Talk:Neuro-linguistic programming/Archive 16

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

Archive 10

←

Archive 14

→

Notice of proposed change

I propose changing the whole introduction to the one drafted here. I need to do a bit more work on adding sources to each sentence of the introduction - most of it is taken from Michael Heap's excellent series of papers. But as this is such a substantial change, and because this is such a controversial article, I thought I would give ample warning here. Suggestions for changes or additions are welcome. Peter Damian (talk) 18:34, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

suggestion: remove the adjectives. I suppose when you propose a replacement, you are intending only the first section of 3 paragraphs, which I think a good idea. Your draft for the remaining section is too argumentative. I agree with the argument, but that does not make it NPOV DGG (talk) 04:05, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. To clarify, I intend all three paragraphs of the section entitled 'Draft introduction'. Does that clarify? The rest is just notes to myself, and work in progress. Peter Damian (talk) 20:02, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

On the 'scepticism' section, this is still in draft, but the idea is to begin with an argument made by Heap. Since Heap is a leading authority and a 'reliable source' on NLP, it could be included. The argument is a strong one. If the extraordinary and apparently extravagant claims about NLP are true, this would be a significant and remarkable fact, deserving of extensive and detailed experimental enquiry. In fact there has been none. Note I have also located a beautiful quote from Bandler. He says, tellingly "Academics sometimes challenge me for something they call 'evidence.' They want to know the theory behind what I do; they want me to explain it, preferably with the appropriate research references. I've even had people ask for the correct citations for things that I've made up. The way I see it, it's not my job to prove, or even understand, everything about the workings of the mind. I'm not too interested in why something should work. I only want to know how, so I can help people affect and influence whatever they want to change." This chimes with remarks made by Heap that the extravagant claims made by the proponents are not supported by any experimental evidence. Peter Damian (talk) 20:08, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree that Heap is an important source. Psychotherapy and hypnotherapy was Heap's main interest so this is not unexpected that your proposed introduction puts too much emphasis on NLP as an approach to psychotherapy. NLP is also a system for interpersonal and business communication and change that is not covered in your proposed introduction. See, for example, Ashley Dowlen's discussion of the meta model for use in business management [1] ----Action potential ^{t c} 07:18, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

That journal is only available for purchase and from its abstract appears hostile to other than a limited use of NLP. Overall I think Peter's is a much better lede, can you suggest amendments to incorporate your point above? --Snowded TALK 10:58, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Snowded, The lead must be a stand alone summary of the entire article. Peter's suggestion takes a somewhat skeptical view. Framing the co-founders as "promoters" rather than developers or co-creators is a little too skeptical. Also, I think the lead would benefit from having a clear distinction between NLP epistemology, NLP modeling and its various applications as suggested by Grinder in Whispering in the wind. NLP is framed by Peter as a as an approach psychotherapy ("psychological therapy") which is just one application. ----Action potential ^{t c} 13:13, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

My encounters with NLP have been in the areas of organisational change and communication. I am not sure I would dignify it with the word epistemology as it does not seem to have a coherence theory of knowledge in anything I have read. I think I agree with you on the use of "developers" and "creators", however overall I think Peter has been fairly balanced. Peter, what's your take on this? I think it does need expansion into the management science domain. --Snowded TALK 13:26, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree there should be more about NLP as a 'model' for communication, and also about its applications in management training. 'Twas merely a draft. Note I didn't call the founders 'promoters', I called them 'founders'. I said they initially 'promoted' it, but that is fair, because if you look at the early literature it clearly was promotion. Bandler says as much in his own summary. Question: was Bandler actually the first to use the term 'Neurolinguistic programmingt', and if so what is the source? Peter Damian (talk) 18:54, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Peter, Perhaps you can replace the term "promoted" in the first sentence with "defined" or "aimed" and make the necessary adjustments. e.g. "Neuro-linguistic programming (NLP) was originally ~~promoted~~defined by its founders as..." ----Action potential ^{t c} 20:41, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

That wouldn't make sense because you don't define something as a therapy. You might 'present' it or 'introduce' it. But given they did promote it, I don't see why the word is wrong. I'm using it in a perfectly neutral sense and mean to imply no value judgment by use of it. How about 'presented'? Peter Damian (talk) 20:50, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Speaking as an ignorant reader seeing the article for the first time, I have one minor problem with the rhetoric of your proposed new intro, Peter. It begins abruptly, in fact it reads like it mislaid its first sentence or two. Might there be some way of starting with a more large and general sentence—however brief—taking as it were a view from orbit ("NLP is..." whatever it can be said to be), and then to zoom in on the chronological narrative with which you now start? Otherwise, I admire the paragraph structure: 1) originally, 2) later, 3) present-day perspective. Very nice. It's just the very start I think wants to be more spacious. Hope I'm making myself clear. Bishonen | talk 22:35, 30 December 2008 (UTC).

I think I agree with Bishonen that it needs to start with an orbital statement about what "NLP is" -- that addresses my concerns about having "promoted" in the first sentence. To reply to Peter, in NLP, the term presented is most strongly associated with demonstrating a technique at a workshop or seminar, or perhaps a book. One might say that Bandler and Grinder defined their approach to learning (modeling), communication and change in the Structure of Magic Series (1975), Patterns I & II and NLP volume 1 (1980) but they presented their approach and various techniques at workshops and seminars which were later transcribed, edited and published by Steve Andreas in Frogs into Princes (1979). ----Action potential ^{t c} 23:26, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Redraft of introduction

Good idea, and thank you for those suggestions. I have changed User:Peter Damian/NLP to accommodate these. Again, I have leant heavily on Heap. I have left a space for a section on management science applications. Perhaps someone more knowledgeable could fill this in. I am going to stick with 'presented' however, as the early books were no more than transcripts of seminars, and I cannot find yet anything so clear and coherent as a definition. If anyone can provide me with a quote from Structure of Magic or Frogs into Princes that resembles a definition, then let's have it. Peter Damian (talk) 10:09, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

The name 'Neuro Linguistic Programming'

I am still struggling to find a source for the original name of the theory. The title Frogs into Princes: Neuro Linguistic Programming by John Grinder, Richard Bandler (1979) suggests the term was in use by then. Who invented it? Peter Damian (talk) 10:41, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

According to the OED, draft revision September, 2003, neurolinguistic was first used in 1935 by M. M. Kendig. Neurolinguistic programming was coined in 1976 in R. Bandler et al, Changing with families. Unfortunately, copypasting from the online OED gets rid of all its formatting, but below are the definitions and examples. I hope it's reasonably apparent which is which.

Neurolinguistic, adj: Concerned with the relationship between language and the structure and function of the brain; of or relating to neurolinguistics.

1935 M. M. KENDIG (title) Application of a method for scientific control of the neuro-linguistic and neuro-semantic mechanisms in the learning process. 1961 Stud. in Linguistics 15 70 Neurolinguistic work has certainly been carried out under other names, by people who work with aphasia, by neurosurgeons and neurologists, [etc.]. 1970 J. LAVER in J. Lyons New Horizons in Linguistics iii. 61 The healthy adult brain is not itself accessible to neurolinguistic experiment. 1995 Afr. Amer. Rev. 29 698 Cognitive and neurolinguistic science indicates that musicians listen to music differently than do non-musicians.

SPECIAL USES

Neurolinguistic programming n. a model of interpersonal communication chiefly concerned with the relationship between successful patterns of behaviour and the subjective experiences (esp. patterns of thought) underlying them; a system of alternative therapy based on this which seeks to educate people in self-awareness and effective communication, and to change their patterns of mental and emotional behaviour.

1976 R. BANDLER et al. Changing with Families 186 [Bibliography.] Grinder, J.; Bandler, R.; and Cameron, L. *Neuro-Linguistic Programming, Volume I. Cupertino, Calif.: Meta Publications. 1977 J. GRINDLER et al. Patterns of Hypnotic Techniques II. I. 108 This is an extensive area containing many interesting patterns some of which will be contained in a forthcoming publication (Neuro-Linguistic Programming I). 1990 Kindred Spirit Summer 21 (advt.) Neuro-linguistic programming (NLP) is an exciting, challenging set of communication tools which will allow you to be how you are when you are at your most effective. 2001 Working from Home Mar. 29/1 Peter is well qualified to offer advice and training in a range of subjects from marketing and selling to neuro-linguistic programming.

Bishonen | talk 15:47, 31 December 2008 (UTC).

Thanks,wow why didn't I think of looking in the OED. I'll put that in. Peter Damian (talk) 16:38, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

[edit] I have modified the proposed introduction accordingly. That's excellentPeter Damian (talk) 16:52, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Psych. research

The headline "scientific verdict" would only be acceptable if a consensus had been established and published in a reputable publication. I've changed it to "Empirical research" which more accurately describes the section. ----Action potential ^{t c} 10:52, 30 December 2008 (UTC) It been since been renamed to "Scientific criticism" which is fine with me. ----Action potential ^{t c} 12:25, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

NLP and science

The organisation of this is a mess. There is an article NLP and science, and there is a section in the main article, which are virtual copies of each other. I have put these in the sandbox here and here. I propose going through to eliminate duplicated material, then combine into a single article NLP and science. I will then write a separate summary for the main NLP article - draft User:Peter_Damian/NLP#NLP_and_Science. Finally I will write a new introduction for the NLP and science article. The current introduction contains the most blatant miscitation I have ever seen on Wikipedia. Peter Damian (talk) 17:48, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

We really need to work on the section currently labelled "NLP and science". Also the article linked from that section. We need to make sure we included all views, not just the negative arguments of skeptics. We need to look at WP:SYN and make sure that we're not in violation of that. If you're still working on it then I'll hold off for a few days. Its not a summary of the research on NLP but a summary of skeptics argument. Can someone suggest some balanced sources that we can use to organise that section? ----Action potential ^{t c} 07:10, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Peter, Who claimed that the representational systems, submodalities, etc were merely scientific sounding? Was it Beyerstein? Many of the statements in that section are not scientific statement but opinions of individual researchers. We need to be careful to separate scientific statements that are based on evidence and those that are merely opinions. ----Action potential ^{t c} 09:14, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Merging Peter Damian's version done

Complete rewrite of the main article, plus consolidation of the sections on science in NLP and science. I have tried to represent both sides of the case as fairly as possible, while being faithful to the principle that Wikipedia must represent scientific consensus. Happy 2009 Peter Damian (talk) 11:28, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

The term 'neurolinguistic', to qualify the relation between language and the structure and function of the brain, originated in 1935^[1], the term 'neurolinguistic programming' was coined by Richard Bandler in 1976, reflecting his belief that humans are the only machines that can program themselves.^[2]

There are a couple of problems with this sentence. 1. It is unclear if Bandler and Grinder use Neuro-linguistic in the same way as Kendig. Bandler and Grinder did cite Korzybski's work which was influenced by Kendig. 2. The claim that Bandler coined the term is disputed. Normally Bandler and Grinder are identified as the co-creators or the field (and the term). The correct authors for Changing with Families was Bandler, Grinder and Satir. The citation for NLP vol1 was incorrect. The main authors was Dilts. Bandler's book is not an appropriate source as it has not been cited in any reputable third party sources. The current citation is incorrect, it was not published in "Health communications" magazine. ----Action potential ^{t c} 01:35, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I made a number of changes to Peter's version of the introduction. Hope it helps. I hope it does not seem to promotional. Any promotion needs to be toned down. Also any skepticism needs to be identified and toned down too. ----Action potential ^{t c} 08:28, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I think its improved. I reversed two that seemed to me were swinging the balance to far in the other way. The definition section remains open. --Snowded TALK 08:40, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Skepticism should not be toned down. Skepticism is simply the application of the scientific method. By all means correct the citations in my revert. On "It is unclear if Bandler and Grinder use Neuro-linguistic in the same way as Kendig" since the whole point of a term like 'neurolinguistic' is to provide a purportedly scientific basis for NLP, it is clear it is intended in the same sense, and anyone will understand it in that sense. NLP is the paradigm of a pseudoscience, and its title is one of the reasons. Peter Damian (talk) 09:52, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

What is your source to link Kendig's usage to Bandler and Grinder's usage? Is the connect via Korzybski's work? Kendig had some connection with Koryzbski. It could be considered violation of WP:NOR (original synthesis) to include that citation unless you can find this link made in a reliable source. ----Action potential ^{t c} 12:29, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Reverted

The changes just made by 'ActionPotential' to the current introduction are not acceptable. They are unnecessarily verbose and threatens to return the article to the rambling and ungrammatical state it was in before I tidied it up. It also veers solidly towards the promotion of NLP, rather than reflecting 'mainstream scientific thought'.

For example, I wrote "It was originally promoted by its founders in the 1970's, Richard Bandler and John Grinder as an extraordinarily effective and rapid form of psychological therapy[5], capable of addressing the full range of problems which psychologists are likely to encounter, such as phobias, depression, habit disorder, psychosomatic illnesses, learning disorders." which closely reflects Heap. This has been changed to ":NLP was originally presented by its founders in the 1970s, Richard Bandler and linguist John Grinder as an explicit model of human experience, interpersonal communication as well as a set of tools and principles that could be applied to make changes rapidly and with minimal effort.[5][6]"

This is wrong. It is clear from the citation I provided, now deleted, that the over-promotion originated with the founders (rather than being from certain wayward extremists in the NLP camp). The sentence "Proponents reported that the using NLP principles and techniques helped reduce unpleasant feelings " has been added, which is blatantly promotional. The term "explicit model of human experience" is almost meaningless.

I wrote “Because of the absence of any firm empirical evidence supporting its sometimes extravagant claims, NLP has enjoyed little or no support from the scientific community.” This has been changed to. “Proponents of NLP often relied on anecdotal evidence and personal experience. Skeptics highlight the absence of firm empirical support for the extravagant claims of efficacy made by proponents.” No. If reliable sources say that there is little or no firm empirical evidence for the claims made by NLP. Then we should say this. We shouldn’t say ‘sceptics say that’ or even ‘scientists say that’. If reliable sources say that p, we say that p.

Similarly, we should write "It continues to make no impact on mainstream academic psychology" not "Heap says that ...". Heap is a reliable source. If RS says that p, say p. Peter Damian (talk) 09:40, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Peter I reverted the definition but could not counter the claim the the one you put in was not correct/out of context. Have you the material to hand? Its the definition which is the main thing the other edits were not major (other than the two I reverted). --Snowded TALK 10:03, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I think the problem was supposed to be (1) that 'neurolinguistic' was used in a different sense by originators of NLP. My reply to that is above. The other (2) was not about the definition, but about who originated the term 'NLP'. I have no argument about that. If anyone can provide a more accurate citation, let's include it. (3) On the claim that NLP did not originate as a form of psychotherapy, that is entirely absurd, and even the citation provided by Action Potential proves that. They claimed it was a 'different' approach to psychotherapy. Peter Damian (talk) 10:14, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Here are the problems with the citations that I corrected and were lost in Peter's reversion.

p.II of Frogs into Princes is the forward written by Steve Andreas taken out of context - please read the preceding paragraph and end of p.I. Steve's examples and view was incorrectly attributed to Bandler and Grinder.
p.6 of Structure of Magic was misrepresented
Bandler was identified as the author of "Changing with Families" when Bandler, Grinder and Satir were the authors. Do you have any reliable evidence that Bandler coined the title of NLP?
There was also an issue about using some transcribed client demonstrations as references for extravagant claims

----Action potential ^{t c} 10:16, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Can you please supply exact quotes, as follows:

1. What was said on p.II [sic] of Frogs into Princes. What did the preceding para actually say? When was the foreword written? 2. In what way was p6 of SoM misrepresented? 3. I have no reliable evidence that Bandler coined NLP except the OED, which is usually accepted as RS in the absence of any strong countercliam (see Bishonen above). 4. Were the extravagant claims made in the transcribed client demonstrations actually made by the founders or not? If not, were they implicitly endorsed by the founders by being quoted in their book? Peter Damian (talk) 10:27, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I have altered the citation to include OED 2003. Peter Damian (talk) 10:36, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll reply to the other points later. I address 3 first: 3.Please read what Bishonen said more closely. According to Bishonen (OED), the term NLP was coined in Bandler et al. "Changing with Families". It does not say in Changing with Families that Richard came up with the term. Notice that Bishonen said "NLP was coined in" not "NLP was coined by RB". Bandler and Grinder were using the term NLP in seminars before they published "Changing with Families" with Virginia. There is no evidence to say who first used the term. I think Bandler and Grinder probably came up with it together. Please make the change to your proposed introduction. Furthermore, the quote from Bandler (2008) is a metaphor which should not be taken literally. ----Action potential ^{t c} 12:06, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Right. That's not me talking, in most of my post. From "Neurolinguistic, adj" down to "from marketing and selling to neuro-linguistic programming" is a direct quote from the OED ( though without any formatting; I couldn't face inserting a lot of bolding and stuff). So, the OED doesn't say anything about who among the authors of Changing with Families coined the term. It only says it comes on p. 186. I'm sorry my copy isn't entirely easy to read. I'd advise anybody who has access to the online OED to look at it there instead. Bishonen | talk 12:22, 2 January 2009 (UTC).

Disputed text: The term 'neurolinguistic', to qualify the relation between language and the structure and function of the brain, originated in 1935^[3], the term 'neurolinguistic programming' was coined by Richard Bandler in 1976^[4], reflecting his belief that humans are the only machines that can program themselves.^[5]
Reason for dispute: The quoted text from Bandler's book is a metaphor and is not acceptable as a source. The sources are also questioned: The page cited in 'Changing with Families' (p.186) has not been verified. It is preferable to use a definition and origin of Neuro-linguistic programming that is more widely accepted. It is generally agreed that NLP was coined by Bandler and Grinder.
Relevant polcies: WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, WP:R
Proposed alternate text: paraphrase definition from "Dr Paul Tosey & Dr Jane Mathison (2006), "The title, coined by Bandler and Grinder, is understood to denote that a person is a whole mind-body system, with systematic, patterned connections between neurological processes (`neuro’), language (`linguistic') and learned behavioural strategies (`programming’) (Dilts et al 1980 p.2)" or use paraphrase of definition written by Dilts et al (1980). ----Action potential ^{t c} 13:05, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I did indeed misread the OED quote. I think the alternative sentence above is fine. Peter Damian (talk) 16:31, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] I have added the replacement derivation, verbatim except for removing 'patterned' - not clear what is intended to add to 'systematic'. I have removed a few of the qualifying phrases added by Bish, otherwise it begins to sound awkward and Wikipedia-ish (sorry!). I would like to include the Bandler 'programming' quote in the footnote, however, as it is clear he was not being metaphorical, but very literal. On using Bandler as an RS, I agree he cannot be used as RS support the truth of anything he says. But he is a reliable source for what he actually said, as enclosed in quotation marks. Peter Damian (talk) 16:43, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I copied that text from Mathison and Tosey and intended to paraphrase it before putting it in the article. I've tried my best to paraphrase it while keeping the meaning. We cannot copy stuff verbatim from other articles unless we use quotation marks and page numbers. I've made a few changes today on top of that. I hope it helps. Most were minor changes but you might object to replacing "scientific community" with "psychological research literature". Scientific community implies consensus when we do not have one. See Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words e.g. "Scientific community". The adjective "mainstream" might also be a problem. There are other examples of weasel words in your introduction that I tried to fix. You need to avoid phrases such as "It is claimed that..." etc without ascribing the view to a source. Heap is not authoritative given that was not published in a high impact journal and has not had that many citations to date. Heap does give a good overview of the research as at late 1988 but that was twenty years ago. We should have a look at Mathison and Tosey's critical summary of research which can bring this up to date. ----Action potential ^{t c} 04:18, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

hang on

I was tempted to a set of reversals this morning. Far too many weasel words introduced. A section on criticism with a critical comment does not need a qualification on the comment. The last two NPOV tags are questionable. If there is a positive response in the literature then it should be proposed. It hasn't been todate. Can you think again Action potential? --Snowded TALK 09:42, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I am also tempted to revert. There were some positive changes, but as S says, a whole bunch of weasel words. As argued above, when there are reliable sources, we do not say 'S says that p', we say that p. There is of course the problem that little or no research on NLP has been published in high impact journals. But that is of course because NLP is a pseudoscience, and is largely ignored by the scientific community. Mathison and Tosey are not in any way reliable sources, by the way. They are a front for the NLP industry. Peter Damian (talk) 10:02, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I have reverted (to an earlier version by Action Potential - some of the changes were good). The rest were ridiculous. For example:

"It continues to make no impact on mainstream academic psychology" to "According to Michael Heap (1988) NLP made no impact on mainstream academic psychology". "However, it has some influence among private psychotherapists" to "Heap claims that NLP has some influence among private psychotherapist" "NLP pretends to be a science, but is really pseudoscience, for its claims are not based on the scientific method. Its very name is a pretence to a legitimate discipline like neuroscience, neurolinguistics, and psychology. " to "Some proponents of NLP claim that NLP is or promises to become a scientific based discipline, but critics argue that it exhibits characteristics of pseudoscience, for its claims are not based on the scientific method."

As argued above, we don't have to say 'critics argue that'. We say that NLP is a pseudoscience, and cite a reliable source, as was done here. We don't say that the reliable sources are 'critics' or that they 'argue that'.

"The scientific sounding title gives the appearance of legitimate discipline "The scientific sounding title gives the appearance of scientific discipline ". As though scientific methodology (taken in the widest sense) is only one of many methods (revelation, Bandler's personal opinion, popularity) conferring legitimacy.

"NLP has enjoyed little or no support from the scientific community" to "NLP has enjoyed little or no support from the psychological literature" with the bizarre comment "There is no statement of consensus from scientific community". Neither is there a statement of consensus from the scientific community that the earth is not flat. The scientific community simiply ignores the view that the earth is not flat, just as it ignores the views of the NLP industry. Please avoid the 'reverse burden of proof' fallacy. The correct process for proponents of pseudoscience on Wikipedia is to provide reliable sources that there is a scientific consensus for X. Those representing NPOV do not have to prove that there is no scientific consensus for X. The fact is that NLP makes no impact on mainstream psychology. Period. Those who Google for NLP and find Wikipedia the #1 hit, followed by hundreds of NLP promotional links should be able go to Wikipedia first and get reliable information - such as the fact that NLP is not supported by mainstream science.

Wikipedia is not a promotional vehicle for flaky business interests. It is an encyclopedia. Please stop edit-warring, or we take to RFC or similar. Thanks Peter Damian (talk) 10:27, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with your reversals Peter, but AL is not edit warring. He is making changes in good faith, some of which are good some represent an attempt to shine a better light onto NLP. So far no reversal battles and discussion on the talk page. --Snowded TALK 10:36, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

He has a long history of edit-warring back to at least 2006 on this article [2]. He has a business promoting NLP and has a provable connection with the Collingwoods, who run 'Inspiritive'. I have very little time to devote to this - I have already delayed work on a publication that I was trying to get ready during the holiday period. This guy on the other hand has plenty of leisure time to bring the article back to its usual promotional state. Well, let's see. I would like to bring an RFC now, personally. There is enough evidence of this person's involvement in NLP promotion for nearly 3 years on this article. Enough is enough. Peter Damian (talk) 11:13, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I was judging the behaviour that I have seen Peter. If there is a provable connection to an NLP promotional business then that should be exhibited. --Snowded TALK 11:22, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes I understand that. Unfortunately one person tried exposing this connection before and was blocked as a result. We all need to be very careful Peter Damian (talk) 11:30, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

The last thing we want is anyone having an excuse to ban you again Peter! AP can I ask if you do have a connection? Obviously you don't have to answer this but it would make life easier all round. I freely confess (and by web site is linked to my user page) that I am disturbed by and hostile to NLP in practice (my experience here is management science) and realise that I need to be careful in consequence to maintain a NPOV. Its good to know where people are coming from. --Snowded TALK 11:38, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

On Comaze/ActionPotential and the need for care, this and this refer. I have no connection with NLP whatsoever. My interest in this article was prompted by a study of the conflict of interest in the Wikipedia administration itself, and of conflicts of interest in Wikipedia generally. My own specialism, as you know, is in philosophy of language (PhD and publications), and in medieval philosophy and logic (publications). A recent conference paper of mine on traditional logic linked to here. Peter Damian (talk) 11:44, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I am willing to confirm to a third party that I am currently studying combined program in cognitive science (psychology, computer science, and linguistics) at university. I do not wish my personal name or other details disclosed on wikipedia and ask you to message me privately if you need to know that information. I can confirm that I have trained extensively in NLP. I do not wish to promote it here. I wish to adhere to WP:NPOV. Let's get back to working on the article. ----Action potential ^{t c} 13:57, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Noted --Snowded TALK 17:03, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Noted, and I will not disclose your name here (even though you have linked to your website from your user page). But your website still advertises your connection with NLP, and contains advertisements for NLP training, and your company offers 'human enhancement' programs. Can you confirm whether or not you still have business interests in NLP or not? Peter Damian (talk) 19:11, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Specifically, the site says "XYZ is an expert consulting firm based in Sydney , Australia and specialising in high quality applications of NLP that significantly improve human and business performance". Can you explain why this is not a blatant conflict of interest? On your claim that you do not wish to promote it here, you are doing exactly that as we speak, by deleting or reverting carefully written and sourced material representing scientific consensus. Could you stop any further alterations to this article unless discussed here first. Thanks. Peter Damian (talk) 19:55, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for respecting my privacy. The website you quote is old and that business that traded as Comaze no longer exists. I can confirm that. I have studied NLP with various providers mostly before I started university. I am a full time student and currently training to become a registered psychologist. I am taking a second major in cognitive science, linguistics and computer science (AI). I accept that NLP, especially the hyped up versions, exhibit characteristics of pseudoscience and new age BS. But its not all that bad and there are different perspectives that must be represented under NPOV. ----Action potential ^{t c} 00:02, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

NPOV tag

OK if there is a tag, then there should be explanation of why with illustrations here so that we can resolve it. WIthout that it can be deleted. Over to you AP. --Snowded TALK 17:03, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Why has the tag been applied? The main section begins 'There are three main criticisms of NLP'. That should be enough to alert the reader that all three of the points referenced are exactly that - criticisms. I will leave the tag for now but will remove it shortly if no reasonable explanation can be given. Peter Damian (talk) 19:56, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

The tag was applied because I believe the section was in contravention of fundamental wikipedia policies. The main issues are that conflicting perspectives are not fairly represented. Equal validity must be give to all views (WP:NPOV). There are also some problems with other fundamental wikipedia policies: "WP:Verifiability" and it seems to be WP:SYNTH style "original research". The most obvious issue is that the opinions of individual researchers are not properly ascribed to the author. Here is a summary of the issues:

Opinions of individual researchers should be ascribed to the authors ("X states/argues/claims Y" to remedy this where appropriate). Some opinions have been asserted as facts, see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policy: "Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves."
An argument has been advanced but the synthesis is not attributed to a source that is directly related to the topic of NLP. The synthesis and conclusions must be consistent with an article or book chapter that entirely and directed related to the topic of NLP. Some of the sources used are criticisms of pseudoscience in general and only make passing comments about NLP. The sources chosen do not present all view fairly. Sources have been picked and chosen - only the negative results and conclusions are currently included.
The experimental methodology, procedures, participants, results of experimental studies from which the conclusions where draw are omitted. We really need to summarize the details of the experiments upon which any conclusions where drawn. This is currently also not presented on the NLP and science. The limitations of the studies and counter-arguments are currently not adequately addressed but should be. See List_of_studies_on_Neuro-linguistic_programming for some studies that were supportive of NLP, even tentatively. I'd prefer to look select a recent literature review. One possible source is the dissertations on NLP published recently -- are these acceptable as sources?
The opinions of hard line skeptics are not clearly distinguished from scientific conclusions based on experimental evidence. The biases of these authors are also not identified. Some of the pseudo-skeptics go beyond the evidence. For example, saying that some of the terms in NLP or even the title itself is simply "scientific sounding" is blatant POV. These opinions must be ascribed to a source or excluded. Again, assert facts or facts about opinions but not opinions.
Essentially the "NLP and science" section advances an argument that claims NLP exhibits characteristics of pseudoscience. This is a matter of opinion and must be clearly ascribed to a source. Otherwise it is considered a violation of Wikipedia:No_original_research unless this entire argument has been published in a reputable source.
The quote attributed to Corballis is a passing comment ("Article statements generally should not rely on unclear or inconsistent passages nor on passing comments.") in a chapter that is used out of context. The chapter is about right/left brain myths and makes only a passing comment about NLP. Corballis has not published any research into NLP whatsoever. It is an opinion, not a fact. On what basis does Corballis makes his claims? Is this source relevant at all for the current article? The quote is currently taken out of context. ("Even with well-sourced material, however, if you use it out of context or to advance a position that is not directly and explicitly supported by the source used, you as an editor are engaging in original research")
The statements attributed to Devilly are taken from an article not directly related to NLP. Devilly's article is about "power therapies". From memory Devilly cites on Sharpley as evidence and then moves onto EMDR. It only makes a passing comment about NLP (see above - we might need to get an third opinion whether or not this constitutes a passing comment or acceptable source. It is currently given alot of weight occupying most of the introduction to that section.) near the introduction but does not contain any research evidence or literature review of NLP except to say that VK/D has not been submitted for empirical evaluation. VK/D is a spin-off technique based on NLP principles. The relevancy of these opinions are questioned. On what basis does Devilly makes his claims about the popularity of NLP? He presents no evidence whatsoever for this opinions.
Lilienfeld's article and book is on pseudoscience in clinical psychology. It only makes passing comments about NLP and is not acceptable as a source. It is preferable to use the the primary sources that Lilienfeld uses as evidence when available.
From memory Beyerstein does present an argument about NLP. However, the majority of the article is not directly related to NLP. I'd like to reconsider whether this is acceptable source.
Outdated source for research reviews: The review by Heap (1988) is now outdated. Sharpley's review is also dated but very important historically. It should be clearly noted that Sharpley's review and the research in the early 1980s focused mainly of PRS. The conclusions are disputed. Mathison and Tosey's recent critical review of NLP research is the most recent published. Is this an acceptable source to bring the research up to date?
Beyerstein, Devilly, Lilienfeld are hard line skeptics when its comes to psychotherapy. They often published in skeptics magazines and take a hard line with any approach to psychotherapy which is not empirically verified. Their views are often disputed by many who follow humanistic (Carl Rogers), and psychodynamic (and many other) perspectives and approaches in clinical psychology. The biases of these authors have not been qualified. In this respect the current "NLP and science" does not fairly portray the conflicting perspectives. Devilly and Lilienfeld are also harsh critics of EMDR which has a strong following in clinical psychology (but probably not as popular as NLP).

Proposal: Possibly get an RfC on what is to be considered reputable/reliable sources for this article. Agree on peer-reviewed journal papers or book chapters published by reputable publishers that are directly and entirely related to the topic of NLP and scientific research. We should primarily consider entire articles and book chapters from reputable publishers that can be closely summarized and cited to be used as guiding sources. This is the preferred methods rather than selecting bits from here and there. Together we agree on the highest quality sources to be used as guiding sources. As stated earlier we need to clearly ascribe opinions to sources (e.g. "X claims Y") and avoid sources that simply make passing comments about NLP.

If we can use the best available sources to organise the article and fairly represent the conflicting perspectives then I think we're moving in right direction toward good article criteria. ----Action potential ^{t c} 03:57, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

You have obviously put some effort into this for which thanks. I had a quick glance at the research page referenced and was not greatly impressed. Mirroring of language for example has multiple issues in trial, and also multiple explanations it does not validate NLP. There is also a generic POV danger with the issue of providing context. I am seeing that on another article at the moment where any critical comment is being "qualified" with context. To Illustrate criticisms by the left and right to Ayn Rand are not allowed to stand without saying things like Buckley didn't like Rand because she criticised his catholicism, Chompsky is described as a left wing activist and attempts to properly designate him as a philosopher/scientist are deleted. Now I don't think you are going that far but it is an issue. You end up with every comment having some explanatory phrase added to it which results in lots of OR and weasel words. The phrase "X claims Y" is really not necessary where the title of the section is correct. --Snowded TALK 08:16, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Incidentally I don't see anything in the above list which validates a NPOV tag on a section titled "Criticisms". Please explain as there the context is really very clear --Snowded TALK 08:18, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I tend to agree with you that the list of studies is far from complete. But it give examples of some of the studies and some which were at least tentitively supportive. I strongly disagree with your interpretation of weasel words policy. Please review it. I'll give a specific example of when it is necessary to qualify an assertion -- when it is an opinion. In the introduction to the current article, it says "[NLP] continues to make no impact on mainstream academic psychology, and only limited impact on mainstream psychotherapy and counselling". This is a blatant violation of wikipedia policy. First it asserts an opinion as fact. I checked Heap's paper from 1988, actually says "informal soundings amongst academic psychologists revealed an almost total absence of awareness of NLP". Heap is using personal experience as evidence. This is not a scientific evidence and is therefore mere opinion. He did not conduct a survey or whatever. He was simply using his personal judgment which is fallible. It must be presented as opinion and nothing more. Second this information is twenty years old and written in present-continuous tense. If we are to paraphrase Heap about the awareness of NLP in 1988 it must be clear we're talking about that timeframe. The current statement implies that we're talking about the present state of affairs which may or may not be true. There are similar examples in the "NLP and science" section that need similar treatment. This is directly related to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policy: "Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves." ----Action potential ^{t c} 09:05, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

But it is also true that the reason for 1988 etc. is that NLP has not sustained itself in the face of any serious study. I am afraid that I don't agree with you about "tentative support". Cognitive Science has radically changed over the last decade and NLP at best was a crude approximation to aspects of science at the time along with some aspects of Gestalt therapy etc. The section on criticism is very clearly a section on criticism and does not require qualification. In effect NLP has survived in management because it appears to offer a prescriptive mechanism. Its one of a series of "cults" which while they may have some "Hawthorne effect" success from time to time are not based on coherent and sustainable theory. Now OK that is all my opinion! That said is an explanation of some of the issues you raise above. --Snowded TALK 09:39, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

There has been no serious study of whether the earth is flat since 1493. Perhaps this should be reviewed? And of course we cannot claim in Wikipedia that earth is not flat, only that a study in 1493 came to this conclusion. Peter Damian (talk) 10:24, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

This is my proposed change to the introduction which I outlined above: [3]. Perhaps we can ask for a comment at the NPOV noticeboard? ----Action potential ^{t c} 10:41, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

NPOV tag - point by point reply

Thank you for the comments. Here are mine, point for point.

1. "Opinions of individual researchers should be ascribed to the authors" Read carefully the whole section of WP:NPOV that you cite. The policy clearly allows us to assert facts. We do not need to say 'X says that Plato was a philosopher'. We just say 'Plato was a philosopher'. If the reliable sources says that p, we simply assert that p.

2. "An argument has been advanced but the synthesis is not attributed to a source that is directly related to the topic of NLP. ...Some of the sources used are criticisms of pseudoscience in general and only make passing comments about NLP". I didn't follow this argument at all. Are you saying that an article which is about fallacious theories in general, and which mentions the flat earth theory 'in passing' cannot be cited in Wikipedia because it is not 'directly related' to the flat-earth theory. You have to be joking.

3. "The experimental methodology, procedures, participants, results of experimental studies from which the conclusions where draw are omitted. " I really don't think we need to go into that amount of detail, in the case of something which is generally agreed to be the very paradigm of a pseudoscience.

3a "See List_of_studies_on_Neuro-linguistic_programming for some studies that were supportive of NLP, even tentatively." I reviewed this list carefully some time ago, and found that many of the studies do not support NLP at all. E.g. a study by Cheek supposedly "demonstrated that NLP Milton Model language use is capable of reaching and influencing the unconscious mind ", However this refers to a study by Cheek that the unconscious patients are capable of responding to hand signals. It is not a demonstration of the Milton model per se, as the paper does not appear to refer to the "Milton model". This would be like referencing a paper showing that the sky was blue, as supporting the flat earth theory, on the assumption that the flat earth theory also asserts that the sky is blue. Otherwise the studies are from journals like Multimind, which is an NLP promotional publication. This would be like citing the journal "Flat Earth". My proposal here is to place the burden of proof upon NLP. If you can go through these 'studies' one by one and show clearly that they are reliable i.e. independent sources, and that they clearly reference NLP by name, then they will be accepted. Is that reasonable?

4. "The opinions of hard line skeptics are not clearly distinguished from scientific conclusions based on experimental evidence. " Are you saying a hard-line skeptic is anyone who disagrees with NLP? Or do you mean someone who insists on rigorous application of scientific method?

5. "Essentially the "NLP and science" section advances an argument that claims NLP exhibits characteristics of pseudoscience. This is a matter of opinion and must be clearly ascribed to a source." Two sources were given. I have more.

6. "The quote attributed to Corballis is a passing comment ". See my passing comment about passing commments above.

7. "The statements attributed to Devilly are taken from an article not directly related to NLP. " Same fallacy. An article about fallacious theories which mentions the flat earth theory, is clearly referencing the flat-earth theory, as well as fallacious theories in general.

8. "Lilienfeld's article and book is on pseudoscience in clinical psychology. It only makes passing comments about NLP and is not acceptable as a source." Same fallacy again.

9. "From memory Beyerstein does present an argument about NLP. However, the majority of the article is not directly related to NLP. I'd like to reconsider whether this is acceptable source." And again!!

10. "Outdated source for research reviews: The review by Heap (1988) is now outdated. " Heap has just published a new article which he has sent me, and which is in print. This confirms the 1988 findings. In any case, NLP is now so thoroughly discredited that it is hard to find any scientific literature on it. Also "There is no reliable source for the statement that flat-earthism has entirely been ignored in reliable sources" seems like a catch-22.

10a " Is [Tosey and Mathison] an acceptable source to bring the research up to date?" As I said, I am suspicious of including these authors, as they seem to be NLP promoters. Can you get us an actual copy, please.

Best Peter Damian (talk) 10:04, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Is the new Heap article generally available Peter? --Snowded TALK 10:13, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

It's not. It's in a journal called 'Skeptical Intelligencer' - this will of course immediately lead to accusations of 'promoting sceptical views'. I will ask Michael whether it is stocked by university libraries. Peter Damian (talk) 10:15, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, would like a look at it and I'm on the editorial boards of a few journals if that is any help. --Snowded TALK 10:28, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I will also ask Michael if I can email copies of the paper. Peter Damian (talk) 10:31, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd appreciate it if, with permission, you could email that to me too. How can I forward you the papers from Tosey? ----Action potential ^{t c} 10:44, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for replying to each of my points. I do appreciate that. I'd prefer to get a third opinions on some of those points especially concerning whether passing comments and how the views of hard-line skeptics are to be characterized. By hard-line skeptics I'm referring to those that insist on experimental evidence for approaches in psychotherapy. There are competing perspectives in psychology on this matter. I used the examples of Carl Rogers client centered approach and psychodynamics which NLP has some commonality with. i.e. importance of subjective experience of the individual and importance of the unconscious mind in generating positive outcomes. NLP also shared the goal-oriented approach which is common with cognitive behavioural therapies. ----Action potential ^{t c} 12:02, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

RfC on ascribing an opinion to a reliable source

I have opened a request on the arbcom noticeboard about when to ascribe sources. I used Heap in the introduction as well as Devilly as examples which have been reverted several times now. [4] ----Action potential ^{t c} 11:19, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Update - I have read carefully one of the papers by Tosey and Mathison. While we should be careful about citing them - they are both trained in NLP therefore don't count as RS in the sense of 'independent', they nonetheless come to very similar conclusions as Heap 1988 and 2008. Namely, that most of the academic work (already cited) was done in 1980's, that NLP has since then been unable to provide convincing empirical evidence for its claims, the literature in academic journals is minimal and so on. They conclude "For NLP the problem remains that notions of evidence seldom satisfy the standards expected by academic reviewers, even if the weight of anecdotal reports of its efficacy suggest that something of value is being experienced". They also say "It seems clear that there is no substantive support for NLP in this body of empirical research, yet it also seems insufficient to dismiss NLP." They argue for renewed research into NLP but, given that has not yet taken place, I strongly urge the article (and particularly the NLP and science section) stays as it is. I can offer to add some comments about the Tosey and Mathison paper. But the section does begin by saying that these criticisms are criticisms. Tosey and Mathison's paper are entirely consistent with these criticisms. I also intend to add more about the 'linguistic' part of NLP, citing Newbrook's recent paper, as this directly bears on the 'pseudoscience' criticism. Peter Damian (talk) 15:47, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Update

I have added some quotes from Tosey and Mathison 2007 to the 'NLP and Science' section, hopefully these will make it more balanced (they are both trained in NLP). Again, the 3 criticisms in that section are all qualified by the remark that they are 'criticisms', I feel the POV tag should be removed. I have also been in touch with Tosey by email, who has been more than helpful. I asked him for his comments on the article. Thanks Peter Damian (talk) 20:25, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Peter. To satisfy NPOV there are a few more adjustments needed. The section should briefly summarize the criticism (Beck & Beck, Einspruch and Forman, Grinder & Carmen Bostic 2001) that the research studies reviewed by Sharpley and relied upon by Heap in his meta-analysis were unreliable ("including inaccurate understanding of NLP’s claims and invalid procedures due to (for example) the inadequate training of interviewers, who therefore may not have been competent at the NLP techniques being tested.") and that the evidence is insufficient to dismiss NLP. The limitations of studies in the laboratory in the 1980s and 1980s should also be mentioned (only tested eye accessing cue model and PRS). Tosey & Mathison state that "Given these concerns, we suggest that the existing body of empirical research cannot support definitive conclusions about NLP. It seems clear that there is no substantive support for NLP in this body of empirical research, yet it also seems insufficient to dismiss NLP." In the conclusion it would be nice to mention that some practitioners acknowledge the need for systematic investigation. ----Action potential ^{t c} 00:14, 6 January 2009 (UTC) update: I've added a sentence about the problems with the construct validity of studies in the laboratory carried out in 1980s which were reviewed by Sharpley and the results of which were subject to meta-analysis by Heap. ----Action potential ^{t c} 05:24, 6 January 2009 (UTC) I've added the full quote from Druckman (2004). It could be shortened but I want to be careful not to leave out any of the important bits. Before my change it was not clear that the committee made two conclusions. ----Action potential ^{t c} 10:12, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I made three changes to grammar and style. I do not agree with the changes entirely (the chronology of the Beck study in 1984 'contesting' the two later studies of Heap and Sharpley is odd, for a start) but perhaps we leave this for now, given the considerable changes over recent weeks. I have sent you both the 2008 Heap and the Newbrook. I have a few questions for Newbrook which I am separately emailing to him. Thanks for the help and collegiate approach to this difficult article. Peter Damian (talk) 19:22, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I received the recent papers by Heap and Newbrook, thank you. I've read them quickly but need a few days. I'll no doubt have some questions for both authors. ----Action potential ^{t c} 04:04, 7 January 2009 (UTC) I really need some more time to study these papers more closely. It might be good to come back to it in a few days with fresh eyes. best regards ----Action potential ^{t c} 13:59, 13 January 2009 (UTC) I've read both papers. I am going to do some careful research before making any changes to the article. I want to check some of their arguments and evidence first. ----Action potential ^{t c} 12:28, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Pseudoscience?

Looks like pseudoscience, smells like pseudoscience, feels like pseudoscience, but where is the pseudoscience box? NLP seems to be treated rather seriously for the outrageously vague introduction. A communicational technique that can help people "have better, fuller, and richer lives"? I had no idea what it actually IS until finding examples of NLP techniques elsewhere and it could all be called "negotiation techniques" instead. There's nothing "neurolinguistic" about it and it's certainly not a form of hypnosis. That statements are accepted more unquestioningly if you bombard someone with tautologies first is nothing new and it's certainly not "NLP".

While some of the concepts may be sound there's still no reason to give it a pretentious name that has nothing to do with what it does. Except for instant credibility, like all pseudosciences do it. -- 88.153.36.82 (talk) 08:32, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I would support the addition, but it will need discussion. --Snowded TALK 17:07, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

The opening section could certain be tighter. I tried to fix one part. However, the entire opening section could be seen as setting up a straw man argument as it presents some weak definitions tighter definitions are available. We need to carefully look at the most reputable sources. ----Action potential ^{t c} 18:04, 30 January 2009 (UTC) I made a number of changes to the introduction to make it more specific. I carefully paraphrased the definition from OED. Bandler and Grinder claimed to present NLP as a model or system rather than a theory. The other changes were based on checking cited sources. ----Action potential ^{t c} 00:29, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I believe that there is much research that can be done into NLP and I don't see it as pseudo-science. When you say words like "fuck", "shit", "Jesus Christ", people have anchored an emotional response to these words and will react emotionally to them. If you embed certain words in sentences, you could anchor different emotional responses and that is what NLP is to me. I believe that this is an interesting field to be investigated, I don't understand why wikipedia sees this as a pseudoscience. Please explain this to me.

-- RichardT

If you read the talk page and the various references etc its pretty clear. Your belief about what research could be done is not relevant --Snowded ^TALK 10:01, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi all. I would guess that this article could somewhere refer to Dianetics (scientology), which is quite familiar with it. Any idea where to establish connection and how? Konikula (talk) 23:48, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

moved disputed text

I moved this text from the notes in the article here: "It was even alleged (Grinder & Bandler, 1981, p 166) that a single session of NLP combined with hypnosis can eliminate certain eyesight problems such as myopia, and can even cure a common cold (op.cit., p 174)…..(Also, op.cit., p 169) Bandler and Grinder make the claim that by combining NLP methods with hypnotic regression, a person can be not only effectively cured of a problem, but also rendered amnesic for the fact that they had the problem in the first place. Thus, after a session of therapy, smokers may deny that they smoked before, even when their family and friends insist otherwise, and they are unable to account for such evidence as nicotine stains’.". This was a resposne to a single question in a seminar. It cannot be taken as a statement of fact. This might have a place if it is discussed in reputable secondary source such as a peer-reviewed paper. ----Action potential ^{t c} 01:10, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

If its accurately recorded that they said it, then its valid. It does not have to be in a peer-reviewed paper --Snowded TALK 08:15, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Recent changes: Please consider my recent changes carefully and move to talk page any disputed parts. ----Action potential ^{t c} 01:27, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

There were simply too many, and (once again) some their general tenor was to neutralise anything that might be considered negative. Several (the pipelinks, description of therapists) were reasonable but were combined with more controversial ones. The normal process on a controversial page is to propose any changes that might be considered controversial here first. I suggest that is done. --Snowded TALK 08:15, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I added this text to the definition of programming in NLP: "which they believed could be oriented to achieve specific goals ('programming')." This was part of Dilts et al. definition. This highlights their constructivist position. ie. a past memory is no more real or unchangeable than a future goal. ----Action potential ^{t c} 02:17, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Updated figures:

Heap (1988) states, "How widespread or popular NLP has become in practice is difficult to say with precision, though. As an indication the number of people to have been trained to `Practitioner’ level in the UK since NLP’s inception seems likely to number at least 50,000. Trainings in NLP are found across the world, principally in countries where English is the first language, but including Norway, Spain and Brazil. There is no unified structure to the NLP practitioner community. Probably in common with other emergent fields there is diversity in both practice and organisation, and there are resulting tensions".

Does someone have some updated figures/statistics on the popularity of NLP. How much has it grown since 1988? What has changed? What was the total book sales for NLP books in 2008? ----Action potential ^{t c} 07:21, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

How many changes have been made?

There seems to have been considerable activity on this article. How much has been changed? Re the point above about "a single session of NLP combined with hypnosis can eliminate certain eyesight problems such as myopia, and can even cure a common cold" this was one of a series of citations given by Michael Heap. It can easily be sourced with another. AP, why are you persisting in these changes? Peter Damian (talk) 20:40, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Not too much I think if you check them out. We had an enthusiast who kept inserting OR until they were banned and AP helped out in dealing with that. --Snowded TALK 20:48, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I really did not think it would be that controversial. I thought you would retained them and edited them if you thought they were controversial. Anyway. I'll specified each change below. ----Action potential ^{t c} 00:27, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Proposed changes (Action potential)

Modeling rather theorizing

From: "Proponents of NLP often deny that it is based on theory."
To: "The founders of NLP claimed^[6] that NLP was not based on pre-existing psychological theory or psychotherapeutic approach, rather it was based on direct observation and imitation of 'what works' in practice, what they termed modeling"
Reason for change: Just fleshes out the stance of the proponents. Trying to make it clear exactly what B&G claimed. This is supported by secondary sources.

Action potential ^{t c} 00:27, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Don't agree. Please refer to WP:FLAT, in particular section 10.7. Proponents of flat earth theory will often try to get round scientific objections to flat-earthism by claiming e.g. that it is not based on 'existing' research, or that 'it works' or something like that. Admittedly the sentence you are trying to replace contains the same implicit argument but it has the virtue of being short. Either (i) leave it as it is (ii) put in an objection to the 'it works' argument (for in fact it doesn't work) or (iii) delete it. Peter Damian (talk) 09:20, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I would be prepared to consider a form of words that expanded the current sentence, to include arguing that it was based on observation and imitation of what works in practice, a technique they called "modelling" but not replacing it. (-- unsigned - Snowded)

That would be acceptable to me. The link Peter gave was to an essay, not a policy, which recommends WP:RS. WP:FRINGE says its ok to use primary sources to confirm what proponents believed or claimed if discussed in secondary sources. The best source I have for this is the second conclusion the NRC which states that the committee were impressed by the modeling methodology that BG used to create the NLP technique (this is already quoted in the article). In regards to Peter's request for an objection to "what works argument" -- the sentence would be followed this: "There is little or no theoretical or empirical evidence to support its often extravagant claims". ----Action potential ^{t c} 10:36, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Claims in seminars

*From: "capable of addressing the full range of problems which psychologists are likely to encounter"

To: "In seminars they presented demonstrations and anecdotes..."

Reason: This made NLP sound too much like psychology. All of those claims were made at seminars and in demonstrations with people and in stories.
~~Reason: Clear distinction between statements of claims and claims made in seminars.~~

~~Action potential ^{t c} 00:27, 1 February 2009 (UTC)~~

Object for same reasons as Snowded. If NLP claims this, it claims this. Peter Damian (talk) 09:21, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Claims in seminars are claims, and NLP based a lot on its public performances. I see no reason for change. --Snowded TALK 09:41, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I must admit change was poorly proposed. Can we just drop this one? ----Action potential ^{t c} 09:24, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

In the context of seminars

*From: "It was even alleged (Grinder & Bandler, 1981, p 166) that a single session of NLP combined with hypnosis..."

~~To: Just make it clear that these were taken from seminar demonstrations. Seminar demonstration and acedcotes are not statements of fact so you cannot use the term "alleged".~~

~~Action potential ^{t c} 00:27, 1 February 2009 (UTC)~~(close/cancel)----Action potential ^{t c} 11:45, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

If it is reported by a third party source then its OK. --Snowded TALK 09:43, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Point taken. Let's just close this to reduce the number of open issues. ----Action potential ^{t c} 11:45, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Use quote to show what they believed

*From: "It claims that people can use these principles and techniques to represent their world better, learn and communicate better, and ultimately have better, fuller, and richer lives."

To: "It was co-founded by Richard Bandler and linguist John Grinder in the 1970s who expressed their original motives in their second book, The Structure of Magic II: A Book About Communication and Change, as 'sharing the resources of all those who are involved in finding ways to help people have better, fuller and richer lives'. "
~~Source: existing source, just added actual quote.~~

~~Action potential ^{t c} 00:27, 1 February 2009 (UTC)~~(change made - closed)----Action potential ^{t c} 09:52, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes but the quote doesn't capture all the nuance of what it replaces, plus contains a sizeable chunk of BS, "sharing the resources of all those who are involved". Peter Damian (talk) 09:22, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

You could put the references and motivations in a footnote --Snowded TALK 09:46, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I cut the BS portion that Peter pointed to. I think we could find a better quote outlining their intentions but this is ok for people who have no knowledge of NLP or its applications. ----Action potential ^{t c} 03:42, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

supposed theoretical or denote?

From: ...to represent a supposed theoretical...
To: ...to denote...
Reason: This just simpler.

Action potential ^{t c} 00:27, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

It is simpler but also less negative-sounding, so reject. Peter Damian (talk) 09:25, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

We're aiming for neutral, not "negative-sounding" so I've reinstated this change. The legitimacy of the title is covered in the 'NLP and science' section. I've also added the "and that can be organised to achieve specific goals in life" which is explicitly supported by the existing references. ----Action potential ^{t c} 03:31, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Update: The current sentence is ("They coined the title to denote a supposed theoretical connection between neurological processes ('neuro'), language ('linguistic') and behavioral patterns that have been learned through experience ('programming') and that can be organised to achieve specific goals in life"). This seems better but I always thought the definition was meant to be an operational definition rather than a theoretical or conceptual one. I'll have to check the sources again. ----Action potential ^{t c} 09:42, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

'Theory or model' in first sentence

*From: Neuro-linguistic programming (NLP) is a theory of language, communication and thought together with an associated therapeutic method

To: Neuro-linguistic programming' (NLP) is a theory or model of language, communication and thought together with an associated therapeutic method

Reason: NLP was not first presented as a model. This is different than a theory. Also made it mode specific. Importantly NLP was presented as a model for creating personal change. Combined Newbrook's definition with OED and NLM.

Alternative: We could use "theory or model" as a comprimise.

Source: National Library of Medicine definition of Neurolinguistic programming ("A set of models of how communication impacts and is impacted by subjective experience. Techniques are generated from these models by sequencing of various aspects of the models in order to change someone's internal representations. Neurolinguistic programming is concerned with the patterns or programming created by the interactions among the brain, language, and the body, that produce both effective and ineffective behavior."[5]).

~~Action potential ^{t c} 00:27, 1 February 2009 (UTC)~~(change made /closed)----Action potential ^{t c} 09:53, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Well that is a complete bullshit definition, what are they talking about. Even the proponents of NLP agree that it 'patterns of programming created by the interactions among the brain ..." is dubious and embarrassing. Peter Damian (talk) 09:24, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

*From: "which holds that people can improve the way they interact with the world by means of certain principles and techniques concerned with their use of language"

To: "which aims to train or teach people to be more self-aware, to improve communication and to model and change their patterns of thought, emotion and behavior"

Source: Oxford English Dictionary definition of Neurolinguistic programming "n. a model of interpersonal communication chiefly concerned with the relationship between successful patterns of behaviour and the subjective experiences (esp. patterns of thought) underlying them; a system of alternative therapy based on this which seeks to educate people in self-awareness and effective communication, and to change their patterns of mental and emotional behaviour."Oxford English Dictionary neurolinguistic, adj. (n.d.). . Retrieved January 23, 2009, from [6])

~~Action potential ^{t c} 00:27, 1 February 2009 (UTC)~~(closed/changed)----Action potential ^{t c} 10:05, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

On the second point I'm open to some form of synthesis here but the claim to "improve" is critical. --Snowded TALK 09:52, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

The OED and NLM specifically describes NLP as a model. I have provided sources which are more reputable than the reference you provided. The onus of proof is now on you. Perhaps a comprimise would be to use "model or theory" ----Action potential ^{t c} 01:25, 12 February 2009 (UTC) I have inserted the entire definition from OED into the first paragraph which replaces the definition offered by Heap/Newbrook. The OED is a much stronger source in terms of verifiability, reputability and reliability. ----Action potential ^{t c} 02:21, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Criticism (first point)

From: "NLP pretends to be a science, but is really pseudoscience, for its claims are not based on the scientific method."
To:NLP is claimed to be or made to appear scientific and uses scientific jargon but critics consider it to be pseudoscience because it does not follow the scientific method.
Reason: WP:NPOV, WP:FRINGE

Action potential ^{t c} 01:19, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

NO!!!! We have already been through this! Since this is one of three points which are explicitly presented as 'criticism' there is no reason to repeat this. Peter Damian (talk) 09:09, 1 February 2009 (UTC) [edit] Read the introduction to the section: "There are three main criticisms of NLP." These of course would be presented by critics, wouldn't they? Peter Damian (talk) 09:11, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree with you on this point. I asked at the NPOV noticeboard, some suggestions were made which were in line with my alternative. I'll make some adjustments to my alternative and would appreciate your feedback at that time. I'd first like to revisit some of cited literature and other competing perspectives that need to be represented under WP:NPOV. ----Action potential ^{t c} 03:50, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Proposed change to 1970s section

Here is a list of changes made in this diff. The other changes are not important at this stage. My intention was to clarify what Bandler and Grinder actually did based on the reports of Robert Spitzer who should be quite reputable (he is a well-respected professor in the field of psychiatry) and what has been reported in about the founding and history of NLP.diffs

Action potential ^{discuss contribs} 08:47, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

From: NLP originated when Richard Bandler was transcribing taped therapy sessions of the Gestalt ...
To: While an undergraduate psychology student, Richard Bandler was employed by psychiatrist Robert Spitzer to select portions of the gestalt therapy sessions of the late Fritz Perls which was published posthumously in The Gestalt ...
Why?: Saying NLP originated with Bandler is controversial and one-sided. It is generally agreed by the co-founders and the third party publicatons that it was a co-founded or co-originated when Bandler and Grinder started working together.

Action potential ^{discuss contribs} 08:47, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

From: together they produced what they termed the Meta Model,
Why: I fleshed out this section to give an account of what actually went on. This is based on Robert Spitzer account but appears to be consistent with other published.

Action potential ^{discuss contribs} 08:47, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

From: They published an account of their work in The Structure of Magic in 1975, when Bandler was 25. The main theme of the book was that it was possible to analyse and codify the therapeutic methods of Satir and Perls. Exceptional therapy, even when it appears 'magical', has a discernible structure which anyone could learn.
To: Bandler and Grinder's first book was titled The Structure of Magic. It presented a model which sought to codify the communications patterns for change that seemed to be common to Perls and Satir. The main theme was that exceptional therapy and communication, even when it appears 'magical', has a discernible structure the patterns of which could be modeled, codified and taught to others.
Why?: The aim of Bandler and Grinder in that book was to identify what they thought was common effective ingredients in the action of Perls and Satir.

Action potential ^{discuss contribs} 08:47, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Merged paragraph about Gregory Bateson into one paragraph. The influences of Bateson's ideas and also the fact that he introduced them to Milton Erickson.
Why?: Tried to improve flow and cohesion.

Action potential ^{discuss contribs} 08:47, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

From: marketing it as a business tool
To: marketing it as a tool for business communication and change
Why?: More specific about its intended use in communication and change in business.

Action potential ^{discuss contribs} 08:47, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Science

Hey guys. It's been a while since I've been here. Fear of the old NLP wars where it was continual reversions. The science section here seems to have some omissions that I'm wondering how to add (and don't want to step on toes - so posting here before trying).

Framing NLP and Science - NLP doesn't claim to use the scientific method (neither do psychotherapies), but the NLP Applications can be tested just like psychotherapies are - by psychologists trained in psychological testing. NLP doesn't teach its own practitioners how to do that at all, has no interest, out of scope.
All psychotherapies suffer testing problems like the testing of NLP therapy models, psychological testing has changed to try to handle this.
The early criticisms of NLP were almost entirely on the PRS. To be fair to the research this needs to be made clear
There's no mention of the outcome based research on NLP, which is largely the vogue for psychological/CBT research now.

Any thoughts? Greg (talk) 00:06, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

A think the NLP & Science article itself is fine.
Oh, a long time ago, I once wrote this: User:GregA/NLP_Overview#Science.2C_Psychology.2C_and_Reviews. Doesn't include the outcome research though. Greg (talk) 00:39, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

NLP makes scientific claims and I am not so sure about outcome based research (look at the challenge to Cognitive Behaviour Therapy for an example of a poor "outcome". I think you need to suggest an example improvement here and lets talk. I am slightly concerned (but will assume good faith pending evidence otherwise) that you are building an NLP based business. --Snowded (talk) 01:03, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi Snowded. Yes NLP makes scientific claims and shouldn't (IMO), but it doesn't claim the scientific method in anything I've ever seen. I'll look at a suggestion shortly, hopefully today time permitting. ps. What's the challenge to CBT you're referring to?

Disclosure: I did Psych at Uni, am trained in NLP, telephone counselling, & Ericksonian hypnosis, and work as a volunteer counsellor as well as paid Domestic Violence telephone counsellor. I am registered as an associate member of the "Association of Solution Oriented Counsellors and Hypnotherapists Australia" meaning my training is considered acceptable for Psychotherapy work in Australia. I see occassional private clients, but if anything am reducing that not growing that at present (this may change). I find much of what I learned through NLP very useful but NLP is varied and my training doesn't fit with some of the things I've heard about other NLP trainings - and I believe the lack of a common thread of "what is NLP" is probably its biggest problem - as well as a huge challenge for this article. Greg (talk) 02:36, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

NLP and Science

Okay, harder than I thought - so all I've done is rearranged what we've already said, so far. I believe nearly everything is there (except opening paragraph). Every dot-point is what was already written, with my bold heading summarising the detailed information.

(Note there are reference errors in the science area of the main page (no closing / in a ref name reference which hides following chunks of text till it finds a /ref), which I have corrected here.) Greg (talk) 23:08, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

SO what are you proposing? Lots of referenced criticisms (I have not had time to check them against the originals), but then the key problems seems a rather loose (and uncited) commentary? The main text is refreshing in that it is not an apologia but I'm unclear what you propose. --Snowded (talk) 02:02, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Well - not YET proposing anything, beyond a general wish to improve the science section. The summary below was me attempting to work out what was already being said - in order to say the same thing more clearly (remove repetition). The 3 pieces of commentary are an idea of the context of the stuff already given that would need citing (and is probably already cited in other areas of this article as being about NLP rather than a response to science). The intent being to put it together into a more coherent whole. The current proposal, I guess, is to make sure that this kind of direction I'm going is agreeable to all sides now rather than later, so if it's not I can avoid wasting my time. Greg (talk) 06:13, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Well the CBT case is an interesting one. In effect the research method allowed something to claim success and is in dispute within the profession in the UK (this is in part linked to the government attempt to mandate it, create :happiness centres" and the like. So allowing people to self assess (to take one example) if something worked for them is hardly scientific. I would be interested to know what this "new" research is (and you acknowledge problems). Maybe adding some fact statements relating to that would be useful. I like the approach by the way, making statements seeking consensus its a refreshing change in the Wikipedia. --Snowded (talk) 07:45, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I think it's interesting that research into psychotherapies generally has suffered the problem that the research controls (required by clinical psychologists) were argued to remove the intended therapeutic effects (by the therapists, including counselling psychologists). Looking purely at the outcomes, and treating the modalities as "black boxes" and (for example) assigning one group to an "NLP" box and another to "Narrative therapy", another to "Drug therapies", "placebo group" etc ignores the specific interventions used and more generally permits the question "did groups respond differently, and in what way?". Unfortunately an NLP practitioner might be using PRS and Metamodeling - so any effective change can't be locked down to either intervention and a bad intervention can continue to exist (in any therapy).

Now, it's not our job to spell all this out, but at the same time it's part of the story. Have you got any links on the UK disputes, I'd like to have a read.

All that said... I took a quick look at NLP and Science (which I should have done earlier) and List of studies on Neuro-linguistic programming - I figure I'd best be working in the NLP and Science before here - I'll move the discussion there unless there's a good reason not to.. BTW - the studies I remember reading a few years ago don't appear listed here and I'm not sure why, I'll have to have an explore. The NLPer in me was pleased to see some non-PRS research but the psychologist-eyes wanted more controls. Greg (talk) 13:33, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

NLP and science

Some NLP trainers and authors refer to NLP as a science or technology, yet there is little recent supporting research and much early research on "NLP" which found the premises lacking. This lack of basis to the claim of "science" has resulted in some branding NLP a pseudoscience - though there is considerable criticism of both the early controlled research against NLP and the lack of adequate controls in more recent outcome-based studies which supported NLP. The results are contested, and the research not extensive enough, to say NLP has scientific support.

Claims to being a science: Corballis (1999) argues that "NLP is a thoroughly fake title, designed to give the impression of scientific respectability".^[7] Its very name is a pretense to a legitimate discipline like neuroscience, neurolinguistics, and psychology. It has a large collection of scientific sounding terms, like eye accessing cues, metamodeling, micromodeling, metaprogramming, neurological levels, presuppositions, primary representational systems, modalities and submodalities.

NLPs major premises & methods should have extensive scientific research to support them: Heap (1988) argued that to arrive at such important generalisations about the human mind and behaviour would certainly require prolonged, systematic, and meticulous investigation of human subjects using robust procedures for observing, recording, and analysing the phenomena under investigation. "There is just no other way of doing this". Yet the founders of NLP never revealed any such research or investigation, and there is no evidence of its existence.^[8] Indeed, Bandler himself claimed it was not his job to prove any of his claims about the workings of the human mind, "The truth is, when we know how something is done, it becomes easy to change" (ibid).^[9] Tosey and Mathison say that "the pragmatic and often anti-theoretical stance by the founders has left a legacy of little engagement between practitioner and academic communities"^[10]^[11]

Early scientific research against NLP (sensory representations): The majority of empirical research was carried out by psychologists in the 1980s and 1990s and consisted of laboratory experimentation testing Bandler and Grinder's hypothesis^[12] that a person's preferred sensory mode of thinking can be revealed by observing eye movement cues and sensory predicates in language use.^[10] A research review conducted by Christopher Sharpley in 1984^[13], followed by another review in 1987 in response to criticism by Einspruch and Forman^[14], concluded that there was little evidence for its usefulness as an effective counseling tool. Reviewing the literature in 1988, Michael Heap also concluded that objective and fair investigations had shown no support for NLP claims about 'preferred representational systems',^[8]. A research committee^[15] in 1988 working for United States National Research Council led by Daniel Druckman came to two conclusions - firstly that they "found little if any" evidence to support NLP’s assumptions or to indicate that it is effective as a strategy for social influence. It assumes that by tracking another’s eye movements and language, an NLP trainer can shape the person’s thoughts, feelings, and opinions (Dilts, 1983^[16]). There is no scientific support for these assumptions."^[17]. The conclusions of Heap and Sharpley have been contested^[18]^[14]^[19] on the grounds that the studies demonstrated an incomplete understanding of the claims of NLP and that the interviewers involved in the many of the studies had inadequate training/competence in NLP.^[10]

Interest in researching NLP reduces: These studies marked a decline in research interest in NLP generally, and particularly in matching sensory predicates and its use in counsellor-client relationship in counseling psychology.^[20] Beyerstein (1995) argued that NLP was based on outmoded scientific theories, and that its 'explanation' of the relationship between cognitive style and brain function was no more than crude analogy.^[21] ^[22]

NLP's Representational systems are not taught or recognised by Psychology (1988): In 1988, Heap remarked^[8] that if the assertions made by proponents of NLP about representational systems and their behavioural manifestations are correct, then its founders had made remarkable discoveries about the human mind and brain, which would have important implications for human psychology, particularly cognitive science and neuropsychology. Yet there was no mention of them in learned textbooks or journals devoted to these disciplines. Neither was this material taught in psychology courses at the pre-degree and degree level. When Heap spoke to academic colleagues who spent much time researching and teaching in these fields, they showed little awareness, if any, of NLP.^[8]

NLP as pseudoscience: Devilly and many researchers stated: NLP's claims for scientific respectability are fake, and it is really a pseudoscience, since it not based on the scientific method. There is little or no evidence or research to support its often extravagant claims. The pre-1990 reviews of controlled studies shed such a poor light on the practice, and those promoting the intervention made such extreme and changeable claims that researchers began to question the wisdom of researching the area further.^[23]

The principle of Modeling is fundamental to NLP. Modeling requires that the practitioner not form a theory of what or why something is done which might filter the perception of what's actually occurring - just be open to learning through observation. From this a "model" of how to do something can be formed. Forming this 'theory' of how the model does what they do is avoided for as long as possible, and avoids any underlying reasons why the subject of the modeling does it their way. The scientific method requires the opposite - form a theory of what's going on and then test it to see if it fits the observations.

Early comment on modeling: The second conclusion in 1988 for the United States National Research Council was that they^[15] "were impressed with the modeling approach used to develop the technique. The technique was developed from careful observations of the way three master psychotherapists conducted their sessions, emphasizing imitation of verbal and nonverbal behaviors... This then led the committee to take up the topic of expert modeling in the second phase of its work."^[17]

Scientific criticism of lack of theory: A question often asked of NLP is that of whether it has a theory - Proponents of NLP often deny that it is based on theory. As noted above, authors in the field emphasise pragmatism, and have seldom shown interest in articulating NLP as a theory. Because NLP has always aimed to model `what works’, one can find evidence within its practices of an eclectic approach that draws from (among other things) cognitive-behavioural approaches, Gestalt therapy, hypnotherapy, family therapy, and brief therapy. For more extensive discussion of NLP’s theory in relation learning see Tosey and Mathison ( 2003; 2008)."[7].</ref>

NLP's analogies of how the mind works: According to Beyerstein (1995) "though it claims neuroscience in its pedigree, NLP's outmoded view of the relationship between cognitive style and brain function ultimately boils down to crude analogies."^[21]

The Problem with Pseudosciences: Beyerstein classes NLP as a pseudoscience & neuromythology. In reference to these he states "In the long run perhaps the heaviest cost extracted by neuromythologists is the one common to all pseudosciences—deterioration in the already low levels of scientific literacy and critical thinking in society.".^[21]

Basic conclusion:

Tosey and Mathison ^[10]add that "The literature in academic journals is minimal; in the field of HRD see (Georges 1996), (Ashok & Santhakumar 2002), (Thompson, Courtney, & Dickson 2002). There has been virtually no published investigation into how NLP is used in practice. The empirical research consists largely of laboratory-based studies from the 1980s and 1990s, which investigated two particular notions from within NLP, the `eye movement’ model (Bandler & Grinder 1979), and the notion of the `primary representational system’, according to which individuals have a preferred sensory mode of internal imagery indicated by their linguistic predicates (Grinder & Bandler 1976)." - Tosey and Mathison 2007</ref>.

Key problems in the scientific summary

It confuses rep system studies with NLP generally - though the original documents are clear in their descriptions. We need to either separate them, or separate them while describing reasons it might be valid to lump them together.
It confuses old studies with current studies
Modeling and Scientific Method are incompatible in many ways (but not entirely). NLP focuses on modeling though that doesn't stop the scientific method being used to evaluate something that was modeled (eg: a psychotherapeutic model) - at least with the same problems of any psychotherapy.
There has been an ongoing movement to reduce the researcher-practitioner divide. ie: between researchers and counselling psychologists, psychotherapists, nlpers, etc. CBT was the first to overcome this with new research methodologies
New NLP outcome based research has not been summarised. And there are problems with the research probably anyway.

Comments

"Some NLP trainers and authors refer to NLP as a science or technology, yet there is little recent supporting research and much early research on "NLP" which found the premises lacking." What does the last bit of the sentence mean, i.e. what does 'premisses lacking' mean? Peter Damian (talk) 15:31, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
The current NLP and science section opens "At the time it was introduced, NLP was heralded as a breakthrough in therapy, and advertisements for training workshops, videos and books began to appear in trade magazines. The workshops provided certification. However, controlled studies shed such a poor light on the practice, and those promoting the intervention made such extreme and changeable claims that researchers began to question the wisdom of researching the area further.". That seems to sum up (for me) the main facts about NLP and science. If you think it doesnt, what facts should be added? What should be taken away? The most important facts about NLP (I think) are that if you Google the term, you get lots of advertisements for workshops. You can find many websites with extravagant claims. Yet (second main fact) none of these claims seem to be supported by scientific evidence or research. Peter Damian (talk) 15:34, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the bulk of the empirical research that tested some NLP models and assumptions does not support NLP. The counter-argument is that the empirical research to date is insufficient to dismiss it. The testing methodology was not adequate. If you look beyond the studies that tested specific NLP techniques, there seems to be existing theory and empirical evidence from neuroscience, psycholinguistics and cognitive linguistics that would support NLP theory and practice. For example, it is difficult to argue that anchoring is not a form of classical conditioning. Secondly, non-verbal rapport (matching and mirroring) is supported by a number of empirical evidence (see the work on non-verbal rapport by Sharpley following his review of NLP which is partially consistent with NLP model of rapport, e.g. [8], see also : Sharpley, C. F., Halat, J., Rabinowicz, T., Weiland, B., & Stafford, J. (2001). Standard posture, postural mirroring and client-perceived rapport Counselling Psychology Quarterly Vol 14(4) Dec 2001, 267-280. doi:10.1080/09515070110088843). Submodalities have found their way into psychology (under a different name). Furthermore, recent priming and lexical decision empirical work in psycholinguistics appear to support the Milton model in terms of ambiguity, isomorphic metaphor, etc. Much of NLP has found its way into psychology and has been tested in that context. Unfortunately, it is extremely difficult to make inferences about NLP from psychology, linguistics or neuroscience because they do not share the same epistemology. It would be a big job to translate it across. ----Action potential ^{discuss contribs} 07:09, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

NLP and science

I've made a major revision to the NLP and science article. Its looking more like an article and less but would appreciate some input and assistance in getting it right. ----Action potential ^{discuss contribs} 12:44, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I've created four subsections in the section title "NLP and science" on this article. This is what I think needs to be covered in that section: 2 NLP and science

2.1 Research reviews (Sharpley, NRC and critique by Einspruch + Forman; largley unsupportive)
2.2 Skepticism and pseudoscience (Criticism by Beyerstein that NLP is fake science -- just uses scientific jargon, also need responses brief counter-arguments per WP:DUE; cover popularity of NLP)
2.3 Lack of systematic investigation (This is an extension of the previous section, decline in research following reviews, counter-argument that it was partly based on Grinder&Bandler's empirical observations and work and Grinder's expertise in TG.)
2.4 Research of how NLP is used ("what works": pragmatic attitude lead to little engagement between academic and practitioners, little research of NLP in practice; note that has been a number of papers published recently and that "vendor neutral" critical research project funded by U. of Surrey)

This section is intended to be a summary of what would be on the NLP and science article which still needs attention.

Action potential ^{discuss contribs} 10:24, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

There was an inclusion that involved a tv show. Of course it was inappropriate. I removed it. I also added the more recent research that indicates that neurolinguistic programming has a very high level of discredite according to both academic researchers and psychology practitioners. ISBNation (talk) 08:33, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Norcross et al.

Statements attributed to Norcross et al (Norcross, JC, Garofalo.A, Koocher.G. (2006) Discredited Psychological Treatments and Tests; A Delphi Poll. Professional Psychology; Research and Practice. vol37. No 5. 515-522) were recently inserted without discussion. Please provide the conclusions that directly related to NLP and exactly what results these were based on. I read this article and there was no analysis of the results concerning NLP as a treatment for drug abuse and no conclusions or discussion concerning NLP. ----Action potential ^{discuss contribs} 06:01, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Secret CIA program

I once read that the CIA had a secret program for neuro-linguistic programming. I'm not entirely sure about this, but it could be of some documentary value if we could determine whether such secretive programs ever took place. ADM (talk) 04:11, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Rewind technique

Just noticed we have not got a section for the rewind technique. I think it should probably added to the list of common NLP techniques. ----Action potential ^{discuss contribs} 03:48, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Prevalence/popularity/demographics of NLP

I think it might be useful to get some estimation of how many people are trained in NLP. The size of the industry, demographics, etc.

"It is estimated that over a million people have to date done some training in NLP."[9]
In a review of the coaching industry in Australia, 13% of respondents reported that they had been trained in NLP. -- Spence, GB., Cavanagh, MJ., & Grant, AM., Duty of care in an unregulated industry: Initial findings on the diversity and practices of Australian coaches International Coaching Psychology Review 1, 71-85.
NLP "has achieved widespread popularity as a method for communication and personal development, and is a recognized mode of psychotherapy in the UK. It is also being applied widely, if often informally, in UK education. To date, however, the academic community has shown little interest."
"While it is claimed that NLP has a use in almost any area of human activity which involves communication and concern with high performance, in business it has proved very popular as a means to improve and enhance communication, to build rapport and set goals for dealing with 'difficult people. Initially NLP was very popular with sales staff and acquired a reputation for helping them close deals. Similarity, it has been used with information technology trainers and subsequently spread among HRD profession and line and project managers as a useful instrument in the repertoire of influencing skills. It has been particularly popular with large organizations engaged in culture and value change."(p.127) Diana Winstanley & Jean Woodall (2000) Ethical issues in contemporary human resource management. Palgrave Macmillan.
Carter, T. (2001) Despite its detraction, NLP gains popularity. ABA Journal 87(9), 63.

Action potential ^{discuss contribs} 01:37, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I would support figures on number trained if they can be objectively verified and there is some balance with number practicing. The problem is getting balance here, I can find similar quotes to those above for virtually all management fads. Many people are serial adopters, being trained in each new idea in turn. A lot of NLP people have ended up in SPiral Dynamics and the whole Integral nonsense for example. --Snowded ^TALK 02:30, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately there does not seem to be much in the way of objectively verified statistics on its prevalence. In the absence of this data to what extent can we rely on published expert opinion? ----Action potential ^{discuss contribs} 14:07, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Depends a bit on the expert - a general phrase in a management book is dubious ... --Snowded ^TALK 14:20, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

This quote from Kremmer is still quite general but I think the Scientific American is somewhat reliable. In the absence of objective figures I think we need to accept this at face value as long as it is balanced. Kremmer (2005) says that 'NLP has become very popular among management and performance consultants, including "mental coaches" who advise everyone from business executives to athletes on skills ranging from public speaking to visualizing victory during competition.'Scientific American: Psychotherapy Lite by Kremmer I cannot find any specific numbers to back it up (except for that survey of the coaching industry in Australia by A. Grant). I don't know of any reliable sources reporting that NLP has decreased in popularity. ----Action potential ^{discuss contribs} 00:18, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

IT could be used, and balanced with this from the same article: Some practitioners are accused of overestimating both the effects and the utility of these exercises. Purveyors who have a superficial outlook tout NLP as a panacea for all kinds of problems. NLP's respected proponents are more selective, of course, but even they have little scientific explanation for why the techniques supposedly work. In contrast to long-standing, proved approaches, such as behavioral or talk therapy, just a few isolated peer-reviewed studies have explored NLP's effectiveness, and these have found evidence only of very limited effects.--Snowded ^TALK 05:24, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

That quote would be ok too. Actually that article is quite good because it is both accessible and informative. It'd be great to have some verified numbers though. ----Action potential ^{discuss contribs} 08:14, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

recent revision to "NLP and Science" section

I made quite a few changes to the "NLP and Science" section that I need some feedback on. Can you please take a close look at my changes and make some suggestions for improvement. The more eyes the better. We also need some feedback from the more scientific minded editors here. ----Action potential ^{discuss contribs} 17:40, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

"Claim"

Re [10]:

The article currently opens in the following way:

Neuro-linguistic programming (NLP) claims to be 'a model of interpersonal communication chiefly concerned with the relationship between successful patterns of behaviour and the subjective experiences (esp. patterns of thought) underlying them" and "a system of alternative therapy based on this which seeks to educate people in self-awareness and effective communication, and to change their patterns of mental and emotional behaviour'".

Apart from this wording being essentially a WP:IAR override of WP:CLAIM, the chief problem with this wording is that it is false if, as appears, "claims to be" is taken implicitly to mean something like, "purports to be, but might actually not be". NLP doesn't "claim" to be "a model of interpersonal communication"; it is "a model of interpersonal communication". It may be a disputed model. It may even be a false model. But neither its popularity nor its veracity has anything to do with its definition. If I declare that the Moon is made of green cheese, I haven't "claimed" to have made an assertion; I have made an assertion. It may be a false, strange, or completely delusional assertion, but it is as much an assertion as NLP is a communication model/therapy system. Further, it doesn't "claim" that it "seeks to educate people" about its tenets; it rather does seek to provide this sort of education. If I go chasing a rainbow in search of a pot of gold, the fact that the gold may not be there does not reduce my chase to a "claim to have chased". NLP is a model/system that seeks to educate. The notion that its existence or its endeavours are misguided is important, but it doesn't simply "claim" to exist (i.e., to be a model/system), and it doesn't simply "claim" to endeavour (i.e., to seek to educate); it rather does exist, and it does seek to educate. The ideal way for the article to open would be, "Neuro-linguistic programming (NLP) is 'a model of interpersonal communication..." because--for better or for worse--that's what it is; that's what is right there, on the table, up for critical debate. Cosmic Latte (talk) 22:40, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Agree its problematic, especially with any pseudo-science. There has been a general problem with the article in that claims have been presented as facts. If you look at the current lede its not wildly accurate anyway. If we said that NLP was a popular movement based on a model, of something similar it would be better. --Snowded ^TALK 22:45, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

That sounds fine to me, and I've had a go at it here. Cosmic Latte (talk) 22:56, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I reverted the opening sentence which described NLP as a popular movement in psychotherapy. The second part of the OED definition implies that there are at least two views. Psychotherapy is just one application of NLP. Overuse of 'claim' can be avoided if we include the various points of view. Its not easy because psychologists evaluating NLP have incorrectly characterized NLP as a "form of psychotherapy" and evaluated it within the framework of traditional counseling. Psychotherapy is just one application of the system or approach to learning, communication and change. I'm glad to see some discussion and work on the article. ----Action potential ^{discuss contribs} 00:21, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid that adding that NLP is a movement within psychotherapy is opinion. I'm not denying that it is sometimes described as a approach or adjunct to psychotherapy but it is more often described as a communication approach. ----Action potential ^{discuss contribs} 22:52, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

The article as a whole covers the wider use of NLP as a management approach (where to be honest it is far better known than in psychotherapy). I am happy to remove "claim", but the lede needs to reflect the whole article not just repeat one definition albeit from the OED. --Snowded ^TALK 06:02, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

recent changes

I've moved a lot of the content around and cut a lot of detail that can be linked to subarticles. this is much closer to a possible good article candidate. Any suggestions to improve it?----Action potential ^{discuss contribs} 02:50, 15 December 2009 (UTC) I think by moving the controversies and criticisms to a section titled controversies and criticisms allows for a sustained discussion. At the moment these topics are spread throughout the article in history and other areas. ----Action potential ^{discuss contribs} 04:19, 15 December 2009 (UTC) I also think the "1 History and founding" section can be merged with "early models". ----Action potential ^{discuss contribs} 04:22, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't have time to go through all those changes this morning, but will do so this evening. Given the prior history of this article in which you have made changes sympathetic to an approach in which you have had or have a commercial interest I was tempted to simply revert and ask you to follow good practice on controversial articles discussing your changes here first. However a quick glance says you have not substantially changed content, just moved things around so I have left it for the moment. I have however changed the lede per above comments. Last night I applied WP:BRD returning the article to its state before the recent changes to allow discussion to take place. You have chosen to revert that now three times. In the spirit of compromise I have made an amendment to ensure the lede summarises the article as a whole. --Snowded ^TALK 06:12, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I understand if you want to revert to previous version, I was perhaps a little too bold in the changes I made today. I should have discussed it in more depth here first and attempted to reach some sort of consensus. My aim was to remove the unnecessary detail and move some content into more appropriate subheadings. The history section was unwieldy and a more sustained discussion can be put under the subheadings that I proposed. Can you please look more closely at the article as I left it to get a better idea of what I was aiming for? I hope that we can avoid the revert and work towards improving the article together. ----Action potential ^{discuss contribs} 11:45, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Bogus OED definition

The current lead sentence falsely quotes a NLP definition from the Oxford English Dictionary (non-existent "2003"). The OED (CD v. 3, 2007) doesn't mention "neuro-linguistic programming". Its entry for the combining form neuro- lists: "neuroliguistic a., of or connected with the application of neurology to linguistic research; so neurlinguist, an expert or specialist in neurolinguistics; neurolinguistics n. pl. (const. as sing.), neurological linguistics". The only reference to programming is a 1970 usage example by John Laver: "The healthy adult brain is not itself accessible to neurolinguistic experiment. There is thus no possibility of directly observing the neural mechanisms involved in constructing a neurolinguistic program."

We could use one of these definitions.

"a field of study that attempts to build a set of transferable skills by programming the unconscious mind" (Wiktionary)
"relationship between communication and behavior: a theory and model of human behavior and communication based on linguistic insights into how people avoid change and how to assist them in changing" (Encarta)

Any suggestions? Keahapana (talk) 23:45, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I left the quote as a "claim" and 86'ed the reference, based on what you just said about the 2007 OED. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 03:38, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

You "86"ed (way to use bar slang, btw) a reference because of something some knucklehead posted on a Wikipedia discussion page, rather than actually checking into it? How encyclopedic of you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.171.176.132 (talk) 20:02, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

The quote from the OED has been verified by multiple editors including me. The link can be verified by anyone with a subscription to Oxford online reference which is subscribed to by many universities. ----Action potential ^{discuss contribs} 22:35, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi Action Potential, since you've "verified this definition in hard copy version of OED too" would you please provide that reference? I can't find it. Thanks. Keahapana (talk) 23:06, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I'm at the uni library now and can confirm that definition is in the OED, 2009 draft revision which has not changed since the 2003 edition. The Oxford English Dictionary of Psychology has a shorter version which focused on NLP as a form of therapy; this reflects the focus on therapy in psychology. Outside of psychology, NLP is defined more generally as a communication approach. There are also a few other dictionaries in the university book shop which define NLP in slightly different ways. ----Action potential ^{discuss contribs} 01:56, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Conflict of interest?

Hi All,

Just by way of introduction, I helped out with this article about 3 years ago and just pop in time to time to see how things are going. I see the article seems to have improved a lot, and that there are 3 or 4 dedicated editors who are working on this so I decided to have a browse around on user pages. Now, this may have been covered before - and, if so, apologies - but I wonder if Snowded has a conflict of interests. See the following link from the site he advertises on his user page [11]

Does this not mean that you are in competition with many of the NLP providers for business and therefore have a vested interest that you should declare? As I say, if this has been covered before and is archived somewhere then apologies in advance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Datatook (talk • contribs) 19:11, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

No I don't, or if I do then all Biologists should be banned from editing Intelligent Design and all Management Consultants from editing any article to do with management. If you did edit the article three years ago then under what user name? The one given above has only one edit in its history namely the above. --Snowded ^TALK 21:24, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm, I think I disagree. Biologists do not have a direct material commercial interest as you do. You are effectively editing an article on a competitive 'product', and I dont see how this can lead to a balanced perspective. Re my user name, I had to create a new account as I could not remember my old one - I will see if I can dig it out from the archives today Datatook (talk) 08:15, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Please do (Your ID that is), And I am very sorry but I do not compete with NLP not does my company. Aside from the general "You run courses" you have not provided any evidence of competition based on the course material (which is all about sense-making). Under your definition anyone one on wikipedia who sells consultancy or runs training programmes should not edit any articles in this area. I also hold three visiting Chairs at Universities in management science which gives me another academic perspective on this particular pseudo-science. Sorry, I suspect an attempt to remove an editor who is critical of NLP. Incidentally, the only reason you can even make this particular accusation is my willingness to be open about my real identity. You might want to consider a similar position. --Snowded ^TALK 08:54, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes yes, sensemaking - Karl Weick - I'm well aware of it. I'm also not interested in how many university chairs you have - good for you though, well done. You are a management consultant selling courses in giving people a 'cognitive edge', which sounds remarkably like NLP claims around performance / excellence etc. You're in the market for the same customers - all else is irrelevant. By the way, I'm not trying to remove you from the article, just to clear up that you may not be exactly be coming from a neutral position on this. Datatook (talk) 09:12, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

You brought my background into this so I expanded it a bit - the balance of my work is teaching and research with some consultancy. And, while Weick is associated with sensemaking, there are several people involved in sense-making myself, Dervin and others. My position on NLP is clear and public - its a pseudo-science and also has unresolved ethical issues. That has nothing to do with any commercial interest. I would not consider anyone who seriously considers booking on an NLP course a potential client, they operate in a very different field from our work as some basic study would show. I suggest you "remember" that prior user name, its just a bit too much of a coincidence that a new editor suddenly appears on wikipedia when a related debate is going on elsewhere in a KM listserv. Establish your own pedigree then we have an even playing field, for the moment you are dropping in accusations based on superficial readings. Single purpose IDs will always arouse suspicion and rightly so on controversial articles. --Snowded ^TALK 11:06, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I too occasionally follow this article and it is quite obvious to me the overall tone of the article has been for some time, and currently still is, biased against NLP. If a particular major contributor is responsible for most of the article, then the responsibility must rest with them and any obvious bias (ironically by use of language, etc.) does not serve well the intent. This article does require a substantial rewrite to present an unbiased neutral viewpoint. It needs to properly discuss competing views and observations without slant and weighting towards one overarching opinion, which it currently does not do.Erikcata (talk) 17:05, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Ah well, fortunately for me I wrote very little of it. I have defended the NPOV of the last major rewrite however and will continue to do so. There have been far too many attempts to make this article a propaganda piece. Lets keep it to reliable sources and stop making silly accusations or using innuendo shall we. --Snowded ^TALK 17:06, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Timing inconsistencies in the Scientific Criticism section

Hello. The final line of the scientific criticisms section states "However, the conclusions of Sharpley's review have been contested[22][58][62] on the grounds that the studies carried out were not sufficient tests of the specific models and techniques tested, and that the studies contained numerous methodological errors"

Those contests were made in 1985 and before. Sharpley's following paper (1987) gave a rebuttal, and more research to show an overwhelming failure of neurolinguistic programming. Tosey and Matthison did not contest Sharpley, they just reported the people who contested Sharpley in 1985.

Tosey and Matthison have also been answered with this latest published research:

http://jarhe.research.glam.ac.uk/media/files/documents/2009-07-17/JARHE_V1.2_Jul09_Web_pp57-63.pdf

LK Lam Kin Keung (talk) 01:53, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I made two changes, one to add the "cargo-cult" label of the University of Glamorgan paper. I also removed the paragraph saying on the rebuttal of Sharpley's review. It just didn't make sense to say this was contentested, then reference the rebuttal, or to qualify Y&M with reported. This is after all the section on criticism. --Snowded ^TALK 07:11, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, thats a lot more consistent and updated. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 03:05, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

"Journal of Applied Research in Higher Education" is not exactly a high impact journal. We need to have a discussion about how much weight we should give the various points of view on this article. How do we decide how much space each point of view is assigned? ----Action potential ^{discuss contribs} 14:41, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

It is peer reviewed and its a lot better than many of the sources used in the other sections. --Snowded ^TALK 15:39, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

There is no reason to remove Grinder & Bostic St Clair's response to Sharpley's reviews as cited by Mathison and Tosey. They maintain that the research did not adequately test the techniques tested and that the studies contain methodological errors which were not picked up by Sharpley. I think this is important to balance the criticism and put it in perspective. Mathison and Tosey have published several papers in peer-reviewed journals and conferences (see publications listed on nlpresearch.org). Mathison and Tosey propose that NLP be investigated further using multiple methodologies, not just within the experimental/empirical framework. It seems overly cynical of Gareth Roderique-Davies to say that this call to work alongside researchers in other fields is simply a vain attempt to bolster its credibility. ----Action potential ^{discuss contribs} 16:41, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

If we put that back in then we also have to put in the response to that criticism and it all gets lengthy. The note above says that Mathison and Tosey only reported on a criticism of Sharpley which is very different from saying they criticised it, as was implied. Grinder is hardly a neutral party and this is the section on criticism after all. There is a general problem with pages with strong adherents, that every time there is a criticism it is immediately qualified. This is generally frowned on and I don't see the need to allow it here. --Snowded ^TALK 16:46, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree that we should not follow every critical point with a response. However, this is a major disagreement and it helps to provide both sides. The skeptics argue that the experimental was sufficient test and NLP failed to demonstrate its claimed high level of efficacy and effectiveness. The proponents (including Mathison and Tosey 2007, and Grinder 2003) maintain that the experimental literature was not sufficient test of NLP and propose that further investigation (using multiple methdologies) is warranted. Both positions can be found in peer-review literature and it is necessary to show the whole picture. So, it seems the jury is still out. ---Action potential ^{discuss contribs} 02:57, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Mathison and Tosey are an interesting source. For a start they have been "extensively trained in NLP" and use it in their professional work so they have a clear interest in supporting NLP. Their discipline is in management science not psychotherapy or any of the cognitive sciences. They accurately record Bateson's concern about the transformation of his ideas into specific strategies (something we should have here somewhere) along with the absence of any consideration of gender issues, including the "american dream" aspect which again we don't cover in the article. There are some appalling howlers in the paper; for example the reference to Fauconnnier & Turner supporting aspects of NLP's views on languages which is absurd (I wonder if they have even read Conceptual Blending. They seize on mirror neurons as do other people in this field without really understanding the original research. A good example of pop science. They make the valid point that NLP's coherence is based on acceptance of cybernetic principles (and therein lies another potential criticism). Their use of the Bumble Bee metaphor is truly terrible. So as you can see I am not impressed, but then I have never been impressed with the Surrey group from when I had a visiting fellowship there. That said, even if we accept their article then they really do not support the original claims. Towards the end of the article they report Heap and Sharpley, and then cite Beck and Beck's 1984 paper and Eins[ruch & Foremans 1985 paper as contra's but both of these papers PRECEED the Heap and Sharpley papers. The third is a 2001 paper by Grinder which we can dismiss as he has an obvious interest ands its not a paper, its another popular book on NLP by one of the founders. So the original claim that this reference counters the criticism is simply not correct. Its not so much that the Jury is still out, but that the Jury has delivered a verdict and the guilty party is asking for more time and a different legal system to be used. I am begining to wonder what I would find if I checked out some of the other references used here. --Snowded ^TALK 07:05, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

The consistency issue will need some work. I made some changes to fix that, though there are a lot of consistency problems outside of the scientific criticisms section. Thx. LK Lam Kin Keung (talk) 03:28, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I'll respond to Snowded properly when I get a chance. I have a quick question about how to end the article. Should it end on a positive note? At the moment the article ends with a conclusion from a critic's article. Should it end with a neutral statement summing up the various perspectives per WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE? ----Action potential ^{discuss contribs} 04:42, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Moving away from an Encyclopedia entry

Many of the recent changes while referenced are starting to get far too detailed for the article. The whole section on a typical interaction for example reads likes a NLP book. I suggest we get rid of that and also try and keep this at a higher, less detailed level. --Snowded ^TALK 07:27, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

If we're keeping it at a higher, less detailed I think we need to balance with some carefully selected examples as with meta model example in the history section. Encyclopedic articles need to be self-contained and accessible to an educated person reading about NLP for the first time. That was the point of the section titled "a typical interaction". Perhaps it could be reduced to one paragraph. ----Action potential ^{discuss contribs} 10:33, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

The intention should not be a how to guide surely. It should allow someone to understand enough to answer the odd question or determine if they want to investigate further. Reducing to one paragraph would improve, but the material is covered elsewhere in the article so my inclination would be a sentence at most --Snowded ^TALK 11:36, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I thought it was a good idea to give an overview of a typical interaction without going into the details. I'll be guided by you here. Should it be completely cut or merged elsewhere? ----Action potential ^{discuss contribs} 02:22, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm happy with your recent changes - think they improve things. --Snowded ^TALK 11:15, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

This material appeared in the scientific criticism section:

More recently, the Association for Neuro Linguistic Programming has published a new programme of research into NLP coordinated by the University of Surrey^[24].

It appears to be a self published source. The scientifically oriented view seems to be abscent and it is likely promotional material. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 02:41, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

It's a peer-reviewed scientific journal. http://www.nlpresearchconference.com/PDF-copy-of-Current-Research-in-NLP--Volume-One/3.htm I've put it back. AJRG (talk) 19:47, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

It adds nothing to the scientific criticism section. It appears to be self-published. The papers contained within may be from multiple authors, but they pre-date and have been answered by Rodrique Davis, who does come from a scientific criticism perspective. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 05:31, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

This is factually incorrect, as you'd know if you'd actually read the article. The papers are new and Davis has not answered them. His most recent reference is from 2008. AJRG (talk) 16:28, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm dubious as to the source. It comes from the Surrey Group most of whom have NLP consultancy practices. Its not clear from a quick web search if there was ever anything other than the inaugural edition and no indication that it is peer reviewed --Snowded ^TALK 06:17, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

How is someone having a NLP consultancy practice any different from a CBT practitioner publishing research on it? Researchers uninterested in application are rare. But I agree, if we want to discuss the NLP research program and the new journal here it should first be discussed in some reputable and reliable third party sources. But that rule would also exclude the paper by Rodrique Davis which has not (yet) been cited in a scientific journal. ----Action potential ^{discuss contribs} 10:09, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

The paper by Davis has apparently been cited because of its colourful language. Either leave it out (my preference) or balance it to maintain NPOV. AJRG (talk) 16:36, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Its no different, but where there is commercial interest one places a question over the source and really want some more third party material. I ask the question - did the journal continue? The above reference is an old one and seems to relate to conference papers rather than a reviewed journal. --Snowded ^TALK 10:39, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Volume 1 has just been published. The papers were originally presented at the 2008 conference. There's another conference this year which will result in Volume 2, and so on. If you'd checked the web you'd have found this: http://www.eee.bham.ac.uk/woolleysi/bio/publications.htm which confirms that it's peer-reviewed. As this is the first peer-reviewed scientific journal on NLP, you can't pretend it isn't relevant to a section on Scientific Criticism. I've put it back (again).AJRG (talk) 16:28, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

So it is one volume only then? Its description also makes it clear that not all papers within it are peer reviewed. That aside, how does it establish that a new programme has been created? Is it in one of the papers? If so which one? Even then, why is it in the criticism section? I suggest you allow a discussion to take place before putting it back again. --Snowded ^TALK 16:45, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Every journal has to start at Volume 1... It belongs in the scientific criticism section because it includes papers such as "A Critical Review of Past Research into the Neuro-Linguistic Programming Eye-Accessing Cues Model". All of the papers are peer-reviewed. Why do you think otherwise? And why do you think that deleting a reference while discussion continues is acceptable?AJRG (talk) 17:11, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Of course they start at volume one, and it takes some time for them to get authority in consequence. The advert said that it was academic and practitioner material and the reference you give above established that the conference was peer reviewed (and guess who organised the conference, the Surrey group). A conference review process is very different from full peer review in most cases. In any event, even if established I don't see how the citation supports the words. It only shows that some academics have reviewed the field in an article, anything else is OR. So we have two issues (i) the status of the journal/article and (ii) what it would support by way of text.--Snowded ^TALK 17:19, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

The 2008 conference (which produced Volume 1) was hosted by the University of Surrey. http://www.som.surrey.ac.uk/research/Conferences/NLPprogramme.pdf The 2010 conference (which will produce Volume 2) is being hosted by Cardiff University. http://www.cardiff.ac.uk/sohcs/degreeprogrammes/continuingeducation/2010courses/the-second-international-neurolinguistic-programming-research-conference.html Your personal opinion of the Group at Surrey University is apparent from your remarks above. It represents a clear conflict of interest. AJRG (talk) 18:27, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

No conflict of interest that I know of. Now how about answering the questions above? --Snowded ^TALK 20:28, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Above you said "I have never been impressed with the Surrey group from when I had a visiting fellowship there". That basically disqualifies you as an impartial editor in respect of their work. To answer your questions (again) did the journal continue? It's only just started. The first volume is the proceedings of the first research conference. The second research conference is being held this year, so its proceedings will in all likelihood form the second volume. "So it is one volume only then?" So far... "how does it establish that a new programme has been created?" The papers in the journal constitute a new programme of research. "why is it in the criticism section?" because it includes papers such as "A Critical Review of Past Research into the Neuro-Linguistic Programming Eye-Accessing Cues Model" AJRG (talk) 21:25, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Ah, having some knowledge of something makes you partial does it? Now to the substance, this is clearly OR. You are saying that a collection of papers from a conference has been published, therefore a new programme of research has been initiated and co-ordinated by the University of Surrey. Sorry but that is not supported, all we have is a published collection of papers. There are many academic conferences every year, all publish their papers in books, special editions of established journals or a unique publication (in that order of significance by the way). There is no implication that a programme has been started unless you have specific third party material that states this is the case. In addition this is the section criticising NLP, so it doesn't follow that anything with any word starting with "crit.." belongs in it. --Snowded ^TALK 21:35, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Prejudging the work of other people based on a previous personal acquaintance makes you partial. I've reworded the entry to reflect your concerns. If you propose to use the word "criticism" only in its negative (non-scientific) sense then a balancing section is required to achieve a neutral point of view.AJRG (talk) 23:22, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Its a simple matter of clear issues and responses. I put them in proper order. The assertion that the journal is scientific is clearly unsupported. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 01:59, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

This is simply false. The paper by Roderique Davis predates the conference and has nothing to say about it, so a proper order places earlier in the text.AJRG (talk) 10:51, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually it makes me skeptical of the school (which is all I commented on not the individuals) and therefore prone to check things carefully. Your revised wording is an attempt to paint NLP in a better light than the references support. Two conferences over two years is hardly impressive and there is a huge difference between the review process for a conference and that for an established peer review journal. We are required to reflect the state of scientific opinion as to NLP, a NPOV does mot mean taking a half way house between a substantial body of work on one hand and the odd conference on another. --Snowded ^TALK 05:15, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

As the editor of a competing journal, you have a clear conflict of interest.AJRG (talk) 10:51, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

What on earth are you talking about? I am on the editorial board of five journals, and editor in Chief of one. None of them operate in the same space as NLP, and as established journals they do not compete with a set of conference proceedings. Please try and address content issues rather than this nonsensical sniping. --Snowded ^TALK 12:27, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Your latest change is plain wrong, and not supported by the text. It takes time for a paper to be peer-reviewed and Roderique Davies' only 2009 reference is to a paper in the same journal. His most recent reference to Surrey is 2006, and nowhere in his paper does he have anything to say about experimental or non-experimental research. So he isn't responding to the the research presented at the conference at all, and the work in his paper predates the publication of the conference proceedings.AJRG (talk) 13:04, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Well I'm open to a degree, but his paper is a response to the attempt to move to non-empirical research (a dubious approach to my mind by the way given NLPs claims) and the Surrey text is introduced there. It may be better to craft a paragraph which notes the switch and incorporates both. Lets see what other editors think. And please stop the personal attacks, I reverted to a position supported by another editor. --Snowded ^TALK 13:23, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

The citation you give doesn't support your text. If you have a better one, fine, but just deleting a ^{[citation needed]} tag is poor practice.AJRG (talk) 13:49, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Its mostly a direct quote so I don't see how it cannot support it. I also note that you are happy to revert constantly, but accuse other people of edit warring. If I look at the material above, in general every comment you make is an attack on another editor, and only a small number of them actually deal with issues. Try and read WP:AGF and pay attention to what people write. Please explain how the citation does not support the phrase - if you tag something you have an obligation to do that you know.--Snowded ^TALK 18:04, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Further to the above, having just read the paper again. After repeating the Surrey University statement on research cited in the article, the author goes on to say "Phenomenological research is free from hypotheses, pre-con- ceptions and assumptions, and seeks to describe rather than explain. Given the claims made by proponents of NLP, this adds little to the credibility debate and would produce reports concerning the experience from the perspective of the indi- vidual rather than confirmation of the claimed efficacy." Based on that I don't see what possible justification you have for the citation needed tag other than the fact you don't like the statement, --Snowded ^TALK 18:11, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

"Recent attempts to create a non-experimental approach to research in NLP have been criticised by Dr. Roderique Davis" is not supported by the citation, which is why the tag is where it is. You may know this from other sources, but without a citation it's original research.AJRG (talk) 20:00, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry to have to ask yu this - but do you know the meaning of phenomenological? --Snowded ^TALK 21:18, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Phenomenology is a rather bigger subject than Roderique-Davies implies, but that's not the point. Use his own words. Trying to interpret what he says just twists the meaning.AJRG (talk) 23:33, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I see what you mean AJRG. Roderique Davis did say some specific things about the issue. Good suggestion, thanks. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 03:07, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I had a look at how conference papers are cited. Listing the venues of conferences is not relevant to the issues, and if it were done with all the conference proceedings, articles would get out of hand. Lots of conferences are planned. Its the research findings that count. Upcoming conferences, venues, timing, lists of contributors etc may be better mentioned on the respective Wikipedia article that describes that conference. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 02:41, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I've taken up your suggestionAJRG (talk) 21:33, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Eye-Accessing Cues Model

I've added a new section to help restore a neutral point of view. Diamantopoulos et al, from the University of Birmingham's Digital Systems and Vision Processing group, are published academics from outside NLP whose research includes video surveillance. The existence of an Eye Accessing Cues Model (not necessarily as described by NLP) is supported by Ehrlichman et al (2007), by Christman et al (2003) who found that retrieval of memories is enhanced by preceding eye movements, and by Baron-Cohen and Cross (1992) who found children as young as 4 interpreting eye accessing cues in adults. AJRG (talk) 08:19, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Firstly it would help if you edited under your own name rather than an IP. I think this insertion needs discussion. The publisher is a NLP organisation for a start, and it opens with a statement on Heap's use of sources which is dubious. NLP is not validated or invalidated by one technique and its hotch potch nature means that individual aspects can be related to other material that has a better research basis. As you say "not necessarily as described by NLP". The fact that various non-verbal clues are picked up by children does not provide a validation of NLP. This is also a section designed to indicate the way in which NLP is criticised. The claims of NLP are covered elsewhere in the article --Snowded ^TALK 08:25, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

The statement on Heap's sources is accurate. The paper is here http://mheap.com/nlp1.pdf and all the references labelled DAI are dissertation abstracts. I'd be quite happy for all the material on EAC to be collected into its own section. AJRG (talk) 09:20, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

The phrase is an OR construct designed to cast doubt on Heap's work. I note the absence of a reply on the other points. --Snowded ^TALK 09:27, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

The phrase is an accurate summary of part of the paper, it is not OR. Wikipedia is not about validating or invalidating. Since the previous academic material about EAC has such prominence, NPOV requires the inclusion of a recent academic rebuttal. AJRG (talk) 09:45, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I disagree I'm afraid on the OR issue. The publisher also causes me concern given that they are an advocacy group for NLP. NPOV requires us to be authentic to reliable third party sources, not to balance those sources with claims of NLP advocates. --Snowded ^TALK 09:51, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Have you read the paper? Many academic papers are published by advocacy groups. Heap 1988 was published by Croom Helm, almost exclusively known for books on ornithology. AJRG (talk) 10:04, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Fortunately Ornithologists are not known for advocacy on denigration of NLP and while many papers may be published by advocacy groups, numbers along do not provide validation. --Snowded ^TALK 10:13, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Hypnotists are, though. Heap 1988 was originally a paper given at the Fourth European Congress of Hypnosis in Psychotherapy and Psychosomatic Medicine, 1987. Wikipedia is about verifiability, not validation. AJRG (talk) 10:25, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Aside from the simple fact that Heap 1988 is not the only paper referenced in that system, you really are clutching at straws. Perhaps you can give us a third party source which says that anyone attending or speaking at a conference on hypnosis is in consequent of that location a bias source? Are you seriously arguing that an NLP organisation is not a partisan source which has at least to be treated with suspicion? --Snowded ^TALK 10:34, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

You haven't read the paper, then. Wikipedia is not about suspicion, it's about verifiability. The views of Hypnotists on NLP are well publicised. AJRG (talk) 10:53, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Another important aspect of this is that the proposed section in question was already an issue discussed previously. If it is to be added to the article, it should be part of the previous issue on NLP eye accessing research, rather than added as a sort of practitioner oriented speculative and inconclusive wish for further research. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 08:32, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

This is simply false. There was no previous discussion of a new section on EAC. The material on EAC is mixed up with everything else. The recommendation for further research is based on the current state of the literature and has nothing to do with practitioners.AJRG (talk) 09:21, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

The point being made is that EAC has been discussed elsewhere (discussed previously in the article) not that there has been a specific proposal here, or at least that is how I read the comment. --Snowded ^TALK 09:27, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

EAC is so mixed up in the rest of the article that comprehension is impaired. Since a majority of academic research into NLP has been about EAC, it deserves its own section. AJRG (talk) 09:45, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Then propose a new section on that here and see what support it gets - outlining the content and other changes would help. --Snowded ^TALK 09:51, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I just did.AJRG (talk) 10:04, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't see an outline of changes etc. --Snowded ^TALK 10:13, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Pull all the content about EAC into its own section. What isn't clear about that? AJRG (talk) 10:25, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

May well be a good idea in the main section (although not criticism), how about "outlining the content and other changes" (sorry to have to repeat myself) --Snowded ^TALK 10:34, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Please explain how that's a valid request. I made a bold edit and you chose to revert. I've given my reasons at length. Make an effort to achieve consensus. AJRG (talk) 10:53, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

You inserted a dubious section in the criticism section. Two of us have said that a sub-section may be appropriate elsewhere in the article and I have asked you to outline here what you think should be in it. If you simply want to reinsert your original text then I oppose. The request for you to outline a proposed change is normal in Wikipedia. Broadening your editing range might help you appreciate that. --Snowded ^TALK 11:34, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I didn't insert a section in the criticism section. I added a whole new section. "Dubious" is a claim uninformed by reading either Heap (1988) or Diamantopoulos et al (2009). The existing paragraph starting "The experimental research that does exist" is all about the EAC model. Since that model is no longer unique to NLP it warrants a separate discussion. AJRG (talk) 12:12, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Last time I looked this article was about NLP and material in respect of the model should therefore cover the NLP use. --Snowded ^TALK 12:23, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Which is why Diamantopoulos et al (2009) is relevant and should be included. As the article currently stands it claims that existing research invalidates the EAC model. That is plainly misleading, given the rebuttal. AJRG (talk) 12:49, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

You are moving your argument around here. Above you say that it should be included as the EAC model is no longer unique to NLP, hence my response. Now that claim needs to be validated in its own right. Dealing with EAC in this article has to relate to its use within NLP theory. As such any insertion (if agreed) belongs in the body of the article, rather than being tagged onto the section on criticism. That section contains a body of references, not just Heap 1988. Further, the statements in Diamantopoulos (in my opinion) need more supporting material given that there are published in the journal of an advocacy group for NLP. --Snowded ^TALK 12:58, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

You still haven't read the paper. The academic debate over the EAC model has been going on for thirty years and needs to be stated clearly and include relevant rebuttal. AJRG (talk) 13:06, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Then you really should not have a problem in providing a reference from another source, ideally one not tied to NLP.--Snowded ^TALK 13:11, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

A reference to what? Diamantopoulos et al? AJRG (talk) 13:31, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I have a real paper to get out today so after this comment I am going to have to leave it to other editors to pick up/discuss (which is probably a good thing). You are currently asserting a position based on a single source from a journal which is published by a NLP advocacy organisation. If the position has validity then you should be able to find other sources, ideally from third party journals that have no factional interest. --Snowded ^TALK 13:41, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

odd logical connection

In the section "Scientific Criticism", the fourth paragraph consists of two sentences. The first sentence states that there is lack of empirical research/evidence to support NLP. The second sentence states that someone said IF some of the NLP assertions are correct, THEN (a bunch of claims).

I don't understand why these two sentences are grouped together; the second doesn't follow the first in any semantic or logical manner (to me). I'm not even sure if the second sentence should belong in an NPOV article. It seems speculative at best, and pure fantasy at worst.

70.179.23.9 (talk) 19:00, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

fact tag

Given that the references are already in the same paragraph and the following one I can't really see why this has been added. --Snowded ^TALK 05:48, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Agreed; I'm not sure why a cn tag would be necessary there. bobrayner (talk) 10:43, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

The references in the paragraph do not directly support the statement about the attitudes of professionals toward NLP since Sharpley's (1987) literature review or Druckman and Swets. Devilly was added as a reference for this statement: "Since then, NLP has been regarded with suspicion or outright hostility by the academic, psychiatric and medical professions.". That source does not directly support the statement so I moved it here. We can move it back when there is a source. There are only small pockets of academics, psychiatrists and medical professions who are hostile toward NLP. There are probably more professionals who use it and are supportive of it. But we don't have any evidence either way. Devilly[12] simply cites Sharpley 1987 that NLP was not supported in controlled studies. He does not say anything about the attitude of various professions toward NLP. He does make an argument for teaching evidence-based practice. I do remember seeing a poll by Norcross of professionals, mainly psychologists, which included a question about whether they rated NLP was credible for treating certain conditions. Anyway, you cannot make broad sweeping statements about the view of professions from those industries without high quality evidence. Otherwise the view needs to be attributed to a particular point of view. (And Devilly, 2005 is not adequate - I just reread it here). ----Action potential ^{discuss contribs} 14:16, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I think it tends to be indifference or hostility in my experience unless we include various management consultants and others who seized on it as a fad. Even the Surrey group are cautious in their statements. --Snowded ^TALK 16:24, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

What is your feeling about the percentages of professionals with the different attitudes on a scale from Seized, Supportive, Indifferent, Skeptical, Hostile? ----Action potential ^{discuss contribs} 16:40, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

quasi-experiment on NLP therapy

This article is just an quasi-experimental design with pre and post test / with follow-up after 6 months. It found that NLP was roughly comparable with CBT based on effect sizes at follow-up. Its controls were limited and there was no randomization to treatment conditions. But this is common in studies of psychotherapy. The journal is peer-reviewed. It highlights some the methodological limitations of previous studies and mentions a number of studies which were supportive of NLP. So I guess the questions is, how do we balance these different views? We cite Roderique-Davies (2009) in the scientific criticism section even though it is published in an new journal. Should we cite the following paper to give another point of view of the research? How much weight should we give it?

Stipancic, Melita , Renner, Walter , Schütz, Peter and Dond, Renata (2009) 'Effects of Neuro-Linguistic Psychotherapy on psychological difficulties and perceived quality of life', Counselling and Psychotherapy Research, 10:1, 39 - 49, First published on: 12 October 2009 doi:10.1080/14733140903225240

Action potential ^{discuss contribs} 15:25, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Roderique-Davies' claim to be included is that a newspaper quoted his soundbite. He doesn't have an academic reputation in this field - he researches drug addiction and social identification in self-selecting groups. AJRG (talk) 09:03, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Norcross 2006

I moved the following text here because while NLP is listed in the table, the researchers did run significance tests or mention it in the body of the paper. That's unfortunate because the statistic that NLP was judged unfamiliar by only 18.2% of respondents would be informative if it could be verified.

In a 2006 Delphi poll of experts in psychology and psychotherapy, 73.3% of respondents reported they were familiar with NLP as an approach to treatment of mental and behavioral disorders, and most of them reported that NLP has been discredited for the treatment of mental and behavioral disorders. Norcross et. al. (2006) Discredited Psychological Treatments and Tests: A Delphi Poll. Professional Psychology: Reasearch and Practice.

Action potential ^{discuss contribs} 00:51, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

You removed the study because the researchers did "run significance tests"? Although an accurate statement I don't see how it can be an objection. Perhaps that's a typo? Table 4 has p values; which is desirable in sources, not undesirable. I shall restore it unless you have a better source.

bobrayner (talk) 10:12, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I did not see table 4 p-value but they are not testing the ranking. The mean score for NLP as a treatment for mental and behavioral disorders in round 1 was 3.57, SD=1.06 and in round 2 it was 3.87, SD=.92. Both scores did not meet the cutoff of 4.0 for "probably discredited" treatments and it was "possibly discredited" but that was the neutral rating on the likert scale. The p-values in table 4 was to test if there was a difference between experts from the CBT versus psychodynamic/humanistic perspective. The ratings were on a 5 point likert scale. 1 indicated not at all discredited, 2. unlikely discredited, 3. possibly discredited, 4. probably discredited, and 5. certainly discredited. I've updated the statement attributed to Norcross - how does it look now? ----Action potential ^{discuss contribs} 14:27, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I inserted "Probably or possibly" as that is readable and reflects the source. --Snowded ^TALK 06:35, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it was somewhere between possibly and probably discredited. But we should say that ratings from humanistic orientations was significantly more favorable than ratings from CBT theoretical orientations (table 4). ----Action potential ^{discuss contribs} 07:41, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

93% of the respondents were trained psychologists, 62% of them were employed at university (25% were behavioral, 18% cognitive, 8% humanistic, 7% psychodynamic). 60% employed at university. They appeared to average across discredited ratings from behavioral and cognitive orientations (to get CBT total) and across psychodynamic and humanistic orientations (to get PD-HUM total) and then compared CBT to PD-HUM and found that for ratings that NLP is discredited: CBT > PD-HUM. For a study that claims it was conducted within the context of evidence based practice it was very poorly controlled. ----Action potential ^{discuss contribs} 09:25, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I think that is too esoteric a distinction for a wikipedia article - the reference is there if people want to move into it. Also CBT is a difficult category anyway. --Snowded ^TALK 07:46, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Why is CBT a difficult category in this context? AJRG (talk) 08:50, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

A side comment really, I am not sure I would include all the people they did in the CBT category. --Snowded ^TALK 09:32, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Rather than calling them CBT orientation I changed it to cognitive and behavioural to avoid the confusion that Snowded raised. It now says: "However, the ratings of NLP given by psychologists from the humanistic and psychodynamic orientations were significantly more favorable[72] towards NLP than those identifying with cognitive and behavioral orientations." ----Action potential ^{discuss contribs} 10:08, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Its still "explaining away", a sentence or so is just enough. People can look up the research and draw their own conclusions, there is no need to spell out your opinion of what is or is not an important qualification. --Snowded ^TALK 10:12, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Popularization - please check

Can you please check my recent change to the introduction regarding popularization and that NLP has been largely ignored by social psychologists. ----Action potential ^{discuss contribs} 05:27, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Von Bergen 1997

There is a paper called Von Bergen et al (1997) "Selected alternative training techniques in HRD" which criticizes the use of NLP in HRD. I just removed a quote attributed to Von Bergen et al about Druckman & Bjork 1991 not referencing NLP. It was confusing because it immediately followed the quote by Druckman (2004). ----Action potential ^{discuss contribs} 08:51, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Applications

I made one set of changes to simply the recent addition to split out HR/management type applications. I have also reversed for the moment the change to this section which made a series of claims about NLP in relationship to other theories/practice. Happy to be corrected but the two sources are both NLP advocates and their claim could be interpreted as an attempt to claim legitimacy. For those sort of statements we would need an independent reference or corroborating statements from the other practices. --Snowded ^TALK 12:51, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Psychotherapeutic

Can we have some quotes from the sources used in the change this morning please. In particular I would like to see confirmation that sources other than NLP ones make the association and the derivation point. --Snowded ^TALK 05:09, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I'll add some quotes here in about an hour. ----Action potential ^{discuss contribs} 05:22, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Happy to wait a bit longer than that! --Snowded ^TALK 05:31, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Beyebach, M., & Rodríguez Morejón, A. (1999): "Within their solution-focused approach, these therapists do not shun from borrowing intervention developed at Palto Alto's Mental Research Institute (Fische, Weakland & Segal 1982, Watzlawick et al. 1974), Ericksonian hypnosis (O'Hanlon 1987), Neuro-linguistic programming (NLP) techniques (Bandler & Grinder, 1982, 1979), … from the beginning [SFT] showed strong links with the Palo Alta MRI group … and of Milton H. Erickson…" -- Beyebach, M., & Rodríguez Morejón, A. (1999). Some thoughts on integration in solution-focused therapy. Journal of Systemic Therapies, 18, 24–42.
Kerry (2009) "Rubin Battino's (2006) latest text, Expectation: The Very Brief Therapy Book, emphasizes the importance of examining client expectations in therapy, and outlines the numerous schools of therapy that address expectations for change. The author notes the contributions of Milton H. Erickson (Erickson & Rossi, 1979; Erickson, Rossi, & Rossi, 1976) and those who have used his work to develop brief ways of utilizing expectancy in session. Battino points to the use of language forms in psychotherapy. He acknowledges the contributions of Neurolinguistic Programming (Bandler & Grinder, 1976; Grinder & Bandler, 1975) and solution-oriented approaches to therapy (de Shazer, 1985; O'Hanlon & Wilk, 1987; Berg & Dolan, 2001) that use suggestion, "exceptions to the rule", and shifts in context (from a state of either/or to both/and) to alter client expectations. In their brief, respectful approaches to therapy, these practitioners have both used the client's frame of reference, and challenged their dysfunctional expectations of failure."(p.15)
Bill O'Connell:"[solution-focused therapy] belongs to the constructionist school of therapist, including among which are … neuro-linguistic programming (Bandler and Grinder 1979)…"(p.9)
Windy Dryden: "The philosophy behind solution-focused therapy is social constructionism. The epistemology also underpins…Neurolinguistic programming…"(p.382)
Mathison & Tosey (2007): "In common with brief therapy (McDermott & Jago 2001), and contemporaneous practices that share core influences, such as Solution-focused Therapy (de Shazer 2005), and Possibility Therapy (O'Hanlon & Weiner-Davis 1989), NLP challenges the assumption that personal change necessarily involves long-term therapy and insight into the past (Bandler & Grinder 1979:6-7)."

----Action potential ^{discuss contribs} 06:15, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

OK, taking those at face value they establish some citation and grouping, what I am not clear on is why the extensive range of changes? I'm not sure all social constructivists would want to be associated with NLP. Also the sources are questionable. Dryden has been accused of throwing his lot in with Brender etc al. Mathison & Tosey are in the NLP group as Surrey. O'Connell's book verges on self-help and is certainly not an authoritative academic source. Battino looks like a casual reference as does Beyebach. If this was philosophy (my expertise) then I would expect support for that text in authoritative directories, major text books etc. The more I look at this the more I think it should go back to a paragraph or two only with some reference to claimed associations. The current wording implies an authority not supported by the references. --Snowded ^TALK 07:09, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

O'Connell: has good writing style and academic credentials. It is not self-help. It is handbook published by Sage is recommended as a university text book by influential BRIEF, London. This can be considered authoritative.
Dryden's handbook is also published by Sage and corroborates O'Connell's point
Rubin Battino is also published by Crown. Rubin Battino is a professor emeritus and a counselor. It has a whole chapter dedicate to NLP and its contribution to brief therapy.
Beyebach et al. is published in Journal of Systemic therapies
Other sources link NLP to SFBT via the influence of Paul Watzlawick and the Mental Research Institute group at Palo Alto where both Gregory Bateson and Milton Erickson were active. ----Action potential ^{discuss contribs} 08:03, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

BRIEF is a training organisation so forgive me if I don't take that as authoritative. That aside you have not addressed my substantive points relating to expected sources for these statements and the relevance of the material in the first place. At the moment it looks like an attempt to give a specious authority to NLP and we are having one of those period editing spates where criticism is removed etc. so I am feeling cautious. I am tempted to return it to its original state pending agreement here, or to reduce the paragraph substantially. --Snowded ^TALK 08:18, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that it is not easy to define whether NLP use in therapy is a practice, an approach, a method, a Batesonian cybernetic epistemology, a constructivist practice, or a mere set of techniques. As you know there are published sources for each of these views either in peer-reviewed journals, or books from reputable publishers (e.g Sage and Crown). NLP has had similar influences (Milton Erickson, Mental Research Institute, Paul Watzlawick) and has influenced (e.g. reframing), other practices and this help people get a sense of where NLP has come from and where it belongs in modern day practice. ----Action potential ^{discuss contribs} 10:33, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Or a pseudoscience with a commercial focus that can't justify its excessive claims. There are lots and lots of ways to label it and its far too easy (given the magpie nature of NLP) to link it to other theories and practices that may have some similarities of origin. My view, as stated above, is that IF (and its a big IF) there is a need to provide this sort of data then it has to come from a suitable reliable source (see comments above. --Snowded ^TALK 10:54, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

This implies that all NLP is the same and can be lazily dismissed without proper enquiry. Reality is more complicated than that. AJRG (talk) 11:16, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I think I said that there are lots of ways to label it didn't I? --Snowded ^TALK 11:58, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

"a rose By any other name..."? Still implies that all NLP is the same. AJRG (talk) 12:39, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Not sure what point you are trying to make (or AJRG for that matter). --Snowded ^TALK 12:44, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

The point I'm making is that you've abandoned reality. Trying to tar all of NLP with the same brush stretches WP:NPOV to the limit. AJRG (talk) 12:52, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Can't see any example of that above AJRG, perhaps you can provide the diffs? --Snowded ^TALK 12:59, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Here. AJRG (talk) 16:22, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

You need to read more carefully. AP listed several different (positive) categories, I added a negative one and made the point that there are "lots and lots of ways". Its a good idea to read what other editors say rather than simply reacting, especially when you have a tendency to stray away from addressing content to discussing the merits of other editors views. --Snowded ^TALK 16:50, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

You claim an expertise in philosophy and yet pretend not to understand your own argument. Curious.AJRG (talk) 19:35, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

If you don't like the explanation then there is little more I can do to help you. --Snowded ^TALK 19:37, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Proposed rewrite Scientific criticism section

I think we should rename the section to "NLP and science". I have worked on complete review of that section which is here. Please comment. ----Action potential ^{discuss contribs} 15:37, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

A quick scan says it is going to take time to work out what you have changed. Help us out - other than the title and the sections, what have you changed? --Snowded ^TALK 15:44, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Here. AJRG (talk) 16:28, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Back to your old ways I see. I've made a polite request to another editor to quickly summarise where he has changed content rather than just re-ordering it. Its a common request where there are a series of mixed (content and sequencing) changes. Action Potential is free to accept the invitation or to refuse it. We may disagree as editors but I respect his willingness to work with others. --Snowded ^TALK 16:46, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Its a good idea to read what other editors say rather than simply reacting. AP had already done what you asked. AJRG (talk) 19:12, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

No he hasn't and he has just said (see below) that he will not have time. Try and keep up --Snowded ^TALK 19:21, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Try and pay attention. He made the changes and then immediately reverted them, precisely so that you could see exactly what changes he'd made. AJRG (talk) 19:28, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

If you check out the exchange on our talk pages you will find that we had agreed to the reversal once he had finished editing. My request above (I thought it was clear) was for a quick summary of the changes he had made (other than moving text around). --Snowded ^TALK 19:40, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I lost track of the exact changes. But can we have a discussion about acceptable sources for the various points of view? It would be great to come to some sort of agreement about that. ----Action potential ^{discuss contribs} 08:54, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I only had today to work on it and I've now run out of time. I'll return in a few weeks but want to first get some comments from the wikipedia community about how to get this article up to GA or FA quality. ----Action potential ^{discuss contribs} 18:53, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Understood - I'm passing through Australia (Melbourne, Canberra, Brisbane, Perth) in late June/July if you are around --Snowded ^TALK 19:01, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Please message me privately about this. ----Action potential ^{discuss contribs} 08:54, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

The section should be made more readable to the average person. I added some explanation to the Norcross study together with more of the research findings. The reader should know what the relevant category means. The criticism section can be two parts. 1 Scientific Criticism 2. Psychology Practitioner Criticism (including Norcross et al, Von Bergen, and any others. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 03:11, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

You added information: "The possibly/probably category of discredit includes dolphin assisted therapy, equine therapy, psychosynthesis, scared straight programs, and emotional freedom technique (EFT)" Also you added a statement attributed to a book by Norcross et al. 2008 on evidence-based practice. Can you tell us more about the Norcross (2008) study and what the specific findings were? What type of study was it? Who were the participants? How were they selected? Did they also test to see if there was a difference between the views of cognitive/behavioral verus humanistic orienations in relation to NLP as they did in Norcross (2006)? Did they include NLP for the treatment of other conditions? The evidence seems a little weak at the moment. I've ordered the Norcross book you cited but it will be a few weeks. One more point - I really cannot do any more work on this for a few weeks anyway. I'm happy to work with you when I return. ----Action potential ^{discuss contribs} 09:18, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

EFT is in the "See Also" section of the article. Readers would not understand what the category means unless they see what is most closely related to NLP within that category. Dolphin assisted therapy, equine therapy, psychosynthesis, scared straight programs, and emotional freedom technique can be linked to the relevant articles to make it easier for the reader. The same is needed for the 2008 study. Statistical details of the Delphi method can be found on the relevant Wikipedia article. A link will help. NLP is an obscure subject. At least a scientific criticism section should be maintained to clarify. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 02:49, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Norcross does not make that link in his 2006 article so we cannot make it here. That would violate WP:NOR. The use of Norcross 2006 on this page might actually be a breach that policy because it is not directly supported by the source. I don't think we can report data that was not reported by the author. But I'm waiting for a comment on that. I would really like to see some quotes from Norcross (2008) which backs up your proposed change. Do you still have access to the book? What exactly did it infer about NLP? Who was polled this time? How did they address the academic/CBT bias they acknowledged in the 2006 article? Did they measure the views of different perspective again? I seriously have limited time but can work with you on it after the break. ----Action potential ^{discuss contribs} 06:25, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Then its simple matter of using direct quotes and deciding to serve the reader. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 01:52, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Direct quotes can be taken of context. We have fallen into that trap on this article in the past. We have to be selective so that we represent the various views and ensuring that we do not give any one view undue weight. This is a difficult topic because there are no text books published by university publishers. We do have some peer-reviewed papers from different disciplines with a range of views. There is some empirical research with mixed results. Then there is the problem of assigning weight to the various views. There are thousands of books on many different topics. The problem then is assigning weight to the different views. For a long time even the opening paragraph was unstable until we found that the definition of NLP in the Oxford English Dictionary. Fortunately this resolved the issue. A remaining issue seems to be whether we have the word "controversial" in the opening sentence. The challenge then was, if you want to change the opening paragraph then you have to find a more reputable/reliable source. That being said, I think the best way forward is to rely on the highest quality sources we can find and stick to them closely. One of the problems is that some paragraphs are stuck together from multiple sources rather than paraphrasing an entire topic from a source. So I think we chose a few very well written articles about NLP from high quality sources then we can use those to structure the entire article. Ok.... need to get back to work now. Action potential --149.171.53.44 (talk) 06:41, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Ancient Greek rhetoric

Is it just me, or does NLP seem a lot like a modern language take on aspects of the Ancient Greek liberal art of rhetoric? Oliver Low (talk) 21:44, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

"Popularity" and "Controversial"

"Despite its popularity,[13]" - is NLP popular? I do not have the article referenced, but in its title it uses the descriptor "Popular", which has a very different meaning. A 'popular method' comes from the populis, rather than from science, with no reference to its actual market share (ie, 'popularity'). I believe this phrase is misleading and should be cut. Not sure if the reference has something useful to say and should be preserved. Please advise. Ratagonia (talk) 02:27, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Like most fads its now past its peak, but still has adherents. A fresh pair of eyes noting some of these would be useful, my involvement is simply to stop the article becoming a propaganda piece for NLP practitioners and adherents. For the avoidance of doubt given the odd personal attack above, preventing something becoming a propaganda piece is maintaining an NPOV. Making it an attack piece on NLP would be as wrong. --Snowded ^TALK 08:19, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Not exactly sure why you've carried our "Controversial" discussion over into this section, but I'll follow suit (and update the header). The thing about identifying "propaganda" is, of course, that it is relative - i.e., it is dependent upon the individual's subjective point of view. You believe NLP to be a "fad", "pseudo-science", and a "cult", and so your judgment of what constitutes "propaganda" will necessarily reflect that position. Nevertheless, my hope was that the substance of our respective arguments could be evaluated on their own merit, by a group of editors, and that we could proceed accordingly. However, the discussion page seems quite deserted these days, and so I think the page should be left as is until more people are present who have the time and motivation to take the necessary steps to make the article more objective. That's my final two cents anyhow. Willyfreddy (talk) 01:51, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I answered the point made by Ratagonia who opened a new section. I agree with your conclusion, but to make it clear, it would be as wrong for the lede to label NLP as a pseudoscience as it would for it to be "propaganda". The article needs to inform the reader that they are dealing with something which attracts both adherents and detractors (a statement by the way which is one alternative to "controversial") --Snowded ^TALK 06:45, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Flyby tagging

The first paragraph of the scientific criticism section summarises the rest of the material and is a form discussed by interested and informed editors some time ago. All of the material in the section which it summarises is referenced. There is no requirement to repeat those references twice in the same section. I can't be bothered to edit war over this, but there is no justification for either the tags or any attempt to remove the material given that it is fully referenced. --Snowded ^TALK 16:06, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Lack of adequate referencing in the criticiscm section

The criticism section violates various style policies. It is riddled with vague comments about anonymous "critics", unreferenced original research, personal commentary and opinion. For reasons best known to himself, Snowded keeps undoing my responsible attempts to bring this article inline with Wikipedia's policies. Until this section is properly referenced in accordance with the relevant policies I will continue to insist that it is. So stop making excuses for the current unacceptable inadequacies and do something about it - otherwise the criticism section will need to be removed altogether until it is. Afterwriting (talk) 16:13, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

If you bothered to read you would have seen I have already responded to this point above. There is no case for references being in place twice. All the material is there in the body of the section and fully referenced. Neither are you being particularly responsible. You even deleted one reference I provided. I have also put in the work to reference all challenges bar the nonsense of requiring double references in one section. Fly by tagging is not improving the article, it is an attempt to get other people to do it for you--Snowded ^TALK 16:15, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

If you bothered to read you would have seen I have already responded to this point above. There is no case for references being in place twice. All the material is there in the body of the section and fully referenced. --Snowded ^TALK 16:15, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

It is not properly referenced at all. You seem to believe that you can make up your own policies on these matters. And, for your information, your comments above appeared while I was writing my own comments above so I didn't get a chance to be "bothered" to read it. How about you start to be "bothered" to put references where they actually belong? Afterwriting (talk) 16:27, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

As I said before that is a summary paragraph. There are extensive references in the main body of the section all of which relate back to that summary. I suggest you read it and if there is not a clear link list them here and we can see if we can improve it. Doubling up references in one section is bad style. Otherwise I have referenced everything you tagged so a little less aggression please, try and act collaboratively --Snowded ^TALK 16:31, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Revisions 24th Dec 2010

I made a number of revisions which were all undone by user 'Snowded'. Granted, perhaps I was a little hasty. I have now adjusted simply the section titled 'Application', in order to define the "second" application of NLP. In particular I'd like to stress that NLP is not primarily used for psychotherapy, but rather primarily for effective communication, hence the edit. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.112.89.243 (talk) 12:01, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

I felt the general tenor of your edits was to promote NLP rather than taking. NPOV. For the moment I fact tagged one claim and will review the rest later. --Snowded ^TALK 12:09, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

I have explained better below... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.112.89.243 (talk) 12:13, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Changes made 24 Dec 2010

I made a number of changes to the page today, which were each undone by 'Snowded'. AGreed, I was a little hasty and in hindsight, unsympathetic to those who have put their time and effort in to previosuly editing this page. I apologise.

Instead I have now edited the 'Applications' section to include a brief opening sentence, and to redefine the 'second' application as "interpersonal communication and persuasion". I feel strongly that NLPs primary use is for this, rather than for psychotherapeutic use, hece this edit. I hope people agree that it is fair to express that both are equally valid, rather than defining a misleeding 'primary' use and terming the interpersonal communication aspect/application as simply "other use".

Thanks and kind regards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.112.89.243 (talk) 12:12, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Robert Spitzer

The Robert Spitzer cited in this article is not the Robert_Spitzer_(psychiatrist) who has a wikipidia page. There are two different Robert Spitzers. Both are psychiatrists. The one associated with Neuro-linguistic programming does not have a L. middle name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lyle troxell (talk • contribs) 10:25, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

"Controversial"

Hi. I'm wondering why NLP specifically has been given the "controversial" label whereas, for example, psychiatry and psychoanalysis have not on here. For example, publications from Richard P. Bentall highlight the controversial nature of psychiatry, and it would certainly not be hard to find a plethora of articles/publications doing the same for psychoanalysis (e.g. responses to Erdelyi in BBS). My point is NOT that psychiatry/psychoanalysis are controversial, whereas NLP is not, it's simply that ANY applied psychological technique will be controversial to some extent (even CBT, I'm sure). So, once again, why has NLP been given the "controversial" label, when it was not taken from the reference cited in that first paragraph. It seems to me that "Neuro-Linguistic Programming (NLP) is an alternative approach to psychotherapy..." would be most appropriate. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.180.44.163 (talk) 22:44, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

There appears to be little discussion on this page recently. As the term "controversial" does not appear in the reference cited in that first paragraph, if there is no counter-argument provided to establish the justification for the term, I will replace it with "alternative". Accordingly, the first sentence will read: "Neuro-Linguistic Programming (NLP) is an alternative approach to psychotherapy...". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.180.44.163 (talk) 06:04, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

The issue I think is that NLP is mainly known for its use in management consultancy in particular organisational work where it is controversial if increasingly marginalized. IN the main this is due to the claims made by its advocates and near cult like status in some cases. It attempts to claim respectability via psychiatry where it is far from mainstream. CBT is controversial not as a method in itself but due to the NICE attempt to more or less exclude the other talking therapies in its favour. That said I saw a whole bunch of new popular books on it in Washington bookshops a couple of weeks ago, which smacked a bit of the early days of NLP's transition to a management fad. This needs to be discussed, but alternative is not acceptable. We have also had far too many SPA IPs attempting to remove the word without discussion. Incidentally the lede summarises the article, there is more than enough referenced material there to show it is controversial --Snowded ^TALK 08:41, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi Snowded, thanks for the reply. Again, as I said, I am not debating whether or not NLP is controversial. I strongly believe that any applied psychological approach will be controversial and, considering our current knowledge of the mind/brain, this is to be expected. Psychiatry is hugely controversial (not to mention psychoanalysis), and I disagree with your claim that CBT, as a method, cannot be seen as controversial in itself (although I do not have any references to back this up right now). Furthermore, I don't see how what "SPA IPs" have done in the past has to do with our current discussion - hopefully this article has not devolved into a personal, "us against them" piece. Regardless, these are just opinions (yours and mine), and they carry less weight than the reputable reference utilised in the first paragraph, which, in summing up NLP, does not use the word "controversial". Accordingly, I believe that "controversial" should be changed to "alternative". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.180.44.163 (talk) 21:25, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

The lede summarises the article, and there are references in the article to its controversial nature. Its not normal (or good practice) to have references in the lede.--Snowded ^TALK 03:35, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, there IS a reference in the first paragraph, and it uses "alternative", not "controversial". Furthermore, the "criticism and controversy" section of the article has itself been labeled as potentially not objective, and clearly needs reworking (but one thing at a time). Nevertheless, using your logic, the introductory paragraph of any applied psychological method should contain the term "controversial" if references can be provided, within the body of the article, that demonstrate its controversial nature. Which, of course, would not be hard for any of the approaches. Regardless, I still feel that we are letting opinions get in the way of references. I suppose we will just have to agree to disagree about this. As this is one for and one against, could we please have some others weigh in here? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.180.44.163 (talk) 02:50, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

You might want to consider registering a name here (and remembering to sign your contributions). As I said we have had a string of IPs attempting to remove that phrase, all of them SPAs, at the moment you also seem to be an SPA but you are at least using the talk page. I do think you are missing a substantial point here. NLPs notability is not as a psychological method but as a management consultancy movement. Depending on the orientation of the commentator it is either a pseudo-scientific cult or an "applied psychological method". Largely as a result of all that there is very little serious neutral literature on the subject. The University of Surrey group which is frequently quoted are also running an NLP consultancy group so their material has to be used with caution, and there is no other substantial body of material. What there is is in the article. As to the tag I am not sure when that crept in, but no one has made the case for it so it can be deleted. The material there is all referenced. I do think there is a case for rewriting the lede to reflect these points--Snowded ^TALK 09:01, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

And so I have - although name calling probably isn't too constructive. So, yes, I understand that you think I'm missing something, and I certainly think the same thing about your perspective. Nevertheless, I don't want to lose our focus here, as our opinions need to take a back seat. The Oxford Dictionary would certainly be considered neutral, and they are using the term "alternative" instead of "controversial". So, again, I'd like to see what other people's opinions on this are here. Willyfreddy (talk) 12:00, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for registering it makes life easier. The Oxford references uses "alternative" in a longer text which is quoted in full. It doesn't support defining NLP as alternative and it doesn't call it an alternative approach to psychotherapy but says "a system of alternative therapy". As I have said several times now - the lede summarises the article as a whole. --Snowded ^TALK 15:01, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

"As I have said several times now..." Yes, we have both stated our arguments numerous times now. It is very obvious that we disagree. Accordingly, let's see what others think. We can see where we are at in a couple of weeks. Willyfreddy (talk) 00:05, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

On the WP:AGF assumption that you are a new editor, you need to be aware that WIkipedia is not democracy and you are expected to deal with the arguments made. --Snowded ^TALK 08:21, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

This reminds me of why I've avoided discussing articles on here in the past. I have dealt with your arguments, and provided counters. Let others decide the stronger position. I simply do not have the motivation or time to argue incessantly on the internet. I have no personal stake in this. You clearly do. Your lack of objectivity on this article is manifest: You consider NLP a "fad", and are "protecting this from propaganda". Previously you suggested that "Depending on the orientation of the commentator it is either a pseudo-scientific cult or an "applied psychological method"". In other words, someone either considers NLP a cult or is spreading propaganda. I reject your subjective characterization completely and your personal involvement in the content of this page, in my opinion, should preclude you from having any serious level of input into its content. You are no more objective than the NLP zealots themselves. One does not need to convince you, and only you, that a change is warranted. This page is not yours. I have made my arguments, I will wait for others to weigh in, and if there is a consensus then I think it should be changed. That's my 2 cents. Willyfreddy (talk) 12:41, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually you haven't dealt with the arguments, you have simply repeated an assertion in respect of a reference. You have not addressed the issue of its use outside the context of psychology (which is about the only thing that makes it notable). Neither have you addressed the points on the context of the quote you are relying on, and while we are at it you have not addressed the issue of neutral third party material. You also need to read more carefully, I characterised two positions as "cult" or "applied psychological method" I did not say that NLP had to be considered as either a cult or propaganda. You are now resorting to small string of personal attacks; a simple question - have you edited here before or on a related page under a different name or as an IP? --Snowded ^TALK 12:54, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

You already asked me your "simple question", and I already answered it (see talk page of IP address, above). Anyhow, yes, I am painfully aware that you are not satisfied with my argument, and I'm okay with that. If anyone else thinks that any points relevant to the current discussion require further elaboration then I'd be happy to participate. Willyfreddy (talk) 13:45, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I support 'alternative', which seems to better describe the state of the controversy. Ratagonia (talk) 02:27, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Support for 'alternative' from me too. Snowded and Willyfreddy appear to be arguing the same point, but have been caught up in the details of the argument. Chunking back up, there will be those who view NLP as a cult, and others who view it as a applied psychological method. The aim is to provide a neutral page free from bias of the two stances. The word and stance of 'alternative' would support that as it is a much more neutral word than it's charged alternative 'controversial'. Sure it may be both alternative and controversial, they are not mutually exclusive. Therefore let's just use both - alternative for the field of NLP, controversial for the personal opinions about NLP - something which is inherently true and cannot be argued. So let's just use alternative or use both. Balupton (talk) 03:46, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Controversial is a simple statement of fact (and referenced now as part of a subsequent discussion). I'm happy to use both if that helps. However if anything "alternative" places it into a category that some adherents might not like. --Snowded ^TALK 04:32, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

! I am another editor who is not in agreement with the term "controversial" in the opening paragraph. I am now officially opening a dispute to try to find resolution. It seems clear that a majority of editors are in favor of removing this term. Below is a copy of my discussions on the "talk" page, which should have been written here from the begining. User:Jeannmb 01:33 6 March 2011 (UTC)

NLP is highly controversial in its claims - see the criticism section It is also used as an exemplar of a pseudoscience on MIT courses which is another label that will go in there as soon as the full source is tracked down. Also to satisfy another editor I sourced "controversial" from an NLP site so its not seen as implying that its dubious --Snowded ^TALK 20:30, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Also, a question given you are an SPA. Do you have any commercial interest in NLP? For example are you an NLP practitioner or trainer? That would not stop you from editing but it should be declared. --Snowded ^TALK 21:00, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Above question still stands, you have a potential conflict of interest here. --Snowded ^TALK 22:47, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I am not a trainer and have not any comercial interest in NLP. By the same token, have you actually been trained or have you practiced NLP in order to be able to argue definitions?

I have not practiced NLP and I would not waste money on being trained. Ditto Spiral Dynamics and a dozen other self-improvement pseudo/psychological practices that have emerged over the last few decades. I regard such practices for good reason as encouraging self-deception at best and manipulative (in the unethical sense of the word) at best. That view is based on the fact that I have talked extensively with trained practitioners and am aware of the literature. Now those are my opinions and I would not impose them on the article, neither should you as a practitioner attempt the contrary. Controversial is a factual statement and it is evidentially (from the sources) seen as positive in some NLP circles. Accordingly I don't see how it is NPOV to say that. We could make much stronger negative statements supported by sources in the lede. You might like to look at this and this.

It is clearly identified as a pseudo-science in reliable sources and in some cases exhibits cult like qualities. I have provided one reference from an NLP source that says it is controversial and the extensive criticism later in the article makes that controversy clear and none of those references are weak. Remember the lede summarises the article and that lede is already compromised enough. We might want to put pseudo-science in the opening sentence and/or the MIT point as those are relevant to a new reader. Your point about it being a collection of tools not a science is not supported by NLP's scientific claims in the original book and latter work including training. --Snowded ^TALK 22:36, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Snowded, you just proved my point. If we had an argument about F1 engines and you have never touched, repaired, optimized an F1 engine and had no training nor experience in mechanics, engineering or F1 driving what is the point? Yes, many people watch F1 on Sundays, even go to Silverstone and might have even talked to drivers or their teams. But this does not make them knowledgeable. The same goes for disciplines like Karate or Aikido. You can talk to and read as much as you want, but unless you get yourself on to the training mat and try practice what you are talking about, you are offering empty words. Please do go and edit articles were you have actual experience and knowledge. User:Jeannmb 22:00, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

You are unlikely to get any changes to this article - Snowded does not have a NPOV and will revert anything you do to make the article more neutral. I've tried to make changes in the past but, in the end I've got better things to do with my time than argue with a person who doesn't get what NPOV. The mere fact that he describes getting trained in NLP as 'wasting money' shows, I think, that he does not approach this topic with an open mind.

I tried to open a discussion with him via his talk page but he deleted it and did not respond. Ho hum...

There is a lot of rubbish talked about NLP - and maybe the article would be better if it differentiated between NLP as a tool and NLP as a belief system (which is how some people talk about it) and the stupid '300 to a room' training sessions that some dreadful trainers run do nothing to help this. I understand what B&G were doing in the first place - they started it all off by making it clear that NLP wasn't necessarily true, just useful. The other big issue I have with it is that the three core parts of NLP - pillars, presuppositions and modelling (which are rather key to understanding what it's all about) don't get a mention...

(BTW - I'll declare an interest - I have learned about the subject and, at it's core, find it a useful tool. When I learned, the group included three psychologists and a GP, all of who continue to use NLP as I do, as a useful tool. We don't 'believe in it' - the cult status problem - we just use bits of it when it's useful.)

Anyhow - if you want to make changes, find he is blocking you, I'll be happy to support you in any dispute.

Tattooed Librarian (talk) 18:56, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Tattooed Librarian. My intention is certainly not to get into a dispute but it seems like Snowded does not want to compromise, as I did earlier. My suggestion was to leave the controversy for later down the article and we can both be right. I am stunned that there are editors who insist on putting forward their opinion on a subject they do not have knowledge of. I also asked for more clarification on the reference cited and did not get an answer. I am not trying to make NLP look perfect, it isn't, but the word "controversial" as used in the opening seems to reflect more of a personal opinion (as you said) than a fact. I vote for a as neutral as possible definition in the beginning. User:Jeannmb 02:08 6 March 2011 (UTC)

The opening paragraph - defining NLP

Hi all. I am new to editing this page. Today I edited the first introductory paragraph in order to give a more accurate and inclusive definition of NLP. Unfortunately my edit was undone by another user. I took great care to ensure that I was sensitive to the work that others have put in to this, and changed only two aspects of the opening paragraph as I have first-hand knowledge of NLP. My edit came about as a result of two main concerns over the existing definition, which I would like to present below:

1) Most would agree that the opening paragraph should seek to provide a simple and objective defintion of NLP. However, here, the very first sentence attempts to define NLP as "a controversial approach to psychotherapy and organizational change", which is simply not a fit definition. Whilst it is undeniable that there is much controversy over NLP, and I agree that this should be presented on the page, it is not part of the definition of NLP, and therefore does not have a place in the opening section of this page. There is a substantial section regarding controversy further down, which is suffice to present this fact. The term simply cannot be used to define NLP.

2) The definition itself: an "approach to psychotherapy and organizational change" is very limiting and does not fully define NLP accurately. This definition is only one aspect of NLP, and does not explain the full intentions and use of NLP. I have read through the history of this discussion page and it seems I am not the first to bring up this issue. Whilst the definition provided has come from the OED, I have to argue that it is not the best definition, in that it is limiting. In the discussion topic titled "Bogus OED definition", the user Action Potentila points out that "Outside of psychology, NLP is defined more generally as a communication approach". This is the aspect which I would like to make clear, as it plays a large part of how NLP is used in the modern day. There are many other more inclusive definitions for NLP which would better improve the introduction, and which I believe Richard Bandler more fully defines his and Grinder's model now. I am in fact in touch with Richard and could request a definition from him if this is prefered? Alternatively I have a defintiion coined by Owen Fitzpatrick who is a friend of Richard Bandler and who has co-written book with him. I would be happy to cite this.

Please understand that my intention here is to improve the definition, whilst preserving the hard work of those who have already dedicated time and effort in contirbuting to the page. I feel that my edit provided a more inclusive and objective definition of NLP, whilst keeping the relevent previous citations in tact. Below is the paragraph as I had edited it, and which I propose be used. Notice that it reshuffles the information that was already present and I have npt simply rewritten it. I think this provides a more accurate defintion:

" Neuro-Linguistic Programming (NLP) is "a model of interpersonal communication chiefly concerned with the relationship between successful patterns of behaviour and the subjective experiences (esp. patterns of thought) underlying them". NLP seeks to educate people in awareness of the way in which the human mind works, and how effective communication can be used to change patterns of mental and emotional behaviour. "

Please share your thought so that we may come to a mutually satisfactory definition for the opening paragraph.

Yours faithfully. Sugar1080 (talk) 16:05, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

The lede summarises the article, and given that the article contains material on its controversial nature it is proper to reference that. The last think you should do is to get a definition from Brandler, WIkipedia works from 3rd party sources and the OED is one of those. You have also used NLP web sites as sources. These are not reliable sources in wikipedia terms, especially when they are commercial sites. Overall I would agree that these days NLP is more a management consultancy tool and the training aims at that. However that is an opinion we sure its not a validated fact. --Snowded ^TALK 21:50, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Hello again.

Ok I hear some of your points. Yes validation is important, so let's keep the OED definition. The semantics due to the structure of the paragraph is misleading - not intentially I'm sure - but needs to be addressed. The OED states that NLP is "a model of interpersonal communication chiefly concerned with the relationship between successful patterns of behaviour and the subjective experiences (esp. patterns of thought) underlying them" and "a system of alternative therapy based on this which seeks to educate people in self-awareness and effective communication, and to change their patterns of mental and emotional behaviour". I insist that we introduce the article EXACTLY like this then. This is not the same as opening the page by falsely stating that it is "an approach to psychotherapy and organizational change" - this is not a fact, and if it is, where's the citation - who says? Wuite simply, this is NOT a correct definition of NLP. Perhaps this is the main issue. I sought to correct this by restructuring the sentence last time, but it was undone.

Secondly, regarding the use of the term "controversial", whilst I still disagree about it's position in the first paragraph ,how about we meet half way stve. We can keep the word "controversial" in there, but remove it as a suggestion for the definition. Taking all the above into consideration, this would mean the lead paragraph is presented like so:

Neuro-Linguistic Programming (NLP) is "a model of interpersonal communication chiefly concerned with the relationship between successful patterns of behaviour and the subjective experiences (esp. patterns of thought) underlying them" and "a system of alternative therapy based on this which seeks to educate people in self-awareness and effective communication, and to change their patterns of mental and emotional behaviour"(OED). Whilst NLP has a number of applications, specifically as an approach to psychotherapy there is a great deal of controversy.

How about this? At least this way, we present the facts (OED definition) first and foremost, followed only after with the part about it's controversial use in psychotherapy. I am sure that you can see that the definition should come first. 87.115.78.239 (talk) 12:31, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Firstly please sign in when you edit, at the moment you are editing under two different names which is not acceptable. You might also want to note that no editor can "insist" on anything here. You also need to read WP:BRD, if something is contested you discuss it on the talk page and reach agreement before you make that change to the article.

On the substantial point I am happy to go to the full OED defintion and in general I agree with you that its generally a management consultancy technique these days rather than psychotherapy but we need more citation support for this as well as statements about support. You haven't provided a reference for that claim, I will revert it if the fact tag is not satisfied. As to controversial, its sourced and its true. I think its easier in the first sentence but I am open to it being second or third, but then it will need to be expanded to say that it is controversial (summarising that section by reference to its lack of scientific assessment and possibly the accusation that it is a cult.). As I say I think a single word at the start is easiest but I am open to ideas. --Snowded ^TALK 14:45, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi Snowded and thanks for your comments, also for advising me on the proper use of wikipedia.

Firstly, you say that you agree with me about it being "a management consultancy technique", but I haven't said this at any point. Where did this come from? Sorry if it appeared that I suggested this, I don't believe this should be in the paragraph, particularly since, as you say, it cannot be cited. Secondly, the page currently opens with the claim that NLP is an "approach to psychotherapy and organizational change" - where does this so-called fact come from? Initially I confused it to be from the OED (hence what prompted me to challenge it), but now realise it's not. So who's definition is it? Either way I suggest that we stick to the OED definition as it's clearer and more inclusive.

So given all this, how about we use the opening presented below, followed immediately by whatever you would like to add about the controversy aspects. What's most important to me, is that the definition is provided first without bias.

"Neuro-Linguistic Programming (NLP) is "a model of interpersonal communication chiefly concerned with the relationship between successful patterns of behaviour and the subjective experiences (esp. patterns of thought) underlying them" and "a system of alternative therapy based on this which seeks to educate people in self-awareness and effective communication, and to change their patterns of mental and emotional behaviour"(OED)". (Then Snowded, please add the points about its controversy) Sugar1080 (talk) 20:10, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

As I've said before, a significant number of articles ( maybe even a majority ) are on people and subjects that at least some people would consider "controversial". Q: Is NLP controversial? A: Many people would say so. Q: Is this controversy so significant that it requires mentioning in the first sentence about it in this article? A: I greatly doubt it. It is entirely appropriate to have criticism of NLP in the article but the introduction should principally describe what NLP claims to be rather than what some people think about it. This should come later. To justify including "controversial" in the introduction on the basis of "summarising" the article seems both disengenuous and manipulative. Afterwriting (talk) 12:13, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

It is of course open you to doubt that it is appropriate or not for "controversial" to be used. I think the evidence of the main body of the article and the references clearly establish that it is. That is a legitimate disagreement. However to accuse editors who disagree with you of being manipulate and disingenuous is a clear failure to assume good faith. Its not the first time, or the only article where you have failed to focus on content issues but have chosen to comment on other editors. --Snowded ^TALK 18:41, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't think you can have controversial there in the first sentence. Put that in the paragraph where the criticism is introduced. Remember wikipedia needs to be written from a neutral point of view. --122.108.140.210 (talk) 02:29, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

There is nothing inherently good or bad about the word controversial. Indeed I would be upset if my own work were not so described. It is an accurate word given the evidence of the article, and as I keep repeating the lede summarises the article. There are also far too many SPAs making this point --Snowded ^TALK 12:14, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not against using the word in the lead section, just its placement in the first sentence before even defining NLP. I think that the idea that NLP is controversial is a point of view and should not preceed the definition of NLP. Perhaps we can come up with a one sentence summary of the controversies for the opening paragraph or for somewhere in the lead section. --122.108.140.210 (talk) 18:16, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

section on techniques?

I think there needs to be a section describing the typical interventions and techniques used in NLP, e.g. rapport, reframing, submodalities, goal-setting, timelines, anchoring, future pacing, etc. Just keep to the basic techniques based on reliable sources. --122.108.140.210 (talk) 01:26, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

less jargon?

Is there any way to reduce the jargon and gobbledegook on this page? I'm finding it difficult to get a good grasp of what NLP entails. Or, barring that, could an example be given to help illustrate what this is all about? Maybe I'm not smart enough, but I really find this page hard to understand. Thanks. 119.237.147.66 (talk) 20:05, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Pseudoscience

Interestingly someone sent me a copy of this slide set which is from a course at MIT in which NLP is used as an exemplar of a pseudoscience. What do people think of the source? --Snowded ^TALK 10:27, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

The source itself will probably need a specific author. I will check on it. I have seen the engram and submodalities information somewhere else and it is clarifying. I will look for that author first, I think it was a Dutch professor of psycholinguistics. That slide might be useful in the criticism section. Neuro-linguistic programming is used in universities as an example of pseudo-science in courses on that matter (Lilienfeld, S. O., Lohr, M., & Morier, D. (2001). The teaching of courses in the science and pseudoscience of psychology. Teaching of Psychology, 28, 182-191, Lum, C 2001. Scientific Thinking in Speech and Language Therapy. LAWRENCE ERLBAUM ASSOCIATES, PUBLISHERS Mahwah, New Jersey London) Lam Kin Keung (talk) 02:49, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I pinged back a request for author from the person who sent it to me but have not heard back yet so if you can find it that makes it more solid as a reference --Snowded ^TALK 05:00, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

A slide prepared for a course even at MIT is not a reliable source. No peer review. Perhaps it is sourced to something that looks like an RS, but a slide for a course does not qualify. Ratagonia (talk) 06:23, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

It would be a reliable source to say that the MIT course used it as an example, but not to say that NLP is a pseudo-science. That would need more and there are some candidates here and here --Snowded ^TALK 07:16, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I think those MIT lecture slides are fake. --122.108.140.210 (talk) 01:29, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I suspect you may want them to be. However the number of pseudo-science references in the literature is high so it probably needs to be a category and if we really want to revisit the lede be there as well. --Snowded ^TALK 23:34, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I actually don't know if they are real or not. Its an issue of verifiability. I'm a good skeptic. --122.108.140.210 (talk) 01:21, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't think we can label it as pseudoscience just because it's on the fringe. This doesn't seem as open and shut as, say, homeopathy or astrology. I don't agree with the category being listed at the bottom of the page. 71.12.183.234 (talk) 04:49, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

The current thread on this is at the bottom of the page. I've given you one direct quote and several other references from reliable sources that say it is a pseudo science and that counts over your opinion. Otherwise please note that the category was in place before you deleted it so WP:BRD applies. --Snowded ^TALK 06:53, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps it should be in the fringe category rather then pseudoscience category. Some skeptics allege that it is pseudoscience but there is no consensus. It is probably best described as questionable per the WP:FRINGE/PS guideline. --122.108.140.210 (talk) 19:16, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Applications section

Discussion seems to have made a move to the applications issues. Material suggestions on the application section can be written here. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 02:09, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

The applications section is small and the reader is not given description or explanation of methods or broader application. Any argument existing in literature that NLP is not psychotherapy might be mentioned in this section. Suggestions welcome. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 02:23, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

You may be starting from a misunderstanding. The modality of psychotherapy informed by insights from NLP is formally known as Neuro Linguistic Psychotherapy (NLPt). Reliable sources are not always scrupulous about the distinction, which may confuse you. AJRG (talk) 09:16, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Sourced information would help to clarify differences between AndyzB and your account. Also, there is a book on coaching mentioned in this section. Any books that represent the therapy side of NLP may make clear to the reader the applications. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 04:39, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I can't speak for AndyzB... Bridoux and Weaver (2000) is already in the list of references and there are also some books by Lisa Wake. AJRG (talk) 08:10, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Here is an example of NLP taught at vocational college attached to the top university in Australia.[13] Is this common in other parts of the world? --118.127.29.46 (talk) 05:04, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

What are the specific differences you referred to, Lam? On the subject of "NLP" and psychotherapy AJRG makes a very valid point. The existence of the NLPtCA organization is yet more evidence that whilst there are a handful of therapeutic techniques within the FoNLP, neither NLP (a specific MODELLING TECHNIQUE) nor the wider FoNLP are forms of psychotherapy. To say otherwise is like arguing that because a car has rubber tires the whole car must be made of rubber. To be specific, NLPt - Neurolinguistic Psychotherapy (notice NO hyphen, etc.) - is recognised by the UKCP in Britain, and through the UKCP by the EAP. And why? If NLP or the FoNLP were forms of psychotherapy why wouldn't the UKCP have recognised them as such? The NLPtCA (Neurolinguistic Psychotherapy and Counselling Association) had to be set up because neither NLP nor the FoNLP qualified - as determined by professionals! Likewise some members of the NLPt - such as Lisa wake and Pam Gawler-Wright - are now claiming that they are putting the missing neurological dimension into "NLP" - because NLP and the FoNLP AREN'T SCIENTIFIC.

Food for thought, isn't it?

AndyzB (talk) 17:37, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

It is, and those are useful comments. From what I can see some aspects of NLP continue as a part of what might generally be classed as "talking therapies' of which there are a range and there are linked issues (in the UK) of evidence around things like CBT. However NLP is better known in the self help/management consultancy/ project management etc. etc. areas where a lot of the training takes place. Given a long weekend in Hay I did an unscientific look through several books on areas such as NLP and Project Management and NLP and dieting. The latter was pretty much hockum, the former contained a lot of material that you could equally well find in other books on the subject without the need for NLP, some techniques which were uniquely NLP and which were reported as working. The problem with the former was that it dressed up that material in a pseudo-scientific overlay with various claims for objectivity etc. etc. The fact that there are short and other courses on NLP in vocational courses, listed along with ones on how to use Excel is probably not noteworthy and the presence of such courses is not an academic validation per se.

The evolution of NLP, the way it is applied does need elaboration. In psychotherapy we really need a third party account of the various differences between the bodies if one exists. We can of course make reference to those bodies without a third party source without an commentary if its appropriate. --Snowded ^TALK 04:47, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I suggest instead of main title of psychotherapy, there could be list of smaller sections or paragraphs of; Therapy (include dieting and broader), psychotherapy, education, human resources, communication etc. I will look through papers on the applications. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 06:17, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

IP 122.../118....'s Edits

Hello IP 122.../118... . You made a series of major controversial edits mixed in with small changes. Please discuss and provide sourcing for your proposed changes here, starting with your controversial changes in this paragraph below Lam Kin Keung (talk) 04:32, 6 June 2011 (UTC):

Despite its popularity,[13] NLP has been largely ignored by conventional social science in part due to a lack of professional credibility[13] and insufficient empirical evidence to substantiate its effectiveness.[14] It is difficult to determine the exact impact NLP has had; NLP appears to have minimal impact on academic psychology or mainstream psychotherapy and counselling.[14] At the same time, NLP has been adopted by some private psychotherapists, including hypnotherapists, who undertake training in NLP and apply it to their practice. NLP has gained popularity within management training, life coaching,[15] and the self-help industry.[16]

My recent edits were aimed to quell some of your more extreme bias. --122.108.140.210 (talk) 11:12, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Please stop making accusations against other users (you still haven't replied on one of the most stupid on your talk page) and focus on proposals to improve the content. At the moment you seem to be attempting a slow edit war --Snowded ^TALK 11:17, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

You told me to stop making personal accusations then you followed with your own accusations! But I agree that we should focus on improving the article content and not on personalities. That's why I am not going to use a username. --122.108.140.210 (talk) 11:53, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I think I was entitled to ask you to apologise for a false claim that I and another editor had been blocked, but I'm happy to let that go. Current suggestions that another editor is showing extreme bias is more problematic, especially as they have been careful to source their material. That said, your last sentence raised an interesting question - have you previously edited n this subject under another ID? --Snowded ^TALK 12:00, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

We've had problems with "HeadleyDown" on this page for several years. Just keep an eye out for his or her behavior and report to admin. --122.108.140.210 (talk) 13:38, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Five years ago, and I note you have neatly sidestepped answering my question. Again, have you previously edited in this subject under another ID? --Snowded ^TALK 04:58, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm just keeping an eye on the article from time to time. I'm not interested in editing content, I'm just editing for NPOV. --122.108.140.210 (talk) 15:16, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I'll take that as a I don't want to answer the question response. Editing for NPOV is editing for content and you are subject to the same rules as everyone else - discuss changes on the talk page if they are disputed. --Snowded ^TALK 20:55, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

AJRG's edit: Academic Criticism

AJRG. Please discuss your controversial edit [14] of "Academic Criticism" here below, providing sources where they are needed. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 06:09, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Its a strange interpretation of WP:OR. As far as I can see AJRG does not dispute that the criticism is from a scientific source, but argues that pseudo-science is not a scientific term (without a contradictory reference) and therefore the title is invalid. It seems to be that if scientific sources use a word critically then it is clearly scientific criticism. I was debating overnight if it should go to the OR notice board, or to ANI as its starting to look like a delaying tactic and/or a diminution one. --Snowded ^TALK 06:21, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

By the way I think the tag is inappropriate as it implies the section is POV which it isn't. I suggest putting Academic Criticism back while we resolve this. --Snowded ^TALK 06:42, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree. The criticisms of pseudo-science and discredit come from scientific points of view. The original justification from AJRG [15] is just opinion. Imposing it into article without discussion is the main activity in this case. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 06:45, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I think you would more accurately describe that point of view as scientistic, not scientific. All the sources you used were from positivist psychologists. They share the view that ALL psychotherapy needs to be evidence based and/or empirically validated. They believe that NLP is a form of psychotherapy so it too should be empirically validated. Not all clinicians in the field share this view. If the experimental psychologists had their way we'd all be doing behaviour therapy for just about everything. It just does not work that way. Psychologists and psychotherapists are not all scientistic. I don't like the subheading "Academic criticism" or "Scientific criticism". You wrote the paragraph, what was your aim when you wrote it? What were you attempting to achieve? --122.108.140.210 (talk) 11:34, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

In part its the claims of NLP in respect of natural science that make it more vulnerable to criticism on empirical grounds that others. Other talking therapies have less of a problem as they are less ambitious in their claims. Have you got a reference on you scientistic/scientific point above? --Snowded ^TALK 11:44, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Academic criticism was Snowded's term, which I'm not wild about but is nonetheless verifiable. I'm challenging the use of Scientific criticism as a description for a claim of pseudo-science, because I haven't found any reliable sources to support it (WP:V). AJRG (talk) 21:58, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Scientific criticism is an accurate description. This is reasonable on Wikipedia articles. For example, Creation Science, Scientific Criticism section involves issue of pseudoscience [16]. Trying to force your title into the article is unconstructive. Please discuss controversial edits. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 04:05, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Your original edit AJRG was to use a fairly dismissive title. For me it is very clear that criticism by the scientific community is properly headed "Scientific Criticism" and this is further confirmed by the example of creation science given above. I further note that neither you or the IP have been able or willing to provide any contradictory citations. Indeed when I last challenged you on this your produced yet another critical article and argued that because scientists criticised NLP then it must be a science. Ironically you now demand a citation to say that pseudo-science is term used in scientific criticism. --Snowded ^TALK 04:57, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

You can't use Wikipedia as a source, so the Creation Science article is irrelevant. I'm challenging your use of the term, so you need to provide a reliable source, per WP:V. AJRG (talk) 21:27, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

No one is using it as a source, its being used as an example and/or precedent. The form suggested here is in common use on Wikipedia. You don't deny that the sources used are scientific, so if scientific sources describe something as a pseudo-science then that is scientific criticism. As far as I know there is no dictionary of acceptable language to be used by scientists in criticising things, or may be you know of such an authority and can cite it? --Snowded ^TALK 21:39, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

All the sources cited in that section are psychologists. Perhaps you can use psychologists rather than scientists as its more specific. I can think of various subtitles such as "Argument that the title is misleading", etc. Another way would be to just have a section where the title is discussed with origins and definition and also show the criticism from some of the psychologists who dispute it. --122.108.140.210 (talk) 23:59, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

And in the case of creationism most of the critics are evolutionary biologists. --Snowded ^TALK 04:05, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

You can't claim precedent. You have to show a reliable source. AJRG (talk) 19:52, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

You're the one making the claim that language used by scientists in criticising NLP has to be sourced as scientific. You might have some credibility in this if you went over to the creationist article and made the same point. --Snowded ^TALK 05:45, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

You keep trying to turn policy upside down. If you want to give a label to something, you have to show a reliable source. WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV all apply. AJRG (talk) 09:09, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

If we have a series of reliable scientific sources criticising NLP as a pseudo-science then the correct title for that section is scientific criticism. There is nothing in any of the policies you trot out which places demands for secondary verification of the nature of their language - if there is point it out. You may not like the fact that the sources say what they say, but these increasingly obvious attempts to spin out properly identifying the criticism are simply disruptive and there are plenty of policies that deal with that. As I say, prove that you really think this by challenging the use at Creation Science. If you won't do that then your motivation here is pretty obvious. --Snowded ^TALK 11:10, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

WP:V "applies to all material in the mainspace—articles, lists, sections of articles, and captions—without exception"

WP:NOR "To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are both directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material as presented."

WP:NPOV "In some cases, the choice of name used for something can give an appearance of bias." "Pay attention to headers, footnotes, or other formatting elements that might unduly favor one point of view" AJRG (talk) 16:49, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Know all of that, and its far from clear if you really understand, or simply don't want to understand that properly referenced material from scientists can be headed "Scientific Criticism" without the need for that language to be independently proven to be "scientific". As I say I'll believe you are serious if you go and try and make the change on Creationism. --Snowded ^TALK 16:56, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Despite repeated requests, you haven't provided a source. Nor have you made any coherent argument from policy which might excuse that omission. AJRG (talk) 17:07, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

I have read through the policies carefully and there is nothing in them that supports your contention that the language used by scientists has to be independently validated as being scientific. Pseudo-science is a term used in a series of articles by scientists in the relevant field. Those articles have been validated per WP:V. We are using the language of those articles so we do not fail WP:NOR and a body of articles by scientists all of which are critical have been presented, not a single source. Further you have not provided any scientific sources that counter the position, instead you have made reference to material which show NLP is used in practice in some health bodies, from that you infer (now that is original research) that the cited material is unrepresentative. In one really crazy example you suggested that because scientists were taking NLP seriously by studying it that it was a science - again clear OR.

Further you have been shown a precedent in which similar material is headed scientific criticism, and that on an article with a much larger number of editors involved and under Arbcom scrutiny. This is a clear a case of prevarication as I have seen in a long time. You have not shown how policy requires us to validate the actual language used by scientists as "scientific" and have instead resorted to simply quoting the policy without argument. If you can't show how policy supports you here then I am going to revert the title and if you change it again take it to ANI as a behavioral issue and/or raise an RfC --Snowded ^TALK 04:41, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

You're arguing that because a scientist writes something, it must be scientific? And because it's critical it must be criticism? And that's your defence of "scientific criticism"? Pure OR. Get a source... AJRG (talk) 11:07, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

You know perfectly well that I am not saying that. We have a series of referenced articles from scientists which are critical of NLP, therefore the title of that section is scientific criticism. The language that scientists choose to use in that criticism is their own affair and not subject to separate validation. We are using their own language without qualification therefore it is clearly not OR. Please point to the section of the OR policy which supports your position.--Snowded ^TALK 11:13, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Your reply proves my point. AJRG (talk) 11:39, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Please point to the section of WP:NOR on which you rely --Snowded ^TALK 11:46, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

The term "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and stories—for which no reliable published source exists.[1] That includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not advanced by the sources. AJRG (talk) 19:11, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

AJRG. I feel silly explaining the obvious and I hope I don't look to patronize, but “Scientific criticism” already has a section full of reliable sources that are supporting it. The criticisms come from a set of scientific viewpoints:

Roderique-Davies criticizes NLP, he states “Firstly, our thinking patterns should be defined as ‘cognition’ not ‘neuro’. Use of the latter word is effectively fraudulent since NLP offers no explanation at a neuronal level and it could be argued that its use fallaciously feeds into the notion of scientific credibility.” This quote of Roderique-Davies can be added to the article. He also says: “The links with scientific credibility persist in NLP books”

“NLP is the art and science of excellence” (O’Connor and Seymour, 1994, cited in Heap, 2008). Yet despite this, and despite its very name suggesting strong links with accepted science, NLP has no credible basis in neuroscience and has been largely disowned by the very academic fields within which it claims to lie, namely psychology and linguistics.

Beyerstein also criticizes from a scientific viewpoint: "though it claims neuroscience in its pedigree, NLP's outmoded view of the relationship between cognitive style and brain function ultimately boils down to crude analogies”

Devilly’s paper is titled: "Power Therapies and Possible Threats to the Science of Psychology and Psychiatry” It is clearly from a scientific viewpoint.

The Norcross et al (2006) research is from the viewpoint of EBP, or evidence based practice. They also write: “The consensus emerging on this Delphi poll on potentially discredited treatments and tests leaves us feeling encouraged. Multiple books, several Web sites (e.g., Quackwatch, Skeptic’s Dictionary), and a journal (The Scientific Review of Mental Health Practice) have dedicated themselves to publicizing psychological myths and discredited procedures. Psychological science tends to be self-correcting in that its foundation lies in empirical evidence (more than most professions, anyway). As a field, we have made progress in differentiating science from pseudoscience in the practice of psychology.” Lam Kin Keung (talk) 01:57, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't think he is arguing against the various sources of the criticism LKK, instead he is focused on (to my mind absurd) argument that the word "pseudo-science" is not a scientific term (unless we find a reference which says it is) and therefore if the section contains that language it cannot be headed "Scientific Criticism". Its a pretty blatant attempt at amelioration, clutching at last straws etc. etc. --Snowded ^TALK 04:42, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, in either way it does appear absurd and desperate. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 05:39, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Policy isn't absurd or desperate. It's there for a reason. AJRG (talk) 19:11, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

AJRG. Please take time to read carefully WP policy pages and other editor's comments on this talkpage. Few editors will be willing to give tiresome elementary tutorials and explanations if you don't contribute some effort. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 02:24, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Question

Regardless of what people think is an appropriate title for the section, does any other editor support AJRG's assertion that its OR? --Snowded ^TALK 11:18, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I'll leave this question up for another 24 hours, but if there is no support then I will take action --Snowded ^TALK 05:34, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Silence doesn't mean consensus. I challenged you to provide a reliable source and I'm still waiting. AJRG (talk) 21:41, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

It means you are in a minority of one, so if you think other editors are wrong then you will need to appeal it --Snowded ^TALK 21:43, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

You haven't produced a single source to back any of your claims in this whole discussion. And Lam Kin Keung, who does take the trouble to look for sources, hasn't found one to support you here. AJRG (talk) 22:20, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

No support. The objection is nonsense. Whether it contains the term pseudoscience or no, the quotes given above and the sources in the section are full of the scientific criticism from scientific perspectives and more than sufficient for title: Scientific criticism. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 03:26, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

^ M. M. Kendig (title) 'Application of a method for scientific control of the neuro-linguistic and neuro-semantic mechanisms in the learning process'
^ 1976 R. Bandler et al. Changing with Families 1976, Grinder, J.; Bandler, R.; and Cameron, L. *Neuro-Linguistic Programming, Volume I. Cupertino, Calif.: Meta Publications, see alSO Richard Bandler's Guide to Trance-formation Health Communications 2008
^ M. M. Kendig (title) 'Application of a method for scientific control of the neuro-linguistic and neuro-semantic mechanisms in the learning process'
^ Source OED, citing 1976 R. Bandler et al. Changing with Families 1976, Grinder, J.; Bandler, R.; and Cameron, L. *Neuro-Linguistic Programming, Volume I. Cupertino, Calif.: Meta Publications
^ "When I started using the term 'programming,' people became really angry. They said things like, 'You're saying we're like machines. We're human beings, not robots. Actually, what I was saying was just the opposite. We're the only machine that can program itself. We are 'meta-programmable.' We can set deliberately designed, automated programs that work by themselves to take care of boring, mundane tasks, thus freeing up our minds to do other, more interesting and creative, things." Richard Bandler's Guide to Trance-formation Health Communications 2008
^ Cite error: The named reference Bandler & Grinder 1975a was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^ Corballis, MC., "Are we in our right minds?" In Sala, S., (ed.) (1999), Mind Myths: Exploring Popular Assumptions About the Mind and Brain Publisher: Wiley, John & Sons. ISBN 0-471-98303-9 (pp. 25-41) see page p.41
^ ^a ^b ^c ^d Cite error: The named reference Heap 1988 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^ Bandler 2008
^ ^a ^b ^c ^d Tosey P. & Mathison, J., "Fabulous Creatures Of HRD: A Critical Natural History Of Neuro-Linguistic Programming ", University of Surrey Paper presented at the 8th International Conference on Human Resource Development Research & Practice across Europe, Oxford Brookes Business School, 26th – 28th June 2007
^ Cite error: The named reference Tosey and Mathison 2007 note was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^ Cite error: The named reference Bandler & Grinder 1979 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^ Cite error: The named reference Sharpley 1984 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^ ^a ^b Einspruch, E. L., & Forman, B. D. (1985). "Observations Concerning Research Literature on Neuro-Linguistic Programming". Journal of Counseling Psychology, 32(4), 589-596. doi:10.1037/0022-0167.32.4.589
^ ^a ^b Cite error: The named reference Druckman & Swets 1988 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^ Dilts, Robert (1983) Roots of Neuro-Linguistic Programming, Meta Publications, Capitola, CA, ISBN 0916990125
^ ^a ^b Cite error: The named reference Druckman 2004 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^ Cite error: The named reference Grinder & Bostic St Clair 2001 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^ Beck, C.E., & Beck E.A., "Test of the Eye-Movement Hypothesis of Neurolinguistic Programming: A Rebuttal of Conclusions" Perceptual and Motor Skills, 1984, Vol. 58, p 175-176 doi:10.2466/PMS.58.1.175-176
^ Gelso and Fassinger (1990) "Counseling Psychology: Theory and Research on Interventions" Annual Review of Psychology doi:10.1146/annurev.ps.41.020190.002035
^ ^a ^b ^c Beyerstein, B. 'Distinguishing Science from Pseudoscience', Centre for Professional and Curriculum Development, Dept. Psychology, Simon Fraser University.
^ See also Efran and Lukens (1990), claiming that "original interest in NLP turned to disillusionment after the research and now it is rarely even mentioned in psychotherapy"(p.122) -- Efran, J S. Lukens M.D. (1990) Language, structure, and change: frameworks of meaning in psychotherapy, Published by W.W. Norton, New York. ISBN 0393701034
^ Cite error: The named reference Devilly 2005 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^ Current research in Neuro Linguistic Programming. Vol. 1. 2009. ISBN 1-84469-019-9. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)

[1] M. M. Kendig (title) 'Application of a method for scientific control of the neuro-linguistic and neuro-semantic mechanisms in the learning process'

[2] 1976 R. Bandler et al. Changing with Families 1976, Grinder, J.; Bandler, R.; and Cameron, L. *Neuro-Linguistic Programming, Volume I. Cupertino, Calif.: Meta Publications, see alSO Richard Bandler's Guide to Trance-formation Health Communications 2008

[3] M. M. Kendig (title) 'Application of a method for scientific control of the neuro-linguistic and neuro-semantic mechanisms in the learning process'

[4] Source OED, citing 1976 R. Bandler et al. Changing with Families 1976, Grinder, J.; Bandler, R.; and Cameron, L. *Neuro-Linguistic Programming, Volume I. Cupertino, Calif.: Meta Publications

[5] "When I started using the term 'programming,' people became really angry. They said things like, 'You're saying we're like machines. We're human beings, not robots. Actually, what I was saying was just the opposite. We're the only machine that can program itself. We are 'meta-programmable.' We can set deliberately designed, automated programs that work by themselves to take care of boring, mundane tasks, thus freeing up our minds to do other, more interesting and creative, things." Richard Bandler's Guide to Trance-formation Health Communications 2008

[Bandler_&_Grinder_1975a-6] Cite error: The named reference Bandler & Grinder 1975a was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[Corballis_1999-7] Corballis, MC., "Are we in our right minds?" In Sala, S., (ed.) (1999), Mind Myths: Exploring Popular Assumptions About the Mind and Brain Publisher: Wiley, John & Sons. ISBN 0-471-98303-9 (pp. 25-41) see page p.41

[Heap_1988-8] Cite error: The named reference Heap 1988 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[9] Bandler 2008

[Tosey_and_Mathison_2007-10] Tosey P. & Mathison, J., "Fabulous Creatures Of HRD: A Critical Natural History Of Neuro-Linguistic Programming ", University of Surrey Paper presented at the 8th International Conference on Human Resource Development Research & Practice across Europe, Oxford Brookes Business School, 26th – 28th June 2007

[Tosey_and_Mathison_2007_note-11] Cite error: The named reference Tosey and Mathison 2007 note was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[Bandler_&_Grinder_1979-12] Cite error: The named reference Bandler & Grinder 1979 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[Sharpley_1984-13] Cite error: The named reference Sharpley 1984 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[Einspruch_and_Forman_1987-14] Einspruch, E. L., & Forman, B. D. (1985). "Observations Concerning Research Literature on Neuro-Linguistic Programming". Journal of Counseling Psychology, 32(4), 589-596. doi:10.1037/0022-0167.32.4.589

[Druckman_&_Swets_1988-15] Cite error: The named reference Druckman & Swets 1988 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[Dilts_1983-16] Dilts, Robert (1983) Roots of Neuro-Linguistic Programming, Meta Publications, Capitola, CA, ISBN 0916990125

[Druckman_2004-17] Cite error: The named reference Druckman 2004 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[Grinder_&_Bostic_St_Clair_2001-18] Cite error: The named reference Grinder & Bostic St Clair 2001 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[Beck_and_Beck_1984-19] Beck, C.E., & Beck E.A., "Test of the Eye-Movement Hypothesis of Neurolinguistic Programming: A Rebuttal of Conclusions" Perceptual and Motor Skills, 1984, Vol. 58, p 175-176 doi:10.2466/PMS.58.1.175-176

[Gelso_and_Fassinger_1990-20] Gelso and Fassinger (1990) "Counseling Psychology: Theory and Research on Interventions" Annual Review of Psychology doi:10.1146/annurev.ps.41.020190.002035

[Beyerstein_1995-21] Beyerstein, B. 'Distinguishing Science from Pseudoscience', Centre for Professional and Curriculum Development, Dept. Psychology, Simon Fraser University.

[Efran_and_Lukens_1990-22] See also Efran and Lukens (1990), claiming that "original interest in NLP turned to disillusionment after the research and now it is rarely even mentioned in psychotherapy"(p.122) -- Efran, J S. Lukens M.D. (1990) Language, structure, and change: frameworks of meaning in psychotherapy, Published by W.W. Norton, New York. ISBN 0393701034

[Devilly_2005-23] Cite error: The named reference Devilly 2005 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[24] Current research in Neuro Linguistic Programming. Vol. 1. 2009. ISBN 1-84469-019-9. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]

[15]

[16]

[17]

[18]

[19]

[20]

[21]

[22]

[23]

[24]

Notice of proposed change

Redraft of introduction

The name 'Neuro Linguistic Programming'

Psych. research

NLP and science

Merging Peter Damian's version done

Reverted

hang on

NPOV tag

NPOV tag - point by point reply

RfC on ascribing an opinion to a reliable source

Update

Pseudoscience?

moved disputed text

Updated figures:

How many changes have been made?

Proposed changes (Action potential)

Modeling rather theorizing

Claims in seminars

In the context of seminars

More detail original presentation

Use quote to show what they believed

supposed theoretical or denote?

'Theory or model' in first sentence

Criticism (first point)

Proposed change to 1970s section

Science

NLP and Science

NLP and science

Comments

NLP and science

Norcross et al.

Secret CIA program

Rewind technique

Prevalence/popularity/demographics of NLP

recent revision to "NLP and Science" section

"Claim"

recent changes

Bogus OED definition

Conflict of interest?

Timing inconsistencies in the Scientific Criticism section

Moving away from an Encyclopedia entry

Eye-Accessing Cues Model

odd logical connection

fact tag

quasi-experiment on NLP therapy

Norcross 2006

Popularization - please check

Von Bergen 1997

Applications

Psychotherapeutic

Proposed rewrite Scientific criticism section

Ancient Greek rhetoric

"Popularity" and "Controversial"

Flyby tagging

Lack of adequate referencing in the criticiscm section

Revisions 24th Dec 2010

Changes made 24 Dec 2010

Robert Spitzer

"Controversial"

The opening paragraph - defining NLP

section on techniques?

less jargon?

Pseudoscience

Applications section

IP 122.../118....'s Edits

AJRG's edit: Academic Criticism

Question