Talk:Neuro-linguistic programming/Long-term abuser

This page is to archive discussion from or about permabanned sockpuppet. This will avoid troll posts within the article discussion that distract from article development; also avoiding this sockpuppet's technique of sucking in unwary editors with manipulative posts.

A balanced lead section

Happy new year. After taking another good look at the NPOV sections and tutorial again it seems pretty clear that certain views have persistently been suppressed [1] – mostly on the critical side so as to marginalize criticism. See Information Suppression on the NPOV Tutorial. Its not sufficient to simply say that there is a controversy. The controversy has to be clearly stated so the reader knows what its about. This includes the lead section which is supposed to be a standalone summary of the main article. I'll present a fairly in depth account of the actual controversy just for the sake of collaboration. It can be made concise - but should be kept as clear as possible as per WP lead section - NPOV presentation.

NLP is based upon how the brain works(neuro), on how language works (linguistic), and how the mind can be programmed(programming).

Opposing view

NLP is in error concerning neurology (neuro), is not based upon sound linguistics, and it cannot be used to program anyone (its not useful for the purposes of influence according to NRC research). NLP is a pseudoscientific (Drenth/Devilly) Because NLP proponents make changeable claims and NLP is untestable Because it failed tests and continues to be promoted in the guise of science

NLP is powerful for self development and makes you more successful; is powerful for therapy; is powerful for management; Because testimonials say so.

Opposing view.

NLP should not be adopted by individuals or bodies because it spreads misconceptions about how the brain works (grossly misleading) (Lilienfeld/Beyerstein/Eisner). NLP is potentially harmful as a therapy or self therapy (can cause mental problems (guilt) and can lead others to forgo proper therapy). The testimonials may sound convincing except that according to controlled testing NLP is not effective for management.

NLP is powerful because it uses models derived from brilliant people. Because NLP developers say so.

opposing view:

It is unethical for any educational or psychological intervention to be promoted without proper validation and according to Beyerstein NLP has failed to provide such validation.

I suggest that the controversies be properly presented now. The proponent view should be presented as nicely as possible - and the critic view should be presented as clearly as possible just as it says in NPOV policy and tutorial. Represent each view completely and clearly. No supression of views or marginalization of criticism. AlanBarnet 03:55, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

AlanBarnet 03:43, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Instead of having to restore this relatively balanced lead section I present it here so in order to collaborate with other editors.

Neuro-linguistic programming (NLP) is a set of techniques, axioms and beliefs, that adherents use primarily as an approach to personal development human potential and self improvement. Critics consider NLP to be pseudoscientific, potentially harmful and misleading as the principles and procedures of NLP have failed to be supported by controlled studies.

The initial ideas of NLP were developed around 1973 by Richard Bandler, a student, and John Grinder, then a professor of linguistics, in association with the social scientist Gregory Bateson. Proponents believe that by modeling language and behavior from one person, they can affect belief and behavior changes in another person to improve their functioning. NLP teaches that if someone excels in some activity, we can learn specifically how they do it by observing certain important details of their behaviour. NLP uses several techniques to effect changes in the way we think, learn and communicate.

NLP adherents variably state that NLP is “theoretically rooted in principles of neurology, psychophysiology, linguistics, cybernetics and communication theory” and that “NLP is not based on theory” (Singer 1996)(Dilts 1983) and that NLP is based on the idea that a person's language and behaviors (whether functional or dysfunctional) are highly structured , and that this underlying structure can be modeled into a reproducible form.

Scientists such as Drenth (1999) and Devilly (2005) consider NLP to be pseudoscientific. According to early reviews Sharpley (1987) stated that there is "conclusive data from the research on NLP, and the conclusion is that the principles and procedures of NLP have failed to be supported by those data". Emphasizing the recent fads in psychotherapy, Devilly (2005) states; "by the late 1980s a host of controlled trials had shed such a poor light on the practice, and those promoting the intervention made such extreme and changeable claims, that researchers began to question the wisdom of researching the area further and even suggested that NLP was an untestable theory". Evidence-based psychologists such as Beyerstein (1999) and Lilienfeld (2003) state that they are concerned about NLP being adopted by psychology associations and the public at large as they consider it an unvalidated new age therapy that can lead individuals to forgo effective treatments and spread myths about how the mind works..

It seems to me to pretty much cover the controviersies. I presented it in quotes so as to reduce any conflict over wording. Open to discussion. Please refer to WP:NPOV [2] NPOV tutorial [3] and WP guide on lead sections[4]AlanBarnet 04:01, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Here's a useful passage in NPOV policy "Debates are described, represented, and characterized, but not engaged in. Background is provided on who believes what and why, and which view is more popular. Detailed articles might also contain the mutual evaluations of each viewpoint, but studiously refrain from stating which is better. One can think of unbiased writing as the cold, fair, analytical description of all relevant sides of a debate. When bias towards one particular point of view can be detected, the article needs to be fixed."

Well I've been removing argumentation from the article on a regular basis. The article is biased in the lead as I stated and needs fixing. (eg Proponents state NLP works on how the brain works, on language, and programing - science says it does not work in any of those ways) Clear controversy that should be presented in the lead. AlanBarnet 05:39, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Manipulation

Hi Fainites. You missed a bit. Salerno says - NLP turns up in many places inside and outside of SHAM. A straight quote will be fine. Nice and brief!AlanBarnet 02:59, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree - to make the view more concise and reduce redundancy its best to place the Salerno view together with other related views. The issue is that NLP as a self help system presents "phantom" illnesses that NLP is supposed to cure. This is also the view of Devilly 2005. A brief line of two with the supporting sources of Salerno and Devilly (and perhaps Singer) on this particular view will do fine. AlanBarnet 03:34, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

lead section

58.178.134.120 you stated in your edit summary that this interpretation is erroneous[5]. Are you saying that nobody states NLP is a science? - are you saying nobody says NLP is a technology? What exactly are you trying to remove? AlanBarnet 06:51, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi all. The feedback from Cleanuptaskforce is helpful and I’m happy to get some more support for efforts to present the views clearly. The article is frustrating. I’ve been removing argumentative phrasing from the article on a very regular basis – but its clearly not sufficient. Just the way the article is organized – it looks like an argument or debate. It seems to me that the main facts are still being very much obscured - by making the issues unclear or vague – by arranging the article as if it is an argument or essay – and by presenting lots of speculative discussion from articles without focusing on the basic view (the conclusion of the source). For example – about half of the Sharpley 87 article has been pasted in when in fact all the recent reliable researchers agree that Sharpley found NLP to have failed controlled studies on its tenets and procedures. This also agrees with Druckman 88 and other later reviews. There’s no need for any of Sharpley’s long winded speculative discussion. Clear conclusions of sources are necessary to make the article readable.

Solutions: NPOV seems to me to be very clear on this matter. The controversies should be presented as best as the proponent of each view can express them.

NPOV policy[6] specifically Policy on Information Suppression [7]"It is important that the various views and the subject as a whole are presented in a balanced manner and that each is summarized as if by its proponents to their best ability.”

The views have been obscured and some editors have tried to make sure the lead section is pretty much devoid of any explanation of the controversies. The controversies have to be presented but not as a debate. They should be described in neutral terms.

I know NLP is all about vague writing but that doesn’t mean this article should have vague writing and unexplained jargon all over the place. There are some very clear lines from the more reliable sources that could be used concisely eg “According to Lilienfeld et al (2003) NLP is an unvalidated therapeutic method that purports to "program" brain functioning through a variety of techniques, including mirroring the postures and nonverbal behaviors of clients.” I have already tried to present clear material in an introduction but it was deleted several times over already.

I realize proponent editors have been presenting criticism – but the way its presented tends to obscure the main view of the source or separates the issues in an obscure way. Better organization will solve the problem. Clearly more civil discussion is necessary to iron out the problem.AlanBarnet 06:22, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Headleydown/AlanBarnet "knows nlp" The idiosyncrasies of language Part II

"I know NLP lit is a bit obscure, but lets face it, its a pretty obscure fringe development anyway." Bookmain(Confirmed banned Headleydown Sock) 01:57, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

"I know NLP gives people a kind of brain damage, but I didn't realise it was this bad. A diet of pseudoscience doesn't help the braincells at all." DaveRight (Confirmed banned Headleydown Sock)01:26, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

"I know NLP does not want to be seen as a cult that converts people using belief change strategies, but it is criticised as such." AliceDeGrey(Confirmed banned Headleydown Sock)09:27, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Can we get a block here? Doc Pato 16:42, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree. A block please. You cannot negotiate with this person. Fainites 16:49, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I concur. His trolling and sledging is also getting worse. 58.178.186.213 22:47, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Doc, Fainties, and user 58. Just some perspective - An ouside view would see things very differently. The admin assessment I have seen seems to show that my edits and conduct have been fine. I don't do sockpuppeting or meatpuppeting - I am encouraging for each view to be presented concisely and to the best a proponent of each view can present it. There are problems with the article and I've referred to the proper policies (NPOV, Lead section, and Suppression of Information) to work on the solutions. I've asked for discussion on those points and so far you havn't even attempted a discussion. I believe you would only seem reasonable if you engaged in that constructive discussion. The policies above are provide solutions for the recent assessment of admin and cleanup taskforce. They recommend summaries of each view. That doesn't mean promoting one view by removing - minimising - or obscuring parts of the other one. It means presenting concisely and clearly. I started the improvement by working on the most concise section of all - the lead - by presenting the main views. There is a lot of potential for improvement. Civil collaboration is encouraged. AlanBarnet 03:14, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Concise lead section: In accordance with both admin and cleanuptaskforce I presented the beginnings of a concise lead. The second paragraph shows basically what NLP is about in terms of how the reader will understand it. Its just a suggestion and other words or descriptions may suit other editors better. I also added something of how the science view sees the actual structure of NLP (VAKOG and brains). I've been requesting collaboration on this and it would probably look good for editors to actually collaborate without simply deleting positive editing out of hand. AlanBarnet 07:03, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Specific solutions for the lead section

Hi all. After presenting the beginnings of a concise lead section and suggestions for collaboration as per NPOV and lead section recommendations – all that’s come back so far is deletion with no discussion from anyone. This has been happening on a regular basis and confirms very much what both admin and cleanup taskforce have been complaining about. For example: Suppression of information in the lead section by:

[8] [9],[10] [11] [12] [13], [14] [15]

[16],[17],[18]

Here are some main points that will help direct constructive editing –

• Admin assessment says there is promotional obscuring of views – and cleanup taskforce says the article is full of redundancy and debate –

• WP policy on suppression of information states “It is important that the various views and the subject as a whole are presented in a balanced manner and that each is summarized as if by its proponents to their best ability.”

• Made concise but not obscured: The NLP proponent side should be presented well and concisely (summarized well) and the criticisms should also be summarized well and concisely and should not be marginalized

• Concise does not mean minimized so much that the view is obscured from the lead or body of the article. (the various views and the subject as a whole are presented in a balanced manner and that each is summarized as if by its proponents to their best ability.”)

• Presenting the proponent view does not entail persistently removing or obscuring the views of critics.

• Presenting the proponent view should not entail jamming the article up with jargon - speculation – argument – or editorializing in order to obscure critical views.

Moving forward with a reasonable adherence to NPOV policies will help solve problems with this article. Discussion is welcome. AlanBarnet 03:56, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Here is the section I presented. Discussion and suggestions are welcome also:

Neuro-linguistic programming (NLP) is a set of techniques, axioms and beliefs, that adherents use primarily as an approach to personal development human potential and self improvement.

NLP methods include the use of visualization, trance states, hypnosis, and specific body language such as posture and eye movements. These methods are based upon the assumption that the structure of language and neurology involves the use of visual, auditory, kinesthetic, olfactory and gustatory internal perceptions and that these correspond with the functions of the left and right sides of the brain.

The initial ideas of NLP were developed around 1973 by Richard Bandler, a student, and John Grinder, then a professor of linguistics, in association with the social scientist Gregory Bateson. Proponents believe that by modeling language and behavior from one person, they can affect belief and behavior changes in another person to improve their functioning. NLP teaches that if someone excels in some activity, we can learn specifically how they do it by observing certain important details of their behaviour. NLP uses several techniques to effect changes in the way we think, learn and communicate.

Critics consider NLP to be pseudoscientific because they believe NLP proponents make exaggerated claims about the effectiveness of NLP, its theories are conceptually faulty and NLP is consider to be untestable. Core theories and procedures of NLP have failed to be supported by controlled studies. Evidence-based psychologists such as Beyerstein (1999) and Lilienfeld (2003) state that they are concerned about NLP being promoted in clinical psychology and self help as it may mislead individuals to forgo effective treatments and they are concerned about the spread of pseudoscientific ideas about human functioning..

If anyone has any particular problems with this section - please specify which lines and issues and we can discuss. Thank you. AlanBarnet 04:00, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Recent distortion

Please be on the lookout to fix up distortions put into the article by Long Term Abuser HeadleyBarnet. Brown is generally quite supportive for the effectiveness of NLP. In picking out a hens tooth from the book AlanBarnet inserted a major distortion of Brown's overall opinion. Sure, it's technically true that Brown said that, but you'd have to desperately want to distort the truth to insert that quote as a representative citation from the book. The sooner this sock is banned the better. 202.67.114.30 14:03, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Just ignore him and revert bent edits.Fainites 17:12, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi user 202.67.114.30. I believe I’m being very reasonable here. I added the stated view of Brown using a concise conclusive statement of his. It doesn’t matter at all to me how his view is presented as long as its accurate and fits NPOV policy. I presented his view that involves his particular understanding of scientific verification. You removed it and replaced it with some broken and vague lines about “these signals”. Clearly Brown has a good idea of the pseudoscientific or inconsistent nature of NLP. He says he’s using some unspecified bits of it for his show but “there is really no substantial support for the specific claims that NLP makes and much of it can be dismissed as vacuous nonsense". There’s nothing “bent” or “distorted” about the line I added. Its the straightest line in the passage - including page number and date. If you want to talk about representing the line in a different way or adding extra material then the Wikipedia recommendation is to make the appropriate change or engage in civil discussion. I’m well reassured by admin that I’m working constructively using NPOV policy to present all views properly – engaging in discussion – encouraging collaboration – actively removing undue argumentation –vocally discouraging sockpuppeting of any sort – and actively notifying admin of any conflict of interest in NLP promotion. I realize some don’t seem too keen on the idea – but I’ll continue with civil and constructive NPOV improvement and maintenance nevertheless. I believe the situation has a lot of potential for improvement. Theres a lot more work to do to present controversies properly though [19] [20] [21]. AlanBarnet 06:38, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

"Long Term Abuser HeadleyDown initially acts as the "sweet voice of a reasonable editor", claiming to have a scientific or neutral interest, seeking minor improvements, POV fixes, balance, or a legitimate "scientific/neutral" viewpoint in an otherwise not-bad article. However in practice long-term he is a virulent and destructive subtle POV warrior who ignores bona fide research (sometimes calling it "promotion") and gradually over time using multiple socks forces a massive POV slant until articles end up attacking their own subjects, or twisted to a very one-sided POV, rather than explaining them." From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Long_term_abuse/HeadleyDown Doc Pato 16:54, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi again Doc pato. Again - your assessment seems to be quite inconsistent. The admin assessment shows there is a problem of editors with a conflict of interest working on the article. Admin assessment says there is a promotional obscuring of views (suppression of information policy). You present a picture of the above (virulent destructive) editor. In stark contrast - I am working collaboratively with both editors and admin. Its obvious I'm not doing any sockpuppeting of any sort and I vocally discourage it and discourage editing with known conflict of interest. I reiterate the message I posted above. According to the Suppression of Information policy - all views should be allowed to be presented concisely (concise doesn't mean obscuring it) and to the best that each proponent of the view can do. This policy goes a long way to solve the recent problems with the article. It presents a win-win solution (unless one is only interested in obscuring views). Civil discussion is highly recommended. AlanBarnet 03:30, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Avoiding undue debate

Hi all. I removed these words to avoid (Howevers) because they seem to make the passages argumentative. Cleanup taskforce has expressed a need to remove undue debate. They were both restored and insisted upon by user 58.178.186.213 [22] and user Comaze [23]. The word seems to me to be unecessary. Removing the word doesn't seem to harm any of the presentation at all and only serves to make it more neutral. If they are quotes - then quotation marks should be added. If not - they simply serve to make the article more like a debate. I'm open to civil discussions and suggestions on this as always. AlanBarnet 06:33, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Well if there's not going to be discussion on this point then I guess there's nothing to say. I'll remove the argumentative words again. AlanBarnet 03:01, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Carbonell and Figley

Why is Carbonell and Figley relevant? Its and inconclusive study with no particular view on NLP. It seems to just be stuffing. Any idea why its in the article? AlanBarnet 03:06, 5 January 2007 (UTC)