greg. It all looks fine to me. I think its a good collection of headings that will make it very much easier for readers to compare areas.HeadleyDown 13:23, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Headley. Do you have any other areas in mind that overlap? I remember reading some info on NLP in therapy that may be better under the psychotherapy heading.GregA 00:23, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

WELLllllll.... that was disappointing Headley. We write a change on the parallel page, with multiple editors. For merging, Comaze nominates a section for merging believing minimal changes are necessary and I agree. We allow 6 days for comments and discussion with no disputes or other involvement. Then when it's put back up you make huge changes without discussion.

This merge was put up for discussion and comment. There were none, as such you will need to follow your own rules - if you want to make a change, then put it up here to discuss and develop consensus. If you get no response at all after 48hrs then post your changes.

The exception to this is the spiritual merging I did. Although I suggested merging 2 sections here in talk, and had no feedback, I should have posted a "sample" of the merging for comment - so those changes are fair (still, we should open discussion here right?) GregA 05:06, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Sure Greg. Discussion is still open. I made some alterations to the applications section based on objections to the alternative page's text. As far as I could see, we had two pages, this one being brevified and NPOVed and the alternative page collecting hyperbole at a high file load. During that time, Comaze and others tried to make extensive changes to this page before any merging was announced, and then there was another large unheralded merge which involved a mass deletion of cited fact. There was also vandalism to this page which coincided exactly with some people's encouragement on Mindlist. I think the merging arrangement really was not respected at all by some of the proNLP camp. All I have done is make some simple changes to the article adding cited facts. Any comments or objections to those changes?HeadleyDown 11:29, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Discussion should always be open. I understand you had objections - I don't get why you didn't bring them up here when we asked if anyone had objections/changes etc. I do agree in brevifying, though to me repeating stuff you've said in multiple other sections isn't the best way to do it. So yes I didn't agree with your changes and changed them back to closer to the original (the version undisputed for many days in rfc), though I kept a few of your suggestions.

I'm busy for a little while... if you write up what you object to and what you want to add I'll respond. If you don't get a chance I'll have a look as soon as I can GregA 13:53, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Answering your changes, since you choose not to discuss GregA 09:34, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

• NLP is open to any patterns of human experience, and has been applied to fields such as sales, therapy, communication, education, coaching, sport, management, business, occult practices, and spiritual development.

Personally I wouldn't list occult as the term is often used in a derogatory sense, and a more neutral word could be chosen. "supernatural" is an example.

• This is both through the use of existing NLP patterns, and through modeling thought-to-be high performers in fields.

When we talk about NLP modeling, they choose their models, in whatever manner. As such, the goal is to model people with skills worth having. I don't think "thought-to-be" is relevant here. However, is is valid to make the differentiation if we say "NLP processes were modeled from high performers in psychotherapies" - because it implies that the NLP processes are high performance. We should be more accurate and non-judgemental in how they are described.

• The first subjects of study were claimed by Bandler and Grinder to be experts in the fields of family therapy, hypnosis, gestalt therapy and provocative therapy.

Claimed may be okay here. In general we should check repetitiveness with the history section but otherwise fine. We could even just say (as I actually wrote: "the first subjects of modeling were from the fields of ......."), which I would have thought removed any disagreement - I don't know why you reverted it. Reason????

• Some practitioners of counseling and psychotherapy take NLP training, although NLP certification does not require any professional qualifications. It has been said that exaggerated claims about NLP tend to be generated by the more professionally unqualified NLP certificated practitioners (Eisner 2000).

There is no link between the 2 clauses. Weasel phrase "although" joins them... and even then it doesn't make sense. If we're going to talk about "professionally unqualified NLP certificated practitioners" lets talk about the professionally qualified ones. WHat does that mean? Qualified by whom?

• There are claimed to be various patterns (eg, the NLP fast phobia cure) for specific interventions. Most of the basic NLP techniques can be self applied, although qualified NLP practitioners can be hired for more complex NLP change work (Eisner 2000). Neuro Linguistic Psychotherapy (NLPt) is being developed primarily in Europe. This was started in 1986, by the European Association for Neuro-Linguistic Psychotherapy.

Same question. The fact is, just saying "basic NLP techniques can be self applied" implies that more complex ones need assistance. Saying a practitioner has to be hired is irrelevant - you need another practitioner, most professions charge for services. Do you find this unusual? I'm also now wondering whether, since any NLP process can be self applied (not just in the therapy context), does it belong here?

• NLP methods and models are often applied by personal and business coaching for individuals and teams, and also in personal development fields in a similar way to EST seminars and other LGAT methods of dissemination.

"In a similar way to"... again, drawing connections unnecessarily.

• Motivational speaker Anthony Robbins, promotes 'neuroassociative conditioning'®, which is his form of NLP (Robbins sought to trademark his own personalized style of NLP when it became a generic term).

I think this belongs under "buzzwords and trademarks". Why repeat? This was also done when Bandler was suing to control the term "NLP", so I'm not sure you can say he wanted to trademark his own personalized style, more that he wanted to protect himself from being sued (I'm sure Robbins makes enough money for Bandler to have profited greatly if a court agreed with him, easier to change)

So Headley, can you reply? GregA 09:34, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

I've merged the buzzwords section from Neuro-linguistic Programming(Temp) --Comaze 22:08, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

I would have said this was a contested section. I haven't looked though... GregA 06:38, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

So Buzz words : you mean like submodalities, representational systems, transformational vocabulary etc... OR were these once considerred words used by industry professionals that was then downgraded to the term Buzz Words. Did they use transformational vocabulary to do that? Justin

Taken from alternative page (and I merged this yesterday with this page's Modeling block GregA

"What do consistently high-performing “geniuses” do differently to “average” performers?" (Grinder, 2003).

NLP modeling is considered by some practitioners to be at the heart of NLP. NLP aims to discover how experts or superior performers excel in a given niche, initially through observation and imitation and only when the skills can be replicated by the modeler explicitly coding "the difference that makes the difference", so that the difference can be taught to others (Bandler & Grinder, 1975). Modeling can be thought of as the process of discovering relevant distinctions within these experiential components, as well as relevant sequencing of these components necessary to achieve a specific result.

Grinder specifically teaches implicit NLP modeling, which involves attempting to enter a filter free state, with no preconceptions of how the model does what they do, from which to model. Grinder describes the modelling process as "an accelerated learning approach for modeling human excellence".

There are limitations to what can and can not be successfully modelled. There are also several methods of modeling practicised within NLP that differ from Grinder's approach (he does not consider these NLP modeling). For instance, some practitioners have attempted modeling someone through their biographies and other descriptions - Robert Dilts published models of Jesus of Nazareth's, Sherlock Holmes's, Albert Einstein's and Nikola Tesla’s internal strategies. With no access to the model (nor quality video), it is almost impossible to test whether the model is accurate, and within the field of NLP the modeling of deceased experts is criticized.

Note that the term "model" in Psychological Models is unrelated to NLP modeling.

With modeling the crux/core of NLP, we possibly need more than the 2 existing paragraphsGregA

What do you think? GregA 00:23, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Some older comments:

• Grinder accepts that other forms of modeling or "knowledge aquisition" are perfectly valid (Grinder 2003). After criteria is met, all the knowledge, tools of analysis and skills learned at university is turned back on. (see eg. Grinder Interview 2003 On Modeling [5])--211.30.48.164 09:15, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
• how did Dilts manage to model "Jesus of Nazareth"? Did he go to a Jesus Christ Superstar show? Did he watch Ben Hur? D.Right 07:26, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
• Dilts may have examined the language patterns in the Bible. I don't know. NLP modeling requires direct sensory experience, therefore what Dilts was doing was not strictly NLP modeling. This is a necessary distinction for anyone researching NLP. See Whispering by Grinder and Bostic, 2001 for a definition of NLP modeling. /Comaze
• Most NLPers think that modelling requires direct sensory experience. However modelling in general can be done without direct sensory experience, as long as you understand the limitation of your source material and the limitation of your model.--RichardCLeen 15:56, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
• RichardCLeen, NLP's preference for imitation via direct sensory experience and observation is what makes NLP modeling distinct from other forms of knowledge acquisition (or modeling). Formal mathematical models are only built after the modeler can imitate the model with some consistency. (src: Grinder, 2003) (comaze?)
• I don't doubt the idea of 'interviews not being NLP'. I've left the point in though I don't think it adds greatly in the intro paragraph. But when I played the video file I found that I could hear the interviewer but not make out a word that Grinder was saying. Grinder, John (2003) Interview in London on New Code of NLP --GreyHead 13:05, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• . Some people, even those purporting to teach NLP, think that interview style questioning is part of NLP modeling. This is an important distinction and needs to be referenced.
• I have just cleaned up the Michie et al reference, reading the article it does not especially support the point in the NLP article: "Psychological modeling makes considerable effort to empirically and statistically measure the existence and strength of the parts of the model for distinguishable constructs or factors, and takes great care to measure the distinct association between each proposed construct" though it is in part an example of this approach albeit at a very high level - the 'domains' Michie et al elicited include 'knowledge', 'skills', 'Beliefs about own capabilities', 'emotion', etc. I propose to remove this reference, does anyone have a better source? --GreyHead 07:32, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Points copied from archive and here, thus free to be removed when not required.

Hello Greg Alexander from Oz. A registered NLP promoter.

Hi Headley. Yes that's my name, I don't need to hide it :) Promoter? I advertise my practice in counselling in NLP - I guess that promotes NLP? I was pretty open about supporting NLP from my first post here. Oh, I have studied NLP to the level of Associate Trainer - though I don't train or otherwise make money in training NLP.

Just to keep things on the up and up, here is something that someone emailed me about your recruitment program. I understand what you are trying to do, but I believe your efforts to get people to change the page on behalf of you are quite futile.

I responded to some comments (both pro and con) I saw, regarding a copy of your version of the wiki page- I explained that it came from the wikipedia. I invited anyone who would like to help to help. I was careful to ask simply for help improving the page, not to join any side. Have I broken some wiki rule?

The fact is, I have added very little to the article myself. I have simply allowed other researchers to find what is relevant and scientific to the artilcle, whilst removing confusing hype and chatter from NLP promoters. At present the article is moving towards an information rich and focussed summary of the mess that is NLP.

You constantly add interpretations to articles you find. And you don't answer my challenges to your interpretations. (Anyway - we can leave that discussion to my questions in the other section)

Anyway, here is some more info:

BTW, thank you for quoting my post in its entirety. That is fair. This was my first post to the mindlist yahoo group in more than a year.

From: Greg Alexander <galexand@...> Date: Sun Oct 2, 2005 6:45 pm Subject: re: The Evil Cult-Creating Power of NLP!!! gregalexander72

>> Here is another bit of info that seems to have the same search:
>> http://www.angelfire.com/art3/inextricablylinked/NLP.htm
>> Tell me what you think
>
> Not bad. The anonymous author seems to have put a lot of work into
> it.

This is copied off the currently 'contentious' wikipedia NLP article.
Mainly a guy identifying himself as HeadleyDown, who in my opinion
has a strange understanding of "Neutral Point of View". Plus a couple
of other helpers. Note that they say my view is not Neutral.

There are currently 2 alternative pages for NLP. We are about to go
to mediation on them, followed by arbitration if agreement is not
reached. If anyone can help in improving the page (particularly in
this time of disagreement) please do!

http://en.wikipedia.orghttps://demo.azizisearch.com/lite/wikipedia/page/Neuro-linguistic_programming for the one
copied on angelfire.
(at the top of the page it points to the "alternative page").

You can make a change to the page directly, though that will often be
undone unless there's some discussion - click on the "discussion" tab
for either page to talk to people.

> It's a bit quick in its judgments, for example, labelling biofeedback
> and neurofeedback as 'new age developments'. As far as I have heard,
> biofeedback and neurofeedback are becoming very mainstream indeed.
>
> It also gets a few facts wrong, like the idea of communication
> resulting in 'thought fields', which I have never known to be
> connected with classic NLP methods.

Yes, I agree with few points on this page.

> I do find it a bit odd that even though the article clearly states
> that the concepts and methods of NLP 'do not work' and that NLP
> 'promotes methods that are false, inaccurate or ineffective', but
> these very same methods are supposedly used to create cult-like
> dependencies. Apparently 'people with these skills acquire such
> personal power that they are able to affect people deeply'.
>
> So do the techniques work, or do they not?

Absolutely.

> "However, "Achieving
> your own outcome at the expense of or even without regard for the
> other party constitutes manipulation. What makes this particular
> 'informed manipulation' so frightening is that people with these
> skills acquire such personal power that they are able to affect
> people deeply, and their capacity to misguide others is thereby
> increased to the point of evil." (Seitz and Cohen 1992). "

I didn't realise it was possible to increase your power "to the point
of evil".

> I think that the above article about NLP was written very, very
> recently, particularly in light of events on this and another
> group.

What other group?
Greg

So you believe that the techniques work absolutely,

Where'd you get that from? (edit: oops - I see - my "Absolutely" refers to the comment repeated in #3 below :-) )

and that you do not agree with Seitz and Cohen's article?

I don't agree with the quote you give, on several levels (that doesn't reflect on their article on Job Interviews).

1. The quote is unrelated to the line above it (which says "so long as the influenced party's outcome is achieved"), since the Seitz quote relates to disregarding the other party's outcome.
2. I think that saying personal power can be "increased to the point of evil" is misunderstanding the concept of evil.
3. I find it ironic that you can mix criticisms of the power of NLP with criticisms of the impotence of NLP, and find no way of acknowledging both in a neutral way as we've tried on the other page.

Or are you recruiting people from that group because they generally exclude people who question NLP in any way shape or form?

Actually, I thought such a group would have both supporters and detractors reading it - and I was right as evidenced by someone emailing you!

Lets just say, you have lost quite a lot of cred in the last few minutes.HeadleyDown 12:16, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

So, Greg Alexander, when are you going to discuss your NLP zealot recruitment drive?

You like to use my name... you seem quite proud of finding it? I hadn't thought of it that way. Anyway, when I'm asked a question I answer it, I think my history here shows this. I have noticed you do not answer many of my questions. Is there anything else you'd like to discuss? GregA 13:38, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Hello Greg Alexander. I answer what I have time for. If you notice, I have a lot of undue nagging to cope with.HeadleyDown 16:16, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Hey I know what you mean :) I suggest you try answering even a couple of the article based questions though - we've asked some questions regarding the science being misquoted and misrepresented, we'd like a discussion from editors to clearly identify the errors so we can correct the article with their input, so far what we've said has simply been accepted GregA 22:52, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi Greg. The quotes showing "unsupported" are all correct as far as I have checked. The term unsupported is fine.JPLogan 02:52, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Which quotes are you talking about? GregA 09:49, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Does anyone have any objections to this being deleted/moved/archived.. whatever? Is there anything worth keeping? GregA 00:54, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Anyone want to answer my questions? Have I broken some wiki rule? Headley, Is there anything else you'd like to discuss? JP, Which quotes are you talking about? Anyone, any objections to removing this section - I'm beginning to wonder if some people like making things hard to follow by adding unnecessary stuff and answering wherever!

Note that someone on the apnlp group on yahoo commented on the quality of referencing in this article, to which I have replied. You seemed pretty concerned that I responded last time, but you haven't told me if it's against some wiki rule. I guess when you're anonymous you can hide things yourself? GregA 11:24, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Hello again Greg. Considering the amount of stuff here, and the confusion that occurs when people try to change sections all the time, it is going to be very hard to answer specific questions. Really, it may be a good idea to work in a sequence at the bottom of the page, perhaps, repeating questions in brief format, rather than expecting people to go back and search for questions that have probably been answered many times before. RegardsHeadleyDown 11:35, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for demonstrating exactly what I was talking about.

I wrote up 4 questions and you answered NONE of them (1 wasn't addressed to you though).

Keep the replies to the areas queried, then we can see everything on Drenth in one place, for instance. GregA 13:24, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

We'll need to look at who is cited, as well as what they really said. I'll start with Dilts I propose moving reference discussions from within this talk page to this section (without any alteration during the move). GregA 02:18, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Dilts, Robert B Dilts R, Grinder,J. Bandler,R Cameron-Bandler,L, DeLozier J, (1980). NLP: The Study of the Structure of Subjective Experience. Cupertino, California: Meta Publications,.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link) CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

This is an NLP Book.
Agreed quotes:

• NLP practitioners most commonly define NLP as "the study of the structure of subjective experience". How do we do what we do? How do we think? How do we learn?
• Two fundamental presuppositions are ...

Disputed quotes (some minor, some not so minor)

• And how do we connect with each other and our world on a physical and spiritual level? (O'Connor & McDermott, 1996) (Dilts et al 1980)(Milliner 1988).

I know Dilts places spiritual in his study of structure of subjective experience, the attitude towards spiritual is different with different trainers and practitioners and doesn't belong in the opening paragraph.GregA

No, the quotes about spirituality and NLP are consistent with NLP's origin in the New Age and human potential movement, plus they correspond with NLP's attachment with 1970's occult/new age leanings.HeadleyDown 11:18, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Interesting. So are you agreeing that spiritual is something current trainers don't define NLP as? But you do believe it is still history? NLP's origin is not in New Age nor does it have attachments to occult or new age. It's as simple as that GregA 13:20, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

• "NLP is about form and not about content" (Dilts et al 1980).

Clarify. The word pattern is more commonly used now.

It is a direct quote from a primary sourceHeadleyDown 11:18, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

I accept that. Pattern is more commonly used now - are we writing the history section or current stuff? GregA 13:20, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

• NLP advocate, Robert Dilts asserts that NLP "is theoretically rooted in the principles of neurology, psychophysiology, linguistics, cybernetics, and communication theory" (Dilts et al 1980).

If we're quoting Dilts, Grinder, Bandler, etc - no need to narrow it down to Dilts. I also question the usefulness of "advocate" in the context of the original NLP group... though I'm not sure on that.GregA

Dilts has written this in conjunction with Bandler/Grinder et al and has presented it in concert with those other sources and "originators".HeadleyDown 11:18, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Headley, you obviously are only skimming what I said. Sounds like you and me agree on this one - I'll let you and JPLogan decide between you GregA 13:20, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

• There is no failure, only feedback (in a learning context). If you think you've failed, find a way to get around it (Dilts et al 1980)

Page number please? This interpretation of the principle (if you've failed get around it) is way off base. It's either way out of context or made up - page number please.

Page 67.HeadleyDown 11:18, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

I'll look it up and respond GregA 13:20, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

I also think it's broader than a learning context. GregA

Just a direct quote. Of course, NLP proponentes will take it to other contexts as they do.HeadleyDown 11:18, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Okay page 67 of Dilts et al (1980) has nothing to do with "no failure, only feedback". Page 66 has the 'you have all the resources you need' presupposition. GregA 23:21, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi Greg. All of these quotes check out. The Dilts theory quote seems relevant because he seems to be one who talks about theory. The other's also get their say (they say they dont have one). The get around it metaphor I have heard before. Get around is a metaphorical term (meaning the failure is an obstacle and the getting around is the flexibility in contrast with stubbornness).JPLogan 02:52, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Interesting - so when you say "If you think you've failed, find a way to get around it", what you mean is "If you think you've failed, try to do it another way". This is a different principle - that if something doesn't work, do something different. I know we mention this one somewhere else. This presupposition refers to the fact that failure is actually giving you information about what you've done, information which you can use to alter what you do in future. GregA 07:52, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

As Bandler would say "this is all semantics"HeadleyDown 11:18, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

This is all semantics? Ahh.. so you don't understand they're 2 entirely different principles?

"There is no failure, only feedback" is about not dwelling on failure. Learn and use what you learn.

"If what you're doing doesn't work, do something - anything - different" is about trying new things, and doing the same thing will get the same result. GregA 13:20, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

(ps - nope... we don't mention this other principle anywhere... "if what you're doing doesn't work, do something - anything - different". Do you think this is also required? GregA 16:52, 5 October 2005 (UTC))

You seem to be speaking for the whole community. From the sources presented, your representation is inaccurate.HeadleyDown 11:18, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

The whole community of what? You have some wild interpretations of what you read (including when you read what I say sometimes! :)), but I don't think I've contradicted any source. I think it's important in this article to represent fairly what NLP teaches. Anyway, I will get that exact page though and check it out - thanks for the page. GregA 13:20, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Grinder, Bostic and Malloy have published papers based on Grinder-Bateson epistemology (NLP epistemology). This is relevant in establishing NLP as an epistemology (combining the science and philosophy)....

Grinder, Bostic and Malloy's paper titled "Steps to an ecology of emergence" has been accepted for publication in "Cybernetics & Human Knowing". Bateson's epistemology has heavily influenced NLP epistemology. Malloy who published in press: Nonlinear Dynamics, Psychology, and Life Sciences, "Mapping Knowledge to Boolean Dynamic Systems in Bateson's Epistemology " acknowledges Grinder & Bostic for their work on Bateson-Grinder epistemology which forms part of their overarching framework.[6] --Comaze 03:16, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Seitz, V A., Cohn, W A. (1992) Using the Psychology of Influence in Job Interviews. Business Forum. Los Angeles: Summer 1992.Vol.17, Iss. 3; pg. 14, 4 pgs

This is an Business magazine.

• Ethical concerns of manipulation have also been voiced: “so long as the influenced party's outcome is achieved at the same time as the influencer, this is "influencing with integrity." However, "Achieving your own outcome at the expense of or even without regard for the other party constitutes manipulation. What makes this particular 'informed manipulation' so frightening is that people with these skills acquire such personal power that they are able to affect people deeply, and their capacity to misguide others is thereby increased to the point of evil." (Seitz and Cohen 1992).

This quote has several problems.

1. The quote is unrelated to the line above it (which says "so long as the influenced party's outcome is achieved"), since the Seitz quote relates to disregarding the other party's outcome.
2. Linking the 2 quotes with "However"... weasel phrase.
3. I think that saying personal power can be "increased to the point of evil" is misunderstanding the concept of evil.
4. I find it ironic that you can mix criticisms of the power of NLP with criticisms of the impotence of NLP, and find no way of acknowledging both in a neutral way as we've tried on the other page.

It's perfectly possible that Seitz is refering to manipulating someone to get a job (since the article is on Job Interviews). She also writes on "dressing for success" etc. I don't know if it even relates to NLP. Comments!? GregA 10:02, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

No response to this? GregA 07:13, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Not only a misunderstanding of the concept of evil, but a distorted view of "manipulation" as well.

Is there anyone who goes for an interviewm, wanting to get a job or whatever, who doesn't try to influence the interviewer(s) in their favour? Manipulation is something we all do much of the time, in our communications with other people. Even babies a few weeks old try to manuipulate their carers by a judicious use of smiles, gurgles, howls and tears. They may not have conscious understanding of what they are doing, or even why, but they are doing the best they know how to manipulate things in their favour with the very limited resources at their command.
In other words, manipulation in itself is standard human behaviour, whether the manipulator knows anything about NLP or not.
If Seitz and Cohen are saying that use of NLP-associated techniques allow people to be more effective at manipulating other people then this must be evidence, as Greg rightly says, that at least *some* NLP-associated techniques do work.

As to the "point of evil" comment, I think it is indeed true that *some* people are intent on using NLP-associated techniques in a way that is injurious to others. And once again we have to distinguish between two factors - the technique and the intentions of the person using the technique. After all, even a simple hammer can be used to help create a beautiful piece of furniture - or to bash someone's head in. Neither use is inherent in the hammer itself - they depend entirely on the user. Andy 8:22, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi Andy. If you want to discuss this with Seitz and Cohen, then go for it. It is simply a statement of possible unethical use of NLP that has been voiced.HeadleyDown 08:46, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Actually it's not even that. It is simply a statement of possible unethical manipulation. Do they mention NLP? Actually there's another piece of nonsense in the quote...

Achieving your own outcome at the expense of or even without regard for the other party constitutes manipulation.

Well... ahh.. no. Achieving your own outcome at the expense of another constitutes competition.

Anyway, if Seitz do mention NLP, we could paraphrase them as:

• Seitz and Cohen mention that if an NLP pattern is used to influence people without regarding their outcomes, that is unethical.

I'm happy to accept that. I see no point in refering to them specifically though.GregA 08:59, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

48hrs and no comment on my rephrasing (taking into account my, Headley's, and Andy's comments). Do Seitz and Cohen actually mention NLP, or just techniques which influence? Is their comment generic enough that they don't need to be specifically refered to? (I wonder... as a specific context - is a girl flirting unethical? Is it unethical if she's taken a flirt class? Do those questions matter?).GregA 12:55, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

• Druckman, Daniel & John A Swets, (Eds) (1988). Enhancing Human Performance: Issues, Theories, and Techniques. Washington DC: National Academy Press. ISBN 0309037921.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) CS1 maint: publisher location (link)
  See On-line edition pages 138-149. Retrieved 25 Aug 2005

Disputed inferences

The US National Committee was asked in 1984 to judge the various techniques, and they used 14 different judges in order to do so. A review of research showed that NLP is scientifically unsupported (Heap 1988).

The 1988 US National Committee report then reported that "Individually, and as a group, these 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" (Druckman & Swets, 1988). In addition, Edgar Johnson, technical director of the Army Research Institute heading the NLP focused “Project Jedi” concern stated "Lots of data shows that NLP doesn't work” (Squires 1988).

Hello all. Were there 2 National committees? Or was the 84 committee reported in 88 by Heap? or is there something I'm missing? Also could anyone tell me what it was a committee for? eg "National Committee of Psychologists" etc. Thanks GregA 23:21, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

From the documents presented, the committee took 4 years of research, analysis and expert advice to come to conclusion. It started in 84 and ran until 88, although, one piece of research from that analysis does not seem to have been taken into account. Sharpley (1984) added an extra 15 independent studies to his original study, and empirically disproved the prior objections to his previous work. This appeared after the rather damning 1988 committee result. About this time, people started documenting NLP as a cult.HeadleyDown 11:29, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

While I appreciate that you finally responded to my Heap question from 2 weeks back, you may notice if you read below that I'd already got that answer.

Have you got a link for the Sharpley research so I can read? There's no info at all on talk or actual page. Are you making a connection between Sharpley's article and cult mentions? You really don't understand NLP, which is fine, but we need to make clear what NLP can and can not be, and also how people perceive it. NLP can not be a cult, much as a hammer can not be a house.. a hammer can be used to build one though! GregA 13:20, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

I found far more detail (including links) - this is what I wrote up on the other page:

• Between 1984 and 1988, at the reqest of the US Army Research Institute, the National Reseearch Council formed a US National Committee on Techniques for the Enhancement of Human Performance. They defined the key elements of NLP simply as the "matching on verbal (preferred predicates) and nonverbal (eye movements) dimensions". They found that evidence for a PRS (preferred representational system) was weak as was evidence for matching on preferred predicates only. They found that matching on all predicates produced significant effects on perception which could allow "potentially more effective vertical (and horizontal) communication", and they also noted that modeling experts was "a possible basis for enhanced motor or cognitive performance" (pg 242, Druckman & Swets, 1988 [7], see also the background social processes paper [8]). They also noted problems with the research and noted that more research was required. Edgar Johnson, technical director of the Army Research Institute stated "Lots of data shows that NLP doesn't work” (Squires 1988).

Copied from other section:
The information about the Druckheim studies looks to be made up by the editors. For example, there is an assertion that "better research is required". It needs a name and a date. If it was made before any further studies, then better research has already been supplied etc. HeadleyDown 04:27, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

The US army study found lack of evidence in PRS studies, except that using all rep. predicates improved communication, and was also interested in modeling. I've linked to the exact pages, take a look. (And why the focus only on the PRS?) GregA 05:00, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

So, does anyone have any comments on the differences. More specifically, does anyone have any references supporting what's currently on the page, in contrast to what I have linked to in the book? GregA 00:15, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

OK. I reiterate. Every study stream that any researcher has ever explored has heard this statement "we need to explore further". That does not change the conclusion. "that NLP is unsupported" (or a practitioner's term - does not work).HeadleyDown 11:29, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

I understand, Greg. My point is not to get bogged down in details. We can re-write the whole thing if you like. But the basic result will be the same.HeadleyDown 12:38, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi Headley, Yes I'd like to re-write the whole thing - that's exactly what I'd written above.

Yes, every study says we need to explore further. We probably need to be clearer... there's a big difference between studies without enough data (and needing more), and studies where there is a fundamental flaw in how they're done. We could spell out the fact that they only tested a small subset of NLP processes, show that they didn't have NLP trained people doing the processes, mention that although Heap said the research showed no effect that they also said the research didn't really test the NLP hypotheses... that would make it clearer? GregA 13:20, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Are there any modifications you would want to my paragraph above (starting with Between 1984 and 1988)?

Though you didn't respond to this suggestion, I guess we should alter my paragraph above to reflect what you've said... but you may wish to clarify first GregA 13:20, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

I found the Druckman Swets quote [9]. It's interesting that on the next page (143), They talk about the limitation of studies at that time

• In most studies the DV is client-counsellor empathy - not satisfactory measurement of counselor effectiveness
• There are no comparitive studies with other interpersonal influence techniques
• No studies use NLP-certified Trainers as counsellors, therapists, or eye movement monitors
• There are no studies on NLP as a way of modeling experts for training purposes

Of course the final comment is that regardless of the above - experimental evidence fails to provide support for NLP. They also mention that PRS is prominently placed in Structure of Magic and Frogs into Princes - but that they met with Richard Bandler who said that PRS was no longer considered an important component. Although they say that "Bandler and Grinder sought to analyze what the therapists were doing at an observational level", and weren't looking at psychotherapeutic theory, they look for various theories given and quote Dilts and faults in Dilts' writings. The druckman & Swets article is very clear that the existing research itself was both ineffective, and the results of that research does not support NLP. GregA 00:54, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

This was partly handled by the British Association of Psychologists who concluded that NLP is quitnessential charlatanry.HeadleyDown 11:29, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

What was 'partly handled'? - Are you talking about PRS changing? You claim elsewhere that NLP doesn't take feedback to modify what it does, and here is an example where the rep system focus changed. In what way was it "handled" by the psych society? I went to their website and searched on NLP and found one training course in NLP a couple of years back, but no other mentions. It also sounds very unlike psychologists to call it that.GregA 13:20, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

"More research is required" was taken from: "In light of the research that is still needed on the fundamental assumptions of NLP theory"... [10]GregA 00:54, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, like I mentioned. Researchers conclude that NLP is scientifically false or unsupported- full stop! They would also love some more time and funding in order to completely nail down the coffin lid and bury the remains.HeadleyDown 11:29, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

(Note: I moved some of Headley's reply below to what he was responding to, and some author headings. Some of this stuff below is not clear when he's quoting someone or not. I've made them into bullets - HD please correct this if necessary GregA 06:30, 7 October 2005 (UTC))

Hello Greg

Bandler also states that he does not do theory. It doesn’t matter, because scientists test his models.HeadleyDown 14:41, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Heap says that Einspruch is probably correct that the effectiveness of NLP has not been properly investigated (he can't comment past the time of publication, of course!). Removing that acknowledgement removes an important fact.)GregA

Sure, but he also says that NLP is scientifically unsupported

• the hypothesis that a person has a PRS which is observed in the choice of words has been found not to hold by the great majority of researchers
• The third hypothesis which was looked at is the practical one of whether or not we can improve our relationship with a client by matching the presumed PRS. Again the answer is a resounding NO. There is no evidence that focusing on the presumed modality adds anything to the widely recognised finding that matching general characteristics of verbal and nonverbal communication may facilitate rapport.
• The present author is satisfied that the assertions of NLP writers concerning the representational systems have been objectively and fairly investigated and found to be lacking.
• there is not, and never has been, any substance to the conjecture that people represent their world internally in a preferred mode which may be inferred from their choice of predicates and from their eye movements.

---

OK, now try to understand scientific papers. This means that these tenets of NLP are scientifically unsupported. Full stop!

Oh my god I think we just agreed on something :-) Not a lot but a beginning

The processes reviewed (PRS) were not studied properly - and there are no proper studies on PRS nor modeling (other processes ignored) (in 1988).

• There had been no proper psychological research of NLP, and thus there was no psychological research support. Full Stop!

Personally I'd accept that kind of line. GregA 07:13, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Also, in just about every scientific paper there is a section or subsection on limitations. I have written a limitations section on each and every journal publication I have completed.

Where do you think a limitation section should have been placed? GregA 07:13, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

---

More specific researchers say that “Certainly 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”.(Sharpley 1987)

Now, in light of the total lack of evidence, even normal evidence of extraordinary claims, scientists state that NLP is pseudoscientific. There is just about nothing that can be done about this. It is just a fact of life. I can clarify this on the present page. I am sure others will help. Regards HeadleyDown 14:41, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

You know, I'm wondering if extraordinary claims need anything other than normal evidence :-)GregA 07:13, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

• Bertelsen - ahh the article is in dutch or swedish and I haven't found an english translation. Have you got a link or even abstract? I see the name doesn't include "review" but you can tell me more.

Well, my Swedish can just about handle it, but I understand that it is a little tough for most. The related refs should handle it fine.HeadleyDown 12:38, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

When you say the related refs should handle it... are you saying you're okay with removing this reference? BTW it's in Danish as far as I can see. GregA 14:00, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Danish and Swedish are all the same to me. Jag kan forstor dem alla.HeadleyDown 14:41, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes some people don't speak Danish. There was a line on some TV show "why did I take french? I though it'd be easy - I mean, the French can speak it!"

But repeating my question - are you saying you're okay with removing this reference? GregA 07:13, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

• Singer's book "crazy therapies" is hardly a scientific journal (In fact, I probably should not have placed most of the studies you cite under a heading of "peer-reviewed"... that's terribly misleading.)

Singer is a reputable source, and also connects with the cult aspects of NLP. We can keep the title something other than peer-reviewed. Perhaps scholarly would be more accurate.HeadleyDown 12:38, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Books are respected far more than magazine articles. But this is a book with a specific agenda - the title itself marks that GregA 14:00, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

As to Carroll and Singer’s books. They are just as valid as any other. They both refer to extremely reputable sources, and they both say something of their own.HeadleyDown 14:41, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

It is not peer reviewed, it doesn't answer to psychologists - only to publishers. It is marketed as "crazy therapies". Surely you realise the difference? GregA 07:13, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

• who else have you said... oh, Carroll - okay the "skeptics dictionary" is also not peer reviewed scientific journal.

Again, Carroll is a prof.HeadleyDown 12:38, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

That doesn't guarantee impartiality or indepth reviewed research for every subject in the dictionary (nobody could do that). GregA 14:00, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

As to Carroll and Singer’s books. They are just as valid as any other. They both refer to extremely reputable sources, and they both say something of their own.HeadleyDown 14:41, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

When a research paper reviews findings the time and effort is huge. Carroll could not possibly do that for every one of his articles. And why would he want to. He is marketing his book as "A Collection of Strange Beliefs, Amusing Deceptions, and Dangerous Delusions". GregA 07:13, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

You also misrepresented the Einspruch & Forman (1985) study. It is a single criticism of Sharpley's (1984) prior study, and Sharpley re-assessed the review in a study in 1987 with an array of extra studies afterwards and came to an even more conclusive result that "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. Basically, you will find that the reason Lilienfeld, Carroll, Bertelsen, Singer and all the other later researchers call NLP a pseudoscientific subject is because NLP fails to provide evidence for its claims.HeadleyDown 04:27, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Also, the information about the Platt, and Druckheim studies looks to be made up by the editors. HeadleyDown 04:27, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

There is a statement that no recent research review was conducted, however, Singer is 1997, Platt is 2001, Lilienfeld and Drenth are 2003. HeadleyDown 04:27, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

• Platt - Platt is not a research review. To start with, platt's article is not in a scientific journal, and he doesn't actually research any past studies. He quotes the lack of results from Heap and the army study, acknowledges the skeptics dictionary as a source, and then cites a website of abstracts of articles which he read through. When you do a review in Psych, abstracts don't cut it. His article also focus on PRS and not the rest of NLP. Is this the quality of review you are encouraging?

Yes, but he is a voice to be heard within the other throng of scientific voices. He is a therapist also, with more than most NLP therapist's qualifications.HeadleyDown 12:38, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

He is a single voice and he's not researching to any scientific standard. If he had done the research, as a scientist he would have backed himself up as credibly as possible. Do you want to include opinions? GregA 14:00, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm interested in your reply to the above. Do you endorse Platt as a scientific study? What about the rest? :) GregA

Platt is a lay study for practitioner journals. Pure and simple.HeadleyDown 12:38, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

what?GregA

HeadleyDown, Please answer Greg's simple question. Currently Platt is references 8 times in the article while the reliability of Platt is questioned. --Comaze 00:30, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Comaze. There is nothing wrong with Platt's study. If anything it is very mildly worded. Plus, some of those citations are to support scientific findings, and some are to support facts about what people believe NLP is about. If you like, more scathing book and journal review studies can be added.HeadleyDown 01:01, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

"Mild" or not, the wording is not questioned here. The point GregA makes is that Platt is "not researching to any scientific standard". Please remain on topic, were discussing Platt here (other journals and books can be discussed elsewhere). --Comaze 02:20, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Gary Platt is a prolific writer on training methods, and has impeccable credentials. The paper he presents uses wide and rigorous research presented well, using graphs and visuals produced by the actual paper's (unless you are looking at the pasted and conveniently edited version on the Sue Knight website.). Thus, it contains more scientifically reliable and verifiable information than any other NLP promotional book in existence. You did request extra citations and evidence of views, so other editors kindly supplied them.HeadleyDown 07:50, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Headley, Platt didn't do a study. How he words something is irrelevant. The paper he wrote was from reading abstracts from a website (using graphs and visuals!).. this is rigorous? It's also not verifiable because he doesn't list the studies he's summarising from the abstracts, so you can't work out which ones. How do you decide it's reliable!?. Oh Platt also quotes skeptics dictionary and Druckman and Heap (discussed in their own section). Any new citations can be discussed in their own section since they are separate to Platt's article. GregA 13:20, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

I wonder if I might add something here as I am Garry Platt?

Headley questions the existence of the reference but I can confirm that the article is real and not made up. The original article that is cited was published in Training Journal May 2001, you can if you wish download the full article at a cost of £9 from their web site. http://www.trainingjournal.com/articles/archive/article.jsp?ref=205&page=42&topic=0&keyword=&issue=0

HeadleyGreg states: ‘he doesn't actually research any past studies’ if I understand Headley’s meaning then I disagree; I reviewed 180 published studies and undertook an analysis of their findings. HeadleyGreg also asserts that I reference the United States Army study in the article; in fact I make no reference to it what so ever. It is one of the studies I included in my reading however and is listed as number 161 in my references below.

GregA wrote that I was "not researching to any scientific standard", I believe I am, you can verify whether the analysis I present is a true reflection of the research papers for your self now.

To summarise, the purpose of the article was to summarise the findings of any quantifiable investigation that had been published on particular aspects of NLP. The source material from which I extracted my research is listed below at the end of this section; it was not included in the Training Journal article because of relevance to that particular community and space within the journal. The analysis that I present of that material was impartial. You can if you wish verify the reliability of my analysis.

Hi Garry, welcome to the page. Headley didn't question the existence of your study, he said what I said about your study looked made up. I would love to read the whole article (and many other articles), I can't afford to read them all - can you tell me what the difference is between the one published online and yours?

So, to your points -

1. you review 180 published studies. How did you review them? Did you read the methodology and exact hypotheses (and whether it matched the NLP pattern), and whether they used trained NLP practitioners or quickly taught a pattern? Number of subjects, adequate controls etc?
2. Did you allow for the criticisms of research in Einspruch review?
3. oops, sorry I thought you referenced the US army study. I see also you don't reference Heap, you reference Morgan, writing about Heap?

okay... I just read over the 180 below. Are you telling me you read all of them in their entirety? I found this EXACT LIST on http://www.nlp.de/cgi-bin/research/nlp-rdb.cgi?action=res_entries

Word for word, number for number, identical. You have not convinced me you did more than read the abstracts and whether they said "the hypotheses was supported" vs "the hypotheses was not supported". GregA 10:13, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Greg Wrote: ‘you review 180 published studies. How did you review them? Did you read the methodology and exact hypotheses (and whether it matched the NLP pattern), and whether they used trained NLP practitioners or quickly taught a pattern? Number of subjects, adequate controls etc?’

As stated in the article I collated the findings of the relevant published 180 research findings from reading the abstracts. I did not review the entire publication, the article was not an assessment of NLP testing procedures, it was an analysis of the results obtained by them.

Greg Wrote: ‘Did you allow for the criticisms of research in Einspruch review?’

No I didn’t because I don’t concur with Einspruch’s views. The issue for me is that if remarkable claims are made, then put simply, remarkable evidence should support it, in the particular aspects of NLP I referenced it doesn’t nor to date have I come across consistent results which do.

Greg Wrote: ‘oops, sorry I thought you referenced the US army study. I see also you don't reference Heap, you reference Morgan, writing about Heap? ~ okay... I just read over the 180 below. Are you telling me you read all of them in their entirety? I found this EXACT LIST on http://www.nlp.de/cgi-bin/research/nlp-rdb.cgi?action=res_entries Word for word, number for number, identical. You have not convinced me you did more than read the abstracts and whether they said "the hypotheses was supported" vs "the hypotheses was not supported". GregA 10:13, 19 October 2005 (UTC) ’

This URL is exactly where I got the list of research reports from and is also clearly referenced in the article with advice to readers to visit it for further details. I am not certain what your capitilisation is meant to imply? It is also a fact that the abstracts state considerable more than whether the hypothesis was supported or not supported.

Greg, I fear the purpose of the original article is being overlooked and perhaps it is worth me reiterating my intention with the article.

The published piece was not meant to convince anyone that NLP works or not, so I am not surprised you’re not convinced. It was however my intention to promote a critical review of some of what I believe to be spurious and unsubstantiated claims made for or on behalf of NLP. It was also intended to illustrate the body of research that does not support particular aspects of NLP and is in accord with mine and other people’s very real experience. The article was also intended to promote a more critical evaluation of claims and assertions made, rather than swallowing them whole and within the corporate training community I think it did contribute to this.

I appreciate that everybody’s experience of NLP is wholly different to my own and to suppose that one persons view is true for everyone is wholly untrue, so for you and others my article is of no value. It is equally true that for me and others particular aspects of NLP are of no value and a significant number of research projects support that view. It would be a remarkable coincidence if all the research was flawed, a presumption I don’t concur with.

I work at Woodland Grange in Warwickshire, and at the moment I am extremely busy, so it will be difficult for me to keep up with this issue. I have participated in tit for tat e mail discussions before, which have not resulted in a positive outcome so far as I could see. So, I’m glad NLP works for you.

Garry

Thanks much Garry. Your input has been useful. Certainly your published study is just as qualified to be part of this article as any other independent practitioner or scientific review. In fact, as a practitioner oriented study, it is clearly of the highest standard.RegardsHeadleyDown 12:38, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Garry, I hadn't realised you actually said you only read the abstracts. Thanks for clearing that up for me. Thanks for the info on your intent - you say it's not intended to convince someone of proof of NLP or not, which agrees with my assessment. As an intent to promote critical review (in contrast to just accepting what we're taught), I think that's a great goal - I just interpreted your paper differently. I believe we need good research and the existing psych research (particularly PRS stuff) doesn't support it. Why? Does PRS exist? What about other rep systems? Are the studies flawed? How can we make a test that settles the issue?

Have there been some critical reviews since you wrote this? Thanks again. GregA 12:57, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

---snip--- Gary, Thankyou for your post Garry. I cut the reference list, if it is ok to post under fair use, please repost. best regards --Comaze 13:51, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi Gary. For sure, you have done a respectable amount of work for your paper:) Actually, you are not allowed to write your own work on the actual article (good job other's quoted your paper already). I didn't mean that the web version on Sue Knight's site was made up, simply that it had some very useful graphics missing. The other reviewers of NLP papers made similarly comprehensive analyses and came to similar conclusions as yourself.RegardsHeadleyDown 10:25, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

There is a statement that no recent research review was conducted, however, Singer is 1997, Platt is 2001, Lilienfeld and Drenth are 2003. HeadleyDown 04:27, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

• Lilienfield's book "Science and Pseudoscience in Clinical Psychology" is also not a review of NLP. It's a damning book on all psychotherapies and their lack of psychological research, including psychologists themselves - and to be neutral that has to be made clear.

Well, that is your opinion. Lilienfeld is a practicing psychotherapist and researcher. As a scientist he gets pretty good acknowledgement here.HeadleyDown 12:38, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Which bit is my opinion? The book criticises the practitioner-research gap in psychology. It criticises psychotherapies too. It criticises NLP. It criticises rebirthing etc. It is a critical book designed to get people thinking and improve research across the board. It is great that this is being pushed. The book itself needs to be interpreted in light of the above though. GregA 14:00, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Neuro-linguistic programming (NLP) is a quasi-spiritual behavior-modification (or "performance psychology") technique whose crux is "modelling," or "NLP modelling" (Raso 1994).

• Ok, now that we have the correct reference... [See Review http://atheism.about .com/library/books/full/aafprAlternativeHealthcare.htm]. Raso thinks NLP has mystical or supernatural foundations... This book is based on false assumptions that NLP is based on mystical or supernatural, so this reference doesn't hold enough weight, especially to be a reference for the opening sentence. --Comaze 06:48, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

• Sinclair. J. (1992) An ABC of NLP. Publisher: ASPEN (Self-published) ISBN: 0951366017

This is a self-published book. Statement attributed:

• The methods of NLP involve programming and reprogramming engrams(the memory trace)http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Neuro-linguistic_programming&action=edit&section=27
• NLP are explained in the literature using the neurological concepts of programming and reprogramming engrams
• Engrams give a patterned response which has been stabilised at the level of unconscious competence, and are beneficial if they involve automatic activities which are useful, but also comprise activities which are automatic and pernicious, such as addictive behaviour
• All of these statement seem to be lifted from this sample page [11]

I have a copy of this book. Its actually very nicely done, especially the illustrations. Engram is crossreferenced with more than a handfull of other entries, including subconscious, and subconscious competence.HeadleyDown 11:49, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

It is not a well known or common source. I think we acknowledged it a few times as the only NLP book to mention Engram, just that it's not from any of the early developers, nor a popular NLP text. GregA 13:20, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

This brought an interesting point, the article as it currently stands highly promotional for Joseph Sinclair & Stephen Bray. Headleydown, do you have any criticism of this author? --Comaze 15:28, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi Comaze. Please do not place odd presuppositions on the article. They are not representative, and the article could really do with staying brief without any signs of a "how to" in the text.JPLogan 02:56, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Well done, Headley, for keeping people in line. I did notice people were trying to remove useful links etc. Don't worry about Comaze's hillarious accusations of vandalism. We all know who has committed more fact deletion than anyone else. CheersJPLogan 02:56, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

JPLogan, HeadleyDown has been formally warned about vandalism. --Comaze 03:07, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Hello Comaze. Yes I noticed YOU placed one of these stickers on his page:

This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize a page, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.

Funny, isn't it! He seems to be the only one here looking towards resolution and researching rigorously while you seek to remove usefully encyclopedic facts about NLP. You really do seem to be working with a different map than most healthy minded people.JPLogan 03:21, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

JPLogan, Please stick to facts. Your personal attacks are boring. --Comaze 03:33, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

---

--Comaze 03:33, 5 October 2005 (UTC)--Comaze 03:33, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

• Can someone please remove this line. It is not relevant to NLP. "although it is also supported using Wilder Pendfield's research into engrams." Also please remove all other references to engrams. --Comaze 03:13, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Once again we have an NLP promoter asking people to remove facts on their behalf! Come on Comaze, that is not what wikipedia NPOV means by cooperation.JPLogan 03:25, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Also please remove this reference, it is a self-published book and not a valid reference.

• Sinclair. J. (1992) An ABC of NLP. Publisher: ASPEN ISBN: 0951366017

regards, --Comaze 03:30, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps somebody could remove Comaze. He seems to be the only person with a stated committment to biasing the whole page towards a single NLP set of books and authors. Comaze has also spent the past few months persistently removing cited facts from the present article whilst encouraging others to do the same.JPLogan 03:34, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

JPLogan, 6 references to engram from the one dodgy reference, and a link to a half-finished web site (hypnosis-online.org) is not cited fact. Can you find some better sources than that? --Comaze 03:36, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Hello Comaze. I count at least 3 refs to engram, two from peer reviewed journals, and one from a published book about NLP. Actually, I have another two NLP books about engrams sitting next to me that are itching to end up on the article. There are more to come.JPLogan 03:43, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

EXCELLENT!. This is the kind of thing we need to look things up. 2 weeks ago you said you had some evidence... please supply? GregA I copied this from earlier in this page:

Comaze. Engram is a largely debunked concept. NLP theorists use it, and engram describes exactly what they are doing, and their assumptions. It is recognised by psychology and is a very useful descriptive link. And yes, I can provide evidence. It will come in time. JPLogan 02:39, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

The engram information is also undisputed. It will be reverted.HeadleyDown 01:43, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

The engram issue is obviously contentious and needs discussion. When I was trained engram was never mentioned, and I haven't read it (except on some dodgy web pages). Drenth is not an NLP source, Perl's doesn't represent NLP so his interest in engram is irrelevant. Sinclair is the issue - he wrote that it was part of NLP in a book "The ABC of NLP". JP - which are the 2 peer-reviewed journal articles you refer to????

So who is Sinclair? Does he have any weight? Is engram mentioned in any other book from a well known NLP source and in what context? Is it a general NLP concept or not? JP you mention evidence- that's needed or the only real evidence is Sinclair. I hope if Drenth uses the term that he has a source, maybe whoever put up the Drenth cite can give info on where he got the term, if from an NLP book then which one and hopefully page (whatever the reference supplies)? GregA 10:17, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Engram is a false belief, that has long been disproven in neuropsychology. I can put my hand on 300 NLP books that do not use engram. Plus I can confidently say that Dilts, Bandler, Grinder, Delozier, and Cameron-Bandler have never used the engram concept in defining NLP. Yet HeadleyDown and JPLogan insist on putting the engram term in 6 times based on a dodgy reference to Sinclair's self-published book, and a reference to a half-finished web site. If you want to include this fringe idea of engrams, you will have to qualify it. The following statements, mostly added by HeadleyDown and JPLogan. I propose that all of these be removed.

• The methods of NLP involve programming and reprogramming engrams (Sinclair 1992) (Drenth 2003) [1]
• NLP makes use of concept of the engram (Sinclair 1992) in relation to the mind/body connection, (Drenth 2003) for the utility of change, the development of unconscious competence, and the treatment or removal of traumas (Andreas & Faulkner, 1994).
• The engram is a patterned response, which has been stabilised at the level of unconscious competence. These engrams are beneficial if they involve automatic activities which are useful, but also comprise activities which are automatic and pernicious, such as addictive behaviour (Sinclair 1992). The concept involves the memory trace, can be located using the eye directionality, or other such cues, and then can be accessed and manipulated using changes in internal visuo-spatial imagery.
• The engram concept is by and large scientifically unsupported.
• Christina Hall has argued that peoples resources are their sensory representation systems and the manner in which they are organised,
• although it is also supported using Wilder Pendfield's research into engrams.
• Fritz Perls who had a great interest in the engram concept, and during this period, promoted and operated a Dianetics clinic (Clarkson and Mackewn 1993).
• NLP promoters have consistently failed to provide even normal scientific evidence. This includes the notion of adopting unconscious competence through the manipulation of the engram, which is also not supported by science.

The highest priority is to remove ", although it is also supported using Wilder Penfield's research into engrams" because this is completely false and misleading. --Comaze 05:31, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Umm Headley or JPL - whoever wrote Wilder Penfield... who is this guy? You don't cite him and your link doesn't work. Is he related in any way to NLP or are you just throwing in a name? GregA 09:21, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Wilder Penfield was added by HeadleyDown, see this link: [12]

Ok, I've removed all references to engram from the article. This is simply not part of NLP, and never has been. --Comaze 00:25, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Comaze - while i agree totally that engram is simply not part of NLP, we should discuss that here first. If a few NLP trainers use the term maybe that would have to be mentioned somewhere (though if we wrote the full range of what some trainings include the article would not be informative)GregA 01:00, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Hello Comaze. Your removal of cited fact about NLP and engrams is completely against NPOV! It is guaranteed to get revertedHeadleyDown 01:26, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Removing engram (completely unrelated to NLP) references is absolutely within NPOV. --Comaze 01:37, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi Comaze. You spent week upon week last month deleting facts that shouldn't be deleted. You did the same today. The guys here are generally constructive, cooperative and compromising. But you are really very uncooperative and destructive. You have already made a commitment to an article that is Grinder/Bandler biased and you seem to be working towards that on your oversized alternative page. You seem to have a policy to delete facts and censor information above all else, and you've tried to get the other NLP guys to remove facts. Everybody can see you are deeply offended by the the NLP-engram information. That's a really strong sign that you're an NLP fanatic and have no ability or desire to write a neutral encyclopedic article on NLP. I also noticed your constant accusations that people are vandalizing (when in fact they are compromising). You even posted fake warning signs on some neutral editor's discussion pages! The page WAS in the process of NPOV improvement, and despite your strong efforts at censorship over the past few days, the article has not become more extreme. That seems to be because there are some very tolerant, compromising and neutral guys here (not you). You have proven over and over again your habit of overzealous disruption to the improvement of this article. I will join the neutral editors here (H.Down et al) in research and continue to revert your unjustified censorship.Alice.AliceDeGrey 04:54, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

We'll just have to agree to disagree. Engram is simply not part of NLP. Do you want to get a third party moderator to sort this out? --Comaze 11:28, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

I've removed the engram stuff again. regards, --Comaze 00:42, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Comaze, the reversions are useless. I agree that NLP has no concept of engrams, but this isn't the way to work on it. You and headley (and a couple of others) are constantly adding little things you know the other will disagree with, without discussion. Discuss it first. If people disagree, it doesn't go up at this point. If nobody replies, it's okay to put up. And if nobody replies to one idea you request input on, you can't then put up some other idea instead.

Personally, I've still seen no evidence that NLP refers to engrams from well known NLP authors. JP claims to have that evidence but hasn't supplied it. I am happy to accept that some psychologists might say that NLP refers to engrams. But it would be a straw man argument if a psychologist said that NLP refers to engrams (without need), then attacked engrams, as a criticism of NLP. If JP can show evidence, we need to work out if it's history or current, and if it's a view of a specific few or shared by many NLP people. As I said, I've seen no evidence but it's possible one of the early NLP guys refered to it. Lets find out GregA 07:52, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Greg, I've spoken to a mediator who is currently on holidays and will be back on Friday. I asked the other mediator to come in to assist with negotiation. Alternatively we can contact User:RedWolf24. --Comaze 15:40, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Comaze. Perhaps the mediator can mediate this: Engrams are variously described as the memory trace and sometimes referred to as the memory hologram model of mind. These concepts are mentioned in key NLP books and articles at a scientific theoretical level. You demanded references for engrams (during your last reversionfest) and they were supplied. You continued with your destructive trolling, and more engram refs were supplied. Even during the most ridiculous smear campaign by you against other neutral editors, compromises were made to shift the engrams concept away from the opening paragraphs. The engram material adheres strictly to NPOV policy, and through repeat efforts on your part, to remove them yourself and trying to get others to do so, you have failed and will continue to fail. As it stands, you are being true to your history of total uncooperative and uncompromising deletions. If you continue with this nonsense and the engram concepts will go right back into the opening paragraphs. If you do not compromise, why should anyone else?HeadleyDown 01:59, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

"Engrams are described as memory trace and ... memory hologram model.... These concepts are mentioned in key NLP books".

Okay Headley - are you saying the concepts of memory trace are mentioned in NLP books, or the concepts of engrams? GregA 07:06, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi Greg. Engrams are mentioned in NLP books and articles. The engram is a memory trace according to psychology, and is sometimes referred to as the hologram model of the mind. Either way, NLP books tend to agree with each other on the concept that they use either explicitly or implicitly to talk about unconcious competence, chained anchoring and other such effects. Take a look at definitions of engrams, and they will talk about or refer to the memory trace. Perhaps this is all academic, because it does not matter anyway. The fact is NLP books and articles about NLP have stated the concept of engrams and as long as those views are correctly cited according to NPOV, they will be represented. I am actually getting a bit bored explaining it. Its really a very mundane psychological concept. RegardsHeadleyDown 12:56, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Headley, I'm also bored of the explanations, that's why I asked a specific question (and you say the books are quite explicit). I also asked for sources a few days back and am yet to get a reply. So lets get down to the meat.

1. Please help us to find multiple references in common NLP books or trainings - without them we can't generalise (JP says he has several but hasn't supplied any).
2. Alternatively, please help us find ANY references to Engram in less common NLP books (I note you've said ABC of NLP)? If we get a few of these we can talk about some NLP books doing this.
3. Can you explain what you mean by NLP books agreeing "implicitly" with Engram concepts? (I read some NLP books and might relate something to Symbolic Connectionist models of the mind - though I guess what I was reading might also be able to be related to engrams in a couple of ways... the thing is the book says neither, simply how to do a pattern etc)
4. Note that 3 months ago Engrams were not part of this article, they are not required to make NLP understood. You believe they should be in here - for what purpose?

GregA 21:45, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

I have put in a formal request for mediation (via Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution) on this issue, so we should be hearing back from the mediators fairly soon. best regards, --Comaze 11:45, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

comaze - you may be right, maybe it is the only way... but I hope with multiple sections we can get some discussion going and some input. There are several sections I've asked for comment on in the last few days with no response, so given that I've allowed time for response I believe it reasonable to make changes to the page. Please comaze (and headley) now that we're in mediation lets not do reversions on the engram stuff and use the mediator effectively. I guess what I'm saying is - for all sections, lets not make changes without discussing things here first!! GregA 12:16, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

The conflicting theories involve the combination of strange pseudo ideas of left and right brain, with engrams that don’t really link from one to the other, to neurology which includes chemical responses. Its really confusing. HeadleyDown 14:41, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

That's fair enough. Engram was removed from the Neuro-linguistic Programming(Temp) weeks ago, we gave plenty of notice and time to comment. --Comaze 23:37, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

I still have not heard back from the mediator yet. Please see, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation for more information. --211.30.48.164 00:45, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Is there somewhere we can read the request for mediation? I'd like to know what's been said GregA 09:02, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

I've emailed the meditator, to give overview of the situation. I have engaged in the mediation process before now. You can probably submit the mediation request here, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation. --Comaze 00:45, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I've put in an RfC on this matter. If that fails let's proceed to arbitration. I attempted to comprimise by framing the engram stuff, but failed as it was reverted very quickly. see comprimise here [13] --Comaze 12:25, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

I've decided to look through this whole page for any answer to references to Engrams - to bring them all together (these are copied, not moved). GregA 07:57, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

1. New age is part of the references as is potential and re-programming and engrams and traumas. The term appears many times. It is in academic references, promotional references, historical references amongst others. You seem to be working with a limited outlook and limited references. Grinder is only one author. I want to be truthful and encyclopedic about NLP. Stop judging, and stop denying. The sources are everywhere! The truth will HELP NLP. HeadleyDown 14:39, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
2. "treating engrams" is a term from Scientology, not NLP.(comaze, early september?)
3. Traumas and engrams are psychological labels and high level enough to allow readers to understand what NLP is about in psychology terms. EBlack 03:20, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
4. Engram is a largely debunked concept. NLP theorists use it, and engram describes exactly what they are doing, and their assumptions. It is recognised by psychology and is a very useful descriptive link. And yes, I can provide evidence. It will come in time. JPLogan 02:39, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
5. Engram is a psychological term to describe a part of a history or memory trace of episodic memory. It is commonly used in NLP by Bandler, Dilts, Grinder et al and was also used by Perls and Virginia Satir. It is used widely in NLP literature. EBlack 11:48, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
6. I have failed to find any reference to "engram" by Bandler, Dilts, Grinder et al in NLP literature. Why does engram does not appear in any of the developers literature? What are your sources (with page numbers)? Comaze 00:57, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
7. Comaze. Your research is irellevant. Do a search of Engrams and psychology. Also, look at these pages: [14][15][16]
8. I understand that NLP writers often do not use an index in their book, but keep on searching through the text and you will find copious use of the term "engram" in the text. Also, an introductory paragraph should have something recognisable in the text. Engrams is linked to the wiki article on engrams and that gives a clear idea of what it is about. Whats more, consensus is towards this point. More links and book references can be added to the engram link in due course. Have faith in wikiprocess, and be patient. HeadleyDown 04:38, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
9. I am still not convinced. I still have not found any reference to "engram" by any of the NLP developers (Bandler, Grinder, Delozier, Dilts, ...). ... I am not convinced of any relevance of engram to NLP. Do you have any other references (with page numbers)? --Comaze 05:26, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
10. If you want engram stuff to stay, you will need to provide a reference (and page number), otherwise this will be removed. Lashley, the guy who came up with the term engram, was not able to find one. Comaze 01:55, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
11. Comaze. Engram is a largely debunked concept. NLP theorists use it, and engram describes exactly what they are doing, and their assumptions. It is recognised by psychology and is a very useful descriptive link. And yes, I can provide evidence. It will come in time. JPLogan 02:39, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
12. my intention is to write this article according to NPOV. NLP was defined by Grinder & Bandler, with assistance from Dilts, Delozier, Cameron Bandler (NLP Vol.1, 1979). This is a commonly accepted POV (not just my POV). HeadleyDown's mysticism, fuzzy thinking energy, EST, Scientology, Dianetics, engram bias that has been mixed up with some NLP training that he has been exposed to, is simply not NLP, and does not belong in this article (except in a minor way). Gregory Bateson (NLP's foundational mentor) has no tolerance for fuzzy thinking mystical energy concepts. Energy has little or no significance in human thinking or communication. --Comaze 02:45, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
13. The engram is the central concept of anchoring, eye accessing cues, and the mind/body part of NLP. C.Oxford@hotmail.comCarlOxford 09:01, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
14. Engram the central concept in anchoring? hmmm, let's see, Pavlov's classical conditioning rings a bell. --211.30.48.164 03:29, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
15. Sure, the reference to engrams and traumas etc was from a Dutch researcher. I will add the reference (if I have not already done so). HeadleyDown 10:36, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
16. I can find no reference to 'engrams', or re-programming engrams in any NLP literature. Even in the link you provide, the authors are discussing the work of neuroscientist Wilder Penfield, make no specific mention of engrams, and say the following regarding the idea 'His first conclusion was that each memory had a specific location. Current research would suggest this is not the case. The brain seems to be organized along functional lines rather than site specific lines. I do not think this claim is therefore warranted without further/stronger evidence. Lee1 15:53, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
17. Simply follow all the references and check them out. I have looked at all the engram literature on the article, and it is completely correct, and more is available for support. Really, if all you want to do is remove facts, you are in the wrong place. NLP is strongly historically, and theoretically connected with the engram concept that is inextricably linked throughout the human potential movement, cybernetics of Maltz, Perl's promotions through Dianetics, Satir's notions of humanistic psychology, and the unconcious competence ideas that run all the way through NLP, including the theory articles that have been written. HeadleyDown 16:49, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
18. AFAIK, Lee has already looked through your references - and remember the purpose of a reference is to allow the reader to easily find the source if they require, so we have to ensure our references are useful in this sense and make them something easily found (assuming the reader has the book or paper, of course). Even with a reference, there are plenty of NLP trainings that don't use the term Engram. GregA 23:29, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
19. Can someone please remove this line. It is not relevant to NLP. "although it is also supported using Wilder Pendfield's research into engrams." Also please remove all other references to engrams. --Comaze 03:13, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
20. Also please remove this reference, it is a self-published book and not a valid reference.Sinclair. J. (1992) An ABC of NLP. Publisher: ASPEN ISBN: 0951366017 regards, --Comaze 03:30, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
21. I count at least 3 refs to engram, two from peer reviewed journals, and one from a published book about NLP. Actually, I have another two NLP books about engrams sitting next to me that are itching to end up on the article. There are more to come.JPLogan 03:43, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
22. Comaze. Read the article. (ed: what article?) There is already information that says the engram is part of NLP. There is also info about scientific thinking believing that the engram is not scientifically supported. Not my fault. That is just a fact.HeadleyDown 04:40, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
23. Since HeadleyDown and JPLogan were the ones who added the engram stuff (firstly HeadleyDown). You can assist by removing the engram concepts yourself, or by framing engram as a minority view. This idea is certainly not shared by the developers of NLP, or the majority of the NLP community. These issues needs to be resolved so we can continue with the merge. --Comaze 04:15, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
24. Drenth is not an NLP source, Perl's doesn't represent NLP so his interest in engram is irrelevant. Sinclair is the issue - he wrote that it was part of NLP in a book "The ABC of NLP". JP - which are the 2 peer-reviewed journal articles you refer to???? GregA 10:17, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
25. So who is Sinclair? Does he have any weight? Is engram mentioned in any other book from a well known NLP source and in what context? GregA 10:17, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
26. I can put my hand on 300 NLP books that do not use engram. Plus I can confidently say that Dilts, Bandler, Grinder, Delozier, and Cameron-Bandler have never used the engram concept in defining NLP. (comaze?)
27. The engram is a memory trace according to psychology, and is sometimes referred to as the hologram model of the mind. Either way, NLP books tend to agree with each other on the concept that they use either explicitly or implicitly to talk about unconcious competence, chained anchoring and other such effects. Take a look at definitions of engrams, and they will talk about or refer to the memory trace. HeadleyDown 12:56, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
28. I wonder if anyone has actually bothered to check out the reference to Drenth in regard to engrams? I haven't yet found a copy of his article, but supporters of Drenth's inclusion on Wikipedia might want to investigate this allegation by another Dutch professor: In the case of professor Drenth, there is not one single scientific study that supports his firmly postulated rejection either. Nor did he try to cite even one single piece of research." (Drs. Jaap Hollander Ph.D.) Andy 15:08, October 7, 2005 (UTC) (he provides more info)
29. As far as I can see, Drenth is a scholar of perfectly acceptable repute... Also, other sources concur with Prof Drenth. From the research that I have read by Prof Drenth, he uses solid primary sources of NLP. His assessment of NLP is the same as any assessment of pseudoscience. HeadleyDown 15:32, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
30. I agree with you Headley. Drenth is reputable, and other sources agree with his, so he already has strong points of triangulation and corroboration.JPLogan 02:20, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
31. the engram references comply strictly with NPOV policy and tutorials. According to NPOV, deleting fact is a really bad idea.(moved by JPLogan 02:14, 8 October 2005 (UTC))
32. Edit to main page on 02:51, 10 October 2005 JPLogan (Providing engram ref) (Overdurf and Silverthorn 1995 - Training Trances: Multi-Level Communication in Therapy and Training)
33. lets get down to the meat.
    • Please help us to find multiple references in common NLP books or trainings - without them we can't generalise (JP says he has several but hasn't supplied any).
    • Alternatively, please help us find ANY references to Engram in less common NLP books (I note you've said ABC of NLP)? If we get a few of these we can talk about some NLP books doing this.
    • Can you explain what you mean by NLP books agreeing "implicitly" with Engram concepts? (I read some NLP books and might relate something to Symbolic Connectionist models of the mind - though I guess what I was reading might also be able to be related to engrams in a couple of ways... the thing is the book says neither, simply how to do a pattern etc)
    • Note that 3 months ago Engrams were not part of this article, they are not required to make NLP understood. You believe they should be in here - for what purpose? GregA 21:45, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
34. Edit to main page on 02:51, 10 October 2005 JPLogan (Providing engram ref) (Overdurf and Silverthorn 1995 - Training Trances: Multi-Level Communication in Therapy and Training)
35. Not only is engrams written in the two published papers by Drenth and the other psycholinguist chap, but it is also in an encyclopedia of NLP (abc of nlp) and in several NLP websites. I have also done a quick search in French, German and Spanish, and found engrams to be all over the place in NLP (or PNL) texts. I really can't see any reason to delete the engram stuff after having a strongly triangulated set of sources. AliceDeGrey 08:48, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
36. As you know we have to be careful of using a search as evidence. GregA 21:01, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
37. engram is a useful and commonly used term in psychology and psychotherapy. Its even used heavily by Maxwell Maltz, one of the founding inspirations of NLP.AliceDeGrey 08:48, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
38. I also notice that engrams have been used throughout the books. I studied neurology as my major at university. NLP books use the engram concept whenever they talk about what happens with neurology (though they also call physical actions neurology when the definition for neurology involves just nerves) and that includes Bandler and other key developers.DaveRight 02:39, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
39. Dilt's book is Modeling with NLP, and there are others. In Frogs, Bandler talks of Lashley etc, Drenth's paper does refer directly to NLP and engrams as does Levelt's, and Derk's amongst others, Schacter's book mentions Frogs to Princes also, and he is a great source for clearing up the mention of engram here (its a common term in psychology and neurology and its existence is not in despute even by Lashley), Singer's book on cults is fine as a sourceHeadleyDown 00:13, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
40. I just read Frogs into Princes (Bandler & Grinder, 1979) and was not able to find any mention of engram or Lashley. Can you please help us out by providing page numbers for this reference. --Comaze 02:20, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
41. If your secondary source is good it should be easy for you to look up and tell us. Alternatively, if it's a majority view it should be very easy just to flip open a common NLP book and see the term. GregA 01:05, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
42. I'll see if I can get my hands on Dilt's book. Can you give me a page number or chapter? GregA 01:14, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
43. In neurology and NLP, an engram describes the mechanism for persistent change in the brain. It was never properly found in the brain, but its existence is not in question. It is used in NLP throughout the whole subject, especially in the neuro sense, although it also comes into the linguistic and computer side. The engram is a physical network in the brain, and also an experience in the mind. Whenever you mix images in NLP (eg, a scary spider and a beautiful landscape) something happens to the physical brain. You are connecting the two engrams together. Then something happens to your physical state. As the phobia is "confused" with a beautiful landscape, the neurons fire differently, and the heartbeat, perspiration etc will change for the better. So the engram is used to explain all of the experiential memory fragment aspects of NLP. It is about the most useful concept in NLP theory, and it helps people understand how many amazing resources we have access to. So the engram is part of all NLP- the neuro, the linguistic, and the programming. There is absolutely no chance of any dispute over this point. Bandler and Grinder generally do not touch theory because they are busy talking about experiences. They take it as read that people know (or are willing to find out for themselves) basic neurology and psychology.Bookmain 03:57, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
44. Bookmain says: "Bandler and Grinder generally do not touch theory because they are busy talking about experiences." A counter example to this claim is that Grinder, for example, provides a lingusitic description of the theory (Transformational Grammar, Automata Theory) that forms the intellectual underpinnings of Structure of Magic Volume 1, 1975 (see Appendix A), and the intellectual underpinnings for the entire field of NLP. --211.30.48.164 09:41, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
45. Yup! Bandler and Grinder are also talking about engrams when they mention fuzzy functions in Structure of Magic. They also refer to this in the Hypnotic Patterns of Milton Erickson. They refer specifically to these structures in terms of visual-kinasthetic or visuoauditory circuits. The work of Lashley also refers to this, and talks about visual engrams and kinesthetic engrams in Searleman, A., & Herrmann, DJ (1994). Looks like engram is a really useful term for the NLP article.DaveRight 05:10, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
46. DaveRight, I just skimmed through Stucture of Magic (chapter on fuzzy functions) and cannot find any reference to Lashley or engrams. Do you have a page number for this? Also, you page numbers for Patterns of Milton Erickson. I check the other references later. Thanks, --Comaze 05:44, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
47. I also notice that NLP developers talk about engrams when they mention simultaneous firing of circuits during anchoring or chained anchoring. Its amazing how close NLP and Dianetics are in practice. They both use engrams, both refering to chaining circuits, both manipulate imagery and hypnosis to remove or treat traumas and both charge money for doing it pseudoscientifically. Comaze, read the definition of engram again, and then reread the chapter. You will see engrams all over the place. AmazingAliceDeGrey 07:57, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
48. Skimmed through it again, no mention of Lashley or Engrams. Where did you get the information? --Comaze 10:39, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
49. As the engram is clearly a core part of the theory of NLP (as stated by those who do NLP theory) it certainly complies with the scientific requirements for inclusion to the article. It may even help in brevifying and wikifying the text. So the engram is identified in swish, prs, submodalities, anchoring, and in some linguistics part of NLP. If anyone can specify any more areas, it may work well to include it throughout the articleHeadleyDown 09:12, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
50. NLP is theoretically based on Transformational Grammar, Turing Machine and Batesonian (Cybernetic) Epistemology. Engram or connectionist theories do not come into play, at all. For example, Grinder gives a 10 page introduction to Transformational Grammar in Structure of Magic Vol. 1 (see Appendix A) and explains the theoretical underpinnings, he points to an earlier work by him and Susan Elgin, A Guide to Transformational Grammar (~1972) and other linguistic texts for those who want to further their knowledge in this area. To me, this seems such a simple issue, why are we having so much trouble agreeing on this issue. Engram or Transformational Grammar? Which NLP trainers/researchers/developers these concept? --Comaze 10:39, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
51. Grinder is likely to say anything to sell his seminars. He is only one view, and he is so inconsistent that it is actually quite hard to know what his view is exactly. NLP is an art or a science or both? It is not a science, but an epistemology? NLP cannot be measured because it is just a methodology? Or if Bandler got in it would be just an attitude? Comaze, you have just tried to narrow the points of view again. I'll add that to your reasons to be banned score.HeadleyDown 11:14, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
52. HeadleyDown just identified the major issue we are having here. The dispute is over terminology, pure and simple. Specfically the definition of epistemology. Grinder uses Bateson's definition of epistemology. Let's simplify it to make it quite clear, Grinder says...
    • NLP is an art (philosophy) and a science
    • NLP is an Batesonian (Cybernetic) epistemology
    • Epistemology is a philosophy (art) and a science (see glossary, Angels Fear, Bateson & Bateson). --Comaze 11:53, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
53. we have the issue of whether NLP explicitly refers to Engrams - you say "In neurology and NLP, an engram describes...", yet later you say that Bandler and Grinder don't touch theory because they are busy talking about experiences... but that people know that Engram is part of NLP due to the fact that it is our underlying neurology. Does NLP use the term Engram, and if so where and is it common?GregA 14:01, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
54. I've studied neural networks, behavioural neuroscience, symbolic connectionist modeling, etc - and I don't think that NLP is explained specifically by Engrams, though it is a possible way of interpreting what's going on behind the scenes, and it may well "help people understand how many amazing resources we have". Anyway, NLP processes were modeled without expectations and theories for the underlying neurology, though it is entirely possible to develop theory for why the patterns work - Dilts has done this from time to time. What we are questioning is whether common NLP sources refer to Engram. I think it may be a good idea to have a section called "Why NLP works" - specifically framed as a connection between NLP and neuroscience, and not NLP per se. GregA 14:01, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
55. This argument seems to resemble the oposing idea in Language of Thought; classical symbolic AI or connectionist neural tests? In NLP we use rule-based systems with finite alphabet (finite state automata), this is imported directly from Chomsky's Transformational Grammar, in which John Grinder did his PhD. This is all properly references in Structure vol.1 (Grinder & Bandler, 1975). --Comaze 23:28, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
56. So it appears that the first mention of engram in NLP literature appears in 1992, (Sinclair & Bray). --Comaze 09:16, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

There is one key request here!. Please give us a couple of common NLP books that refer to Engram. Even if we could start with one!?!. All we have is Drenth (not NLP), Sinclair (not NLP), and ABC of NLP. No books or papers from any of the original NLP developers or well known trainers mention it. GregA 09:00, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

I would like to publically apologise for getting annoyed with Comaze this morning when he removed Engrams again, I almost reverted it myself. Although it does annoy me when I can't edit because of RV wars - in making this summary I haven't found anything substantive in backing up the Engram concept in any reply from anyone on the main page and archive - despite the quantity of talk. I don't want another RV, but I would like a definitive reply from anyone on the bullet points just above. If you look at the above summary, there is often talk of "the concepts of engrams" being included in NLP books - and this is a far different thing to engrams themselves (though if you had some knowledge of Engrams you might interpret it that way). Sorry about that Comaze. GregA 07:57, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi again. I find the prolonged objection to engrams quite disturbing, especially after so many sources have supported it. Not only is engrams written in the two published papers by Drenth and the other psycholinguist chap, but it is also in an encyclopedia of NLP (abc of nlp) and in several NLP websites. I have also done a quick search in French, German and Spanish, and found engrams to be all over the place in NLP (or PNL) texts. I really can't see any reason to delete the engram stuff after having a strongly triangulated set of sources. I understand NLP creates a lot of zealots, but as a wikipedian, surely attempts at deletion of ANY sourced fact is completely silly. Especially as engram is a useful and commonly used term in psychology and psychotherapy. Its even used heavily by Maxwel Maltz, one of the founding inspirations of NLP.AliceDeGrey 08:48, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi Alice, well we both agree we don't like the protacted argument. As you know we have to be careful of using a search as evidence. It's easy to enter 2 words into Google and get many hits because there will always be someone who says something. Enter "Psychology Engram" and you find that on Oct 6 there was a neuroscience seminar at Yale University about the fear Engram being located in the Lateral Amygdala. There are websites that have NLP AND Engram - how many websites have NLP but NOT Engram?

• NLP NOT Engram gets 3.8 million hits on GOogle - and they include nlpinfo, nlp.com, nlpu, nlpco, nlp-world, purenlp, nlp.org, nlpschedule, anlp.org, nlpuniversitypress, nlpweekly.
• NLP AND Engram gets 421 hits - including wikipedia, skeptics group, Humanistic NLP (nlptrainings.com), skepsis.nl/nlp.html, ABC of NLP, harmoniseyourhealth.com (comaze: if you exclude the 100s wikipedia mirrors then this is looking very thin indeed).

A quick search is only as good as what you search for. My search also means nothing. My question above was has anyone got any evidence that general NLP trainers or common books teach Engrams? It is obvious that there will be some NLP sources who do but do you consider these ones representative? If an external source says that NLP teaches Engrams then whoever read that external source should have access to the references he gave (assuming it was a quality source), so it's an easy thing to lookup.

So far the quality of the answer to that question has been "there are plenty of sources", but no actual backup. None. GregA 21:01, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

AliceD wrote: I understand NLP creates a lot of zealots, but as a wikipedian, surely attempts at deletion of ANY sourced fact is completely silly. Especially as engram is a useful and commonly used term in psychology and psychotherapy.

Wikipedia specifically asks to find representative information, and if a significant subgroup exists which approaches something differently, to identify who belongs in that subgroup and represent their approach.

Your second comment is interesting - Engram is a useful term... umm so what? Engrams may be a way of simplifying an explanation but Connectionist Modeling can also be simplified as Engrams... it doesn't help. I'm not sure what you're getting at? GregA 21:09, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Greg, "ABC of NLP" that AliceDeGrey(HeadleyDown) is refering to is a self-published book. Not an encyclopedia. --Comaze 07:18, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Lashley who first proposed and subsequently unable to find any evidence to support engrams, went on to develop Connectionism as a way of explaing mental activity. NLP (especially Grinder) argues that mind is essential computational, i.e. that the mind is essentially a Turing machine. (Grinder & Bandler, 1975) (Grinder & Bostic, 2001). see also cognitivism, computationalism, Transformational grammar --211.30.48.164 11:27, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Comaze. Stop removing facts. I was about to start on some NPOV merging. If you continue with with your destructive and uncooperative behaviour, the article will simply not improve.HeadleyDown 01:33, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Sure, Headley. If I find Comaze messing about like that again, I'll just revert his deletions and get on with merging and NPOVing.JPLogan 03:04, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Are you guys keen to go to mediation over the engram issue? --Comaze 00:46, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Mate, we ARE going to mediation over the engram issue - you said the mediator is back from holidays Friday. There will certainly be other issues to mediate. But stop the reversions as they prevent ANY WORK being done on the page. You undid the Seitz and Cohen compromise Headley and I came to, and a few other minor changes along the way. I personally don't like my changes being reverted, I liked them! :) Also comaze, you also don't just work on the engram issue, there's more to it.

Discuss it here first. For the record if I say "as discussed in Talk" I will attempt to ensure that anything contentious is brought up here first, discussed until some form of consensus is reached (or if nobody comments for a while (Headley suggests 48hrs), it's not contentious). Comaze - you just wrote "reverted Engrams as discussed" but the engram issue is totally and obviously unresolved on this talk page. Once again, I agree Engrams don't belong, but lets do this properly.

And yes I know this is a bit different because we have 2 parallel versions of the page and are merging, rather than just randomly making a big change, so it's difficult to say which version is "right" or should be placed online while contention still exists. But that makes the discussion here even more important. GregA 23:44, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

At the moment there is no evidence that any of the primary sources or developers of NLP have ever used the engram concept so I reverted based on those facts. If a third party moderator says that it should be included or if someone can provide evidence that it is used in NLP (especially by original developers), I will insist that it is framed properly (ie. Who uses engram concept, who does use it, counter-examples, references, etc.). --Comaze 00:54, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Comaze, my apologies again - see above GregA 07:57, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

To Headley and anyone else who believes that "NLP doesn't work," please explain, preferably as briefly as you can:

In what way, or ways, specifically does NLP "not work"?

Keeping answers brief would be helpful.

Andy 16:42, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Hello Andy. It may work to make money, and it may work to fool people, but that doesn't matter. Your question is actually irrelevant. It does not matter what I or you think. This is an encyclopedia. If the most reliable sources indicate that a particular view says it does not work, then those sources will be represented according to NPOV.HeadleyDown 16:11, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Andy, your question is perfectly relevant. Just keep in mind that HeadleyDown is an advocate for hyponotherapy located in UK. I have no objection to hyponotherapy, except when it is pushed onto an NLP article. --Comaze 22:54, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Headley, you just answered 2 places where NLP does work, not where it doesn't work. This encyclopedia will be more useful when we identify what specifically a source says, and whether they are reliable. For instance, magazine articles are considered bottom of the pile. GregA 23:12, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi Andy. Grinder promotes NLP for conflict resolution and negotiation. It clearly does not work:)JPLogan 02:52, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Hello JPLogan, John Grinder actually worked with Roger Fisher and William Ury who wrote #1 best seller in negotiation, Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In, (New York: Penguin Books, 1983). I don't know the full details, but Ury and Fisher now incorporate some of NLP (Perceptual Positions) into their seminars. This clearly does work. --Comaze 08:45, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Comaze - these techniques don't always work, they work in certain contexts. JPL, in business there are often mutual needs which make working together worthwhile - while other business deals aren't worthwhile. Sometimes communicating well leads to realising you don't agree. GregA 09:01, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

(responding to the generic comment regarding Platt, Lilienfield etc)

The thing is, what some of these guys are saying can be true!. Unfortunately, the scientific research itself has not effectively tested NLP claims. GregA 10:02, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Have any of you found any outcome-based research papers on NLP? I've only found one, but surely there must be more. I'm also looking for a good review of outcome-based vs experimental research. This article is general: http://www.scienceboard.net/community/perspectives.87.html Thanks. GregA

I'd like to suggest we remove any arguments that NLP is good because of something else not NLP. Same goes for bad. Let us talk about what NLP is itself. As a related example, we should not say

• Headley and Comaze, like the believers of the guinea plateau, eat regularly.

Lets be specific in this case rather than imply an association.GregA 08:04, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Does anybody disagree with doing this? Note that if I do it I'll do it with everything in the article. SO that above made up example would become 2 statements

• Headley and Comaze eat regularly
• Headley and Comaze are believers of the guinea plateau (or whatever their association is).
• (I'll ignore "the believers of the guinea plateau eat regularly", as it would be unimportant to the topic)

We would then be able to alter and debate either of the 2 statements. Comments?GregA 23:19, 9 October 2005 (UTC) (ps. I can't do any of that while the reversion war is happening. This is annoying)

You have other promotional and boosterist phrases such as "practitioners often explicitly formulate these as presup..etc". JPLogan 06:46, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm not clear on the problem here. Most trainings list the presuppositions explicitly. Can you elaborate? GregA 07:40, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

I think some of these phrases need clearly citing.HeadleyDown 12:38, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. Okay, you'd like some presuppositions clearly cited? That can be done (tomorrow hopefully!), or someone else might do that beforehand. GregA 14:00, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

I grabbed these from (Collingwood 2001 - NLP Field Guide part 1).

• The map is not the territory. The name is not the thing named (Korzybski). There is difference between the actual world and the "world" we perceive.
• Everyone has their own unique model of the world. Sensory based information is distorted, generalised and deleted in infinitely variable combinations. Six people can witness the same event and report it with six different biases.
• The behavious a person exhibits is separate from the intention of that behaviour. The intention is always asumed to be positive. Intention comes from the individual's unique model of the world which is different from that of the recipient. People always make the best choices available to them given their unique model of the world and of their situation. If that appears unlikely, some people have very limited models of the world.
• Everyone already has the internal resources they need to solve their problems. Thought processes can be brought to awareness and updated. Resources can be introduced to other parts of the system.
• If what you are doing isn't working, do something (anything) different.

I'm not sure where "failure is feedback" comes from. I know it's accepted - it's not in Collingwood, perhaps that's because everything is feedback. Perhaps it's just such a common turn of phrase. Perhaps I've just missed it. Others want to add other cites for our used presuppositions?GregA 10:23, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

• We already have all the resources we need to succeed. It is not argued that this is true, only that it is useful to believe 'as if' it is true when attempting a change.

What does "believe 'as if' it is true" mean? "act as if" is commonly used.
GregA Note that at no time is their a requirement to believe these statements.... try them on as perceptual filters. Find out if they are useful when doing NLP... use them as if they were true. (Collingwood 2003)

The problem is a presupposition is a background belief. Even the NLP books talk about those beliefs, and also, people learning presuppositions consider them beliefs. The word belief is all over the literature in relation to presups.JPLogan 02:52, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Greg, JPLogan, That's fine. A presupposition is a type of belief. More specifically presuppositions is a type quanitifier from linguistics (Transformation Grammar). A quanitifer can also be considered a filter of experience, as Greg points out. --Comaze 03:20, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi JP. Tracking presuppositions is a great way of revealing background beliefs. A presupposition is something that has to be true for the sentence to make sense... so the presuppositions used by someone tell you what they think is true. However, presuppositions are also used in therapies as a form of belief change, and also to help clients make another change. Asking someone "do you remember the first time you realised you were becoming a really good singer"... presupposes that they did realise this sometime. I can ask that without any belief at all specifically so that for HER to make sense of my sentence she has to accept that she did realise this at some time. Likewise, when doing a 6-step reframe - there's a difference between asking a client "do you have a positive intention?", and "are you aware of your positive intention?". We can put a presupposition in whether we believe it or not - and presuppositions were used by early NLP models to help their clients. GregA 09:13, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Headley - my dispute is only the word belief. Reverting it to the old definition doesn't help, it might be useful to join the discussion here to form a consensus rather than undoing it because JP and I disagree.
JP - to combine my and your interpretation, would you accept "it is useful to act 'as if' you believe it is true" GregA 16:42, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi again - as I said earlier I think the confusion between Presuppositions and beliefs is the context. I'm going to expand very briefly the presupposition opening to describe that, I don't think we've had contention on this, so revert if you think it's off base please. Shit... there's been a reversion. Hold that thought. GregA 23:15, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Greg in Structure of Magic Vol.1, Grinder and Bandler quote from "The Philosophy of 'As If'" by Vaihinger (1924). This is directly related to Greg's points about the presuppositions, and NLP modeling methodologies. They would act 'as if' a presupposition is literal to attempt to find an effect in the world. --Comaze 23:41, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Do you happen to know of any current sources regarding NLP groups using PRS, or is it historical?

Thanks again GregA 10:58, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

This is also, I guess, in reference to what I was taught was a myth - the comment that "I'm a visual" etc GregA 23:21, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Hi Greg. Just take a look at recent NLP books. Still the same old shifty eye diagram. Also, the research conducted on PRS used specifically callibrated prs, rather than just the simplistic version (even though BnG did the research on that simple one).HeadleyDown 03:02, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

GregA, H.Down, Dilts & Delozier (2000) says that William James, the founder of psychology, was the first to note Primary Representation Primacy in Principles of Psychology (1890) [17]. As far as I am aware PRS is no longer taught in psychology or NLP. --Comaze 07:04, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

In psychology, the research generally shows that the rep styles makes no difference in learning contexts. It certainly makes no difference in communication. I can't think of an NLP book that does not teach PRS, even the recent editions.HeadleyDown 15:36, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Hi Headley.

I wasn't asking about eye accessing cues. I was asking about PRS. I just haven't heard PRS taught the way it was studied. Perhaps the NLP trainers and writers listened to early research, perhaps it was never taught that way, or perhaps I just did a good training.

So do you happen to know any current sources in NLP that teach the PRS (not eye-accessing cues) - and if so do they teach it similar to how it has been studied or not?

Hi GregA. Just take a look in the appendices of each book. For example, Andy Bradbury's book has PRS there, and the diagrams similar to the one shown here. So, yes, people are teaching PRS and its alleged implications throughout all the literature.RegardsHeadleyDown 01:11, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Let me know if you don't know the difference between the 2.

Oh by the way, "Dilts & Epstein (1995) Dynamic Learning" found correlations between deliberately using visual eye cues and increased spelling ability.

GregA 21:36, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Sure there is a difference, but the basic NLP tenets are the same. We can use prs or internal sensual modes and see them on our faces. None of this is scientifically supported (overall).HeadleyDown 12:38, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Okay, so you know they are different but you don't understand much more than that.

Most of those studies cite the PRS, but the books aren't talking about PRS. Some of those studies talk about a rep system that is used above all other systems (the primary system) - and find that people do instead use all rep systems to varying degrees (which is what I was taught and have read). Maybe NLP did say that once, and stopped when evidence didn't support it? (elsewhere, you criticise NLP as a pseudoscience for not being falsifiable...). WHether it did originally or not, NLP doesn't teach that now.GregA 14:00, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Headley - what on earth was the point of this misinformation?

1. I do not refer in my book, nor have I ever - as far as I recall, I could be wrong - referred to PRSs. I call them PTSs, primary thinking styles. Likewise there is no eye accessing cues chart in the appendix of my book - the illustrations are distributed throughout Chapter 15. None of which would matter much in itself EXCEPT THAT it suggests that you are quoting me without having read the material you are quoting.

Oh, I do beg your pardon. Not that I have quoted your work in the article or anything, but yes you are talking about PTS. The charts in the book I see are actually in chpt 14 though. As far as I am concerned, it is just as simplistic, and just as psuedoscientific. Other people may have a different view. I understand that the books are written in fairly unequivocal terms, but there are always qualifiers after the fact. And after the negative results of research, there are always excuses from NLP promoters. Like I said, that is pseudoscientific thinking. I can represent that if you like.HeadleyDown 14:09, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

2. That is relatively minor, however, compared to the fact that you misrepresent what I say about PTSs:

"Before we move on, it is important to note that our PTSs are not set in concrete. On the contrary, they tend to be dictated by whatever our current situation may be - at home, at work, with strangers, and so on. Depending on the context people can, and frequently do, shift between PTSs as quickly as a conversation changes direction. Chefs, for example, will often go from a visual PTS when talking about food, to a kinesthetic/olfactory/gustatory PTS when they are actually sampling any kind of food. This means that we need to be sensitive to ay such shifts (a process called 'calibrating' in NLP) in order to stay in tune/spot the changes/keep up with the person or people we're communicating with."

Although I am quoting from my own book, this is a commonly understood point amongst NLPers and reflects John Grinder's comment, made several years ago, that to be really effective calibrating should be carried out at least every 30 seconds.
I'm sure you will recognise that the quote also supports GregA's point.
Andy 12:16, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

(moved from higher in page)...

And why the focus only on the PRS? Where are the studies on 6-step reframe or parts-negotiation? High performance states? meta-model (I've found a few individual studies supporting the meta-model). GregA

As most core NLP books state, PRS is THE core tenet according to Bandler, Grinder, and Dilts, amongst others.HeadleyDown 12:38, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Cite the books. They don't say that. Actually though, the US Army study states that Bandler spoke with the researchers and indicated PRS was no longer as important as earlier books indicated. It doesn't say why. Perhaps it can be mentioned in history GregA 14:00, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Eye accessing cues, meta-model, etc can clearly be called early patterns (do you agree?) Are they accurately also called Basic Tenets of NLP? GregA 07:11, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

You are right, Greg. A replacement for the term "early pattern" is more cooperative rather than my deletion. I will work on it.HeadleyDown 07:20, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Headley -

1. we don't want for you to work on it personally - throw up your ideas here for discussion. If no one disagrees with your suggestion for a suitable time that's good enough to warrant putting it on the page.
2. from all the books I've read, I thought that it was universally accepted that these were early patterns - you are disagreeing. What is your take?
3. I assume you believe they are basic tenets - that is something I dispute. These patterns are not the main principles of NLP, modeling is (as you already wrote in your version's opening lines - "modeling is the crux"). Also the rep systems are still a major part of NLP, but not in the "you have a primary system above all others" style. And doesn't the word "tenet" imply NLP is a philosophy, or religion (not a science, or pseudoscience)... (not sure on that one). GregA 07:30, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Oh, I see Greg. Sure, WE can work on it:). The term "early pattern" could infer that they are not used any more. The "basic tenets" of NLP are termed as such by Bandler, Grinder, Dilts and others. It is their belief and terminology, rather than just mine. It is also the belief of the scientific researchers who measured NLP. The basic tenets have been taught widely and currently. As far as I have read, core NLP books talk of dominant hemispheres and dominant rep systems, and these have been followed to some extent in smaller manuals by Bradbury for example, who writes about "visual managers, auditory managers, and kinesthetic managers". Regards.HeadleyDown 08:01, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Definition of tenet (from wiktionary): "An opinion, belief, or principle held to be true by someone or especially an organization." --211.30.48.164 02:03, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Hello Comaze. I remember someone said something about merging. Now, I don't believe that is ever going to happen with you deleting facts as you have always done.HeadleyDown 04:06, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm attempting to resolve the current differences between the two versions. Since HeadleyDown and JPLogan were the ones who added the engram stuff (firstly HeadleyDown). You can assist by removing the engram concepts yourself, or by framing engram as a minority view. This idea is certainly not shared by the developers of NLP, or the majority of the NLP community. These issues needs to be resolved so we can continue with the merge. --Comaze 04:15, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Now this is an interesting development, Comaze. You seem to be giving yourself the authority to remove facts using messages addressed to yourself:) Thats pretty suspicious cooperation!HeadleyDown 04:21, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

It is quite simple. Since you (HeadleyDown, JPLogan, ...) added the false engram information, I was asking you HeadleyDown to remove the references or frame them as a minority view, that is not supported by majority of science or NLP community. --Comaze 04:27, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Comaze. Read the article. There is already information that says the engram is part of NLP. There is also info about scientific thinking believing that the engram is not scientifically supported. Not my fault. That is just a fact.HeadleyDown 04:40, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

HeadleyDown, You missed the point here. Engram concept is not support by the majority of NLP or science community. On a side note, we need to create an archive for this discussion because it is getting too long. --Comaze 04:47, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Headley - we certainly won't get anywhere until questions are responded to. Personally, I will write up here ANY sentence I dispute, to give you 24 hours to respond to it. Then we can discuss! and work out what was really said. If you think the line was wrong it'd be easier to say so, but lack of comment for 24hrs is also a reflection of having nothing to say isn't it? GregA 09:34, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Greg. As you know, most wikipages work to a far less prompt timetable than the one you are imposing. IF you decide to attack this page with the kind of undiscussed stuff that you gave us last night, then you must realistically expect it all to be reverted. IF I am feeling humerous and tolerant, then I may even decide to accept some of it, as I did yesterday. Otherwise, any undue demands, threats, or impositions from you or Comaze will simply be flushed, as per normal wikipedia convention. It may work out well if you ever decide to dump the hype, the zealot recruitment drives, and the surreptitious editing attacks and work on some realistic encyclopedic factual information. As it stands, you have proved yourself to be just as destructive as Comaze.HeadleyDown 12:41, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Greg, HeadleyDown. Please read: Wikipedia:No personal attacks official wikipedia policy. --Comaze 00:04, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Actually Headley you know I haven't worked on Wikipages until this one, and the first day I was on here someone was saying 24hrs was a required wait time .... I assumed it was reasonable. It is certainly slower than what's going on here at the moment. What timeframe do you require for your reply?

Could you please tell me what undiscussed stuff I gave you last night? I've only made one change on the page in a long while (check the history!) and that was in the modeling section.

I think we should discuss your claims before making changes - though you've not answered many of my previous questions. If you are serious about your claims then support them. GregA 16:35, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

I understand, Greg. I believe you are really up against it. Comaze will continue to seek approval from you and other proNLP editors in order to behave extremely uncooperatively. So far Comaze seems to be determined to destroy any chance of you or anyone else from merging facts on this page. I suggest you continue to dissociate from Comaze on a permanent basis in order to improve the article. You may have noticed how much useful summarising and NPOVing was achieved when Comaze had stopped the protracted reversion war last time. That useful improvement may happen again, but not when you encourage Comaze to remove cited facts from the article against NPOV and against all the other non-NLPpromotional editors. The last few days have seen Comaze attempting to remove facts and to his posting of propaganda on various people's personal discussion pages. I don't see anyone else apart from Comaze behaving so extremely. It may also be a good idea not to get caught seeking help from NLP evangelists on newsgroups also. Lets just stay away from the fanatics and get to working on an encyclopedic article.HeadleyDown 03:30, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

OK, I also think that Greg does have some merit in resisting Comaze on this and on the alternative discussion page. He may have made some mistakes by trying to encourage fanaticism from the Mindlist egroup, and by encouraging Comaze to remove fact, but he has shown some balance. I would advise Greg to work cooperatively with us. RegardsJPLogan 04:19, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Comaze has done it yet again! My goodness, is nobody ever going to ban him?CarlOxford 08:42, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

I think reversion wars are useless. I also think fanaticism has no place here (if you want to address my post to mindlist lets move it to the section that's in?).

Does anyone want to actually discuss this article or not?

Headley- you said 24hrs was too short. What is reasonable? You have certainly read my question and written a reply, but could you actually answer the question?GregA 09:51, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Hello Greg. Sure. I believe about two days or so would be fine. As I understand it, some people are editing without the benefit of a home computer or home web connection. And yes, I would love some time to answer questions. It is very difficult when all time is spent on reverting Comaze's nonsense (which I am going to have to do again right now). I guess we will all have to put up with his destructive ways and nagging accusations of vandalism etc until he is eventually banned. CheersHeadleyDown 12:14, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

(HeadleyDown/CarlOxford/JPLogan/AliceDeGrey) good to see you all back! Are you guys happy to get a neutral third party meditator to sort out the engram issue? (see topic above). I will Wikipedia:Assume good faith. --Comaze 11:54, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

I've moved everything to pre-october archive. Let's keep this clean guys. --Comaze 11:46, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Oh yes anything to cover up your past misdeeds, Comaze.HeadleyDown 12:33, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

400k is way too big for a discussion page. --Comaze 00:04, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

The current amount of stuff made discussion unclear. I think it would be worth cleaning up somehow. I assume we should deliberately encourage anyone to bring anything relevant from the archive to the current discussion (to avoid repetition). Is that okay? GregA 23:19, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

We could separate the discussion into topics? ie.

1. Discussion of references
2. Definitions of NLP
3. ...

--Comaze 00:04, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

I've removed the disputed images of Tesla and Jesus (added by HeadleyDown, etc) from NLP Modeling section. I've also removed The "Scientology of self-improvement" image. And changed the eye accessing cue image to match the one on Neuro-linguistic Programming(Temp). I think that we should ask John Grinder and Richard Bandler for permission to use their images on the article, or would those images be better on the individual bio pages? best regards, --Comaze 01:22, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Try discussing it first!HeadleyDown 01:27, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Did you discuss adding an image of Jesus? This would be offensive to people who follow those beliefs. --Comaze 01:32, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

The JC image was completely undisputed. I added the Dilts reference, as he wrote a book on the NLP patterns of Jesus of Nazareth.HeadleyDown 01:43, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

copied from further above

You also seem to be adding lots of extraneous images that seem to be appropriate for articles other than that of NLP (eg, Tesla etc). JPLogan 06:46, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree with JP. I think it's misleading to put images of people not directly involved with NLP. Argument by association and all that. Let NLP speak for itself not be associated with either Tesla or Jesus or Hume etc etc.GregA 09:43, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

What do you think about adding some images of TOTE or finite state automata or some of the other NLP fundamentals concepts like formal notation of strategies? --Comaze 13:34, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

NLP is sufficiently rich in models that I'd have no problem wioth two articles, one on NLP (broad overview as it stands) and one on NLP models - metamodel, TOTE, logical levels, etc FT2 05:38, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Great idea, FT2 - an article about NLP, and everything else in another article (or articles). This is what I've been arguing for all along.
Of course you realise that this means moving all of the NLP techniques away from the main article - because they are all either models or based on models.
Andy 14:56, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Andy and FT2 in that this article can be separated out in subpages.. Grinder & Bostic (2001) suggests NLP can be usefully separated into NLP ^training, NLP ^application, and NLP ^modeling (or epistemology,methodology). Do you think if we separated the article into these subarticles it would be cleaner? In this form, Metamodel, TOTE, logical levels all fits under epistemology (or methodology). Change work (Business, psychotherapy, etc) would fit under applications. Short NLP courses applied to coaching, sales etc. -- where does that fit (training or applications?) I consider NLP training to be learning how to model (or learning the NLP methodology). --Comaze 00:36, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

I wonder if anyone has actually bothered to check out the reference to Drenth in regard to engrams? I haven't yet found a copy of his article, but supporters of Drenth's inclusion on Wikipedia might want to investigate this allegation by another Dutch professor:

"In Holland, where I live, scientists have, over the last ten years, repeatedly ran down NLP in the media. It is likely that you have the same experience in your country. A Dutch professor of psychology called Drenth for example, once slated NLP on national television during a discussion with my partner Anneke Meijer. When Anneke explained the principles of modeling, the professor stated that 'modeling had nothing to do with NLP.' He also claimed to have made a 'thorough scientific analysis' of NLP. Apparently the principles of modeling which are described in just about every book on NLP, had escaped this thorough analysis. Drenth further claimed that: 'NLP is a fake name, with which people are using in an attempt to suggest a scientific basis to the marketplace.' And here I guess we have the prototype of the scientific condemnation of NLP: a respected scientific authority voices a definitive rejection based on a quick review of a few NLP-books written by motivational speakers who claim NLP can do everything people have ever wanted. Of course the motivational speakers who write these kinds of books have no scientific proof of their statements. I guess that most of them don't even have much of an idea what the scientific method even is, precisely, nor do they claim they do. I doubt that you'll be very surprised to hear this. But the interesting fact is, that precisely the same goes for the professor. In the above case of professor Drenth, there is not one single scientific study that supports his firmly postulated rejection either. Nor did he try to cite even one single piece of research."
Drs. Jaap Hollander Ph.D.
http://www.nlpca.com/articles/article14.htm
The article seems to have originally appeared in the journal NLP World, Vol. 6, No.3, pp.45-75(1999)
Andy 15:08, October 7, 2005 (UTC)

Hi Jaap. I have made a careful study of Prof Drenth's statements.

Headley, are you saying that you have read the whole of Drenth's article - which was presumably in Dutch?

As far as I can see, Drenth is a scholar of perfectly acceptable repute, and as is explained in the present NLP article, modeling is a confusing term, as is the fake name of "NLP" (neuro is a misnomer, as the word neurology is used in a very different way to other non pseudoscientific subjects).

"As far as you can see"? How about some honesty, here. You may be able to see that Drenth is a university professor, but if you think that automatically assures us that everything he says is absolute fact you are not being realistic.

I phrased my heading as a question on purpose - because I haven't been able to find a copy of Drenth's article to verify Hollander's claims. I was genuinely asking whether anyone has read the article - and all I get ids your set of assumptions. In other wiords, and sadly this comes as no surprise, there is no evidence in your comments to suggest that you have the faintest idea what Drenth actually says - just that it appears to be anti-NLP. I commented the pother day that you appear to be working on the Platt Principle. And not only do you read my insert so carelessly that you think that Jaap Hollander posted the quote - but you start criticising him with having the faintest idea what you're talkingf about, because whereas he has read the article, I'm betting YOU HAVEN'T. Good grief - the Platt Principle reigns supreme. Andy 18:01 October 120, 2005 (UTC)

Also, other sources concur with Prof Drenth. Also, some NLP books refer to "neurology" but what is happening is a purely chemical reactions to skin, or simple physical activity. From the research that I have read by Prof Drenth, he uses solid primary sources of NLP. His assessment of NLP is the same as any assessment of pseudoscience. I notice that you have just made an very recognizably pseudoscientific argument. I can cite studies that go far beyond Drenth's quite reasonably supported scientific statements about NLP being pseudoscientific. Psycholinguistic studies also support his statements that NLP is pseudoscientific and scientifically unsupported. As you and Andy Bradbury talk of red herrings, then perhaps you are also throwing one in! Even without Prof Drenth's perfectly reasonable and acceptable assessments (by Wikipedia NPOV standard), NLP is still a pseudoscientific subject (according to many published studies) due to the lack of scientific support, the exagerated claims, and the continued use of pseudoscientific argument against the studies that have found that NLP is scientifically unsupported.HeadleyDown 15:32, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

And "simple physical activity" doesn't require neurological input?
Do you have any idea what the autonomic nervous system is, or what functions it performs?
Apparently not.
Andy 18:01 October 120, 2005 (UTC)

I agree with you Headley. Drenth is reputable, and other sources agree with his, so he already has strong points of triangulation and corroboration.JPLogan 02:20, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Well of course you do, JP.
But have you read Drenth's article?
Can you list his references for us so that we can see what these "solid primary sources" are?
So far I note that you and Headley have ignord every request for you to identify your sources.
Andy 18:01 October 120, 2005 (UTC)

Hi Jaap. You have used a pseudoscientific argument and you run an NLP promotion. An encouragement to delete well cited sources is a very bad sign that you simply want to delete fact, even after compromises have been made to people who delete such facts on a regular basis.JPLogan 02:20, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Headley, JP - You're replying to Andy, who quoted Jaap.

Can you tell me what you thought was pseudoscientific in the Jaap quote? This is interesting and relevant to the whole pseudoscience debate. GregA 07:58, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Check your sources Headley.D, "Psycholinguistic studies also support his statements that NLP is pseudoscientific and scientifically unsupported." is from a study of Natural Language Processing (not Neuro-lingusitic Programming). I've removed references to this in the article. regards, --Comaze 00:52, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Comaze, here you are simply being destructive and in denial.JPLogan 02:20, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Comaze... that seems unlikely, but should be easy enough to verify. Someone want to give an explicit quote from the paper (whoever cited the paper)? GregA 07:58, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

JPLogan, Please stick to facts. --Comaze 02:29, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Comaze. The sources have been checked and are precisely about neurolinguistic programming. Your persistent deletions will simply be reverted.HeadleyDown 01:33, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Do you want to go to mediation on this item aswell? Do you want to group it with the engram stuff or do it separately? --Comaze 01:41, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Here's one counter-example to start with (copied from archive)...

1. [Donald: A psycholinguistic study of the patterns of persuasion used by successful salespeople. Dissertation Abstracts International 42(5), 2135-B University of Oregon, 271 pp. Order = 8123499, 1981.]

Hello Comaze. Concerning mediation, I don't think you even have a leg to stand on. Firstly, your behavior has not exactly been that of a convincing wikipedia editor:) and secondly, the engram references comply strictly with NPOV policy and tutorials. According to NPOV, deleting fact is a really bad idea. You have clearly been trying to find any old excuse to remove the material that you find offensive. You may want to look at the Scientology article. You could possibly reflect on your behaviour in relation to the Scientology follower's behaviour. You (and others) are giving the strong impression that NLP is a cult, and followers just will not tolerate normal encyclopedic fact when it offends them.JPLogan 02:14, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Concerning the article by Moine,D. Its a single dissertation (undergrad or master's I have no idea) rather than study, it seems to want to confirm rather than refute (it gives a point by point list of NLP benefits that seem to be copied from an NLP manual), and it is in an NLP promotional database. Oh, and it is dated 1981, so it pre-dates the studies mentioned in this article.JPLogan 02:14, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Am I correct to assume that you (JPLogan/HeadleyDown) would like to go to mediation on these issues? --Comaze 02:24, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Not for my part, Comaze. I think you are simply in the business of wasting everybody's time, which you have done for months. If it was not for you, the article would be in a far better state. I am in the process of merging certain passages from the alternative page to the current article. You are crippling the process by persistently nagging and demanding unnecessarily. You are destroying progress even when compromises have regularly been made. If there were any reason to contact mediators, it would simply be in order to have you permanently banned so that editors could get on with improving the article.JPLogan 02:34, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

JPLogan, What do you mean when you said, "Not for my part, Comaze." Am I to assume that you don't want to go to mediation on issue of "engram" and Drenth's? --Comaze 15:50, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

I removed the followed sections because they are already covered by the first section. The goals section does not represent... Especially these statements do not represent all practitioners... If you want to include sometihng like this it would be need to be framed as who said it, when they said it and what was the frame, also it should be framed that most practitioners do not much such claims. For example, every NLP practitioner knows that nobody can "make" anyone do anything, a simple metamodel (cause-effect) violation. These sentences could be misleading...

• "NLP practitioners claim that it's not uncommon for the turnaround on a phobia such as heights or spiders to be under 10 minutes” and that you can "make someone fall in love with you in 5 minutes" and it is possible to "cure any psychological problem in a session " (Griffin & Goldsmith, 1985, p. 41). "

NLP is a method of programming the mind, emphasizing the mind-body-spirit connection. The term `neuro-linguistic programming' is designed to embrace three ideas: all behaviour starts from the neurological processes; we use language to organize our thinking and to communicate with others; and we can choose to `programme' our behaviour to achieve the results we desire (Partridge 2004).

NLP advocate, Robert Dilts asserts that NLP "is theoretically rooted in the principles of neurology, psychophysiology, linguistics, cybernetics, and communication theory" (Dilts et al 1980). NLP makes use of patterns for the utility of change, the development of unconscious competence, and the treatment or removal of traumas (Andreas & Faulkner, 1994). A patterned response, which has been stabilised at the level of unconscious competence.

Aspects of Pavlov's classical conditioning could be used to explain NLP “anchoring” techniques. Some NLP spokespeople, such as Rex and Carolyn Sikes say "what occurs is a way of conciously creating the placebo effect", although most NLP proponents tend to avoid the theory question and state that they don't really have one (Singer and Lalich 1996).

The NLP practitioner’s goal is generally claimed to be: to change a person's state and “re-program” that person’s beliefs about themselves. By detecting automatic body changes such as skin color changes, muscle tension, and eye movements, as well as other physiological responses, the NLP practitioner attempts to discern how a client perceives and relates to identity, personal beliefs, and life goal issues. NLP practitioners claim to help clients to replace false or negative perceptions, with positive, life affirming beliefs, although some NLP patterns of persuasion within NLP seduction are designed to create negative beliefs.

NLP has been applied to a great many applications outside of therapy. These include the use of LGATs or large awareness training seminars taught by NLP practitioners such as Anthony Robbins in a similar manner to EST. NLP has also been used in a variety of different other related therapies and activities, such as power therapies (Gallo 2003), hypnotherapy, seduction, and other more fringe practices such as shamanism, and psychic development.

In this respect, there have been many extraordinary claims such as “NLP practitioners claim that it's not uncommon for the turnaround on a phobia such as heights or spiders to be under 10 minutes” and that you can "make someone fall in love with you in 5 minutes" and it is possible to "cure any psychological problem in a session " (Griffin & Goldsmith, 1985, p. 41). Anthony Robbins has also claimed that through neurolinguistic programming (NLP), clinicians can "cure people of tumors and long-standing psychological problems, and NLP also has allowed him to "make a woman have an orgasm without touching her," and even "bring a person who was brain-dead back to life" (Leikind & McCarthy, 1991). And Bandler has claimed that he taught a novice woman martial artist how to beat an experienced martial artist by slowing down her perception of time (Bandler 1993. p105). Grinder describes NLP as "an accelerated learning approach for modeling human excellence" (Grinder 2003).

Comaze, stop removing large factual sections and passages. You are making it extremely hard to improve the page. You have proved that you cannot compromise or cooperate. So your pathetic merging sidetrack distraction tactic has just finished.JPLogan 02:56, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi JP. I think you are right about Comaze. But Greg has made some good improvements over the past few days. I think some useful merging can continue. I fully understand your position though.AliceDeGrey 08:35, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes Fair enough, Alice. One should stay cool in the face of accusation and provocationJPLogan 03:46, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Let's argue based on facts, without shouting someone else down. It is strictly against official wikipedia policy. "Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia." see no personal attacks. regards, --Comaze 05:54, 11 October 2005 (UTC)