Talk:Neuro-linguistic programming/Archive 24

Archive 20

←

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

Misleading Citation: footnote 100

I've been going through the electronically available citations in this article to further my own research. The Lilienfeld article cited in footnote 100 does not mention NLP. I suggest removing the Lilienfeld article from the footnote because it does not generally nor directly support the asserted statement. (The other citations in footnote 100 are not electronically available, so I cannot speak to their veracity.)

Statement: In fact, in education, NLP has been used as a key example of pseudoscience.[100]

Footnote: See, for example, the following:
Lum.C (2001). Scientific Thinking in Speech and Language Therapy. Psychology Press. p. 16. ISBN 0-8058-4029-X.
Lilienfeld, Scott O.; Lohr, Jeffrey M.; Morier, Dean (1 July 2001). "The Teaching of Courses in the Science and Pseudoscience of Psychology: Useful Resources". Teaching of Psychology 28 (3): 182–191. doi:10.1207/S15328023TOP2803_03.
Dunn D, Halonen J, Smith R (2008). Teaching Critical Thinking in Psychology. Wiley-Blackwell. p. 12. ISBN 978-1-4051-7402-2. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theobfuskate (talk • contribs) 03:17, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

I see the Lilienfeld, et al, article here: http://www.criticalteaching.org/Library/coursesinscience.pdf

The authors do not refer to "NLP" or "Neuro-linguistic programming" in the article. The article does not appear to support the sentence.

The citation should be removed from this Wikipedia article as it does not refer to this topic. The sentence in question should probably be removed unless the statement can be cited.

Eturk001 (talk) 02:04, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration motion

The Arbitration Committee are reviewing the discretionary sanctions topic areas with a view to remove overlapping authorisations, the proposed changes will affect this topic area. Details of the proposal are at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions#Motion: Overlap of Sanctions where your comments are invited. For the Arbitration Committee, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:44, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Ignorance Claimed Helpful

"For example, I believe it was very useful that neither one of us were qualified in the field we first went after - psychology and in particular, its therapeutic application; this being one of the conditions which Kuhn identified in his historical study of paradigm shifts," says one of these great pioneers.

"Neither one of us were," one assumes, is staking out ignorance of the English language as a prerequisite for the linguistic side of their revolution.

David Lloyd-Jones (talk) 07:11, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

That raised a chuckle ...----Snowded ^TALK 07:27, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Gaivna

See Psyus

1. It is there for Miltn Model neuroscience
2. No change to neutral point of view
3. No undue weight
4. No guess if an impartial contributor is needed (See Gaivna quote "The process of becoming Aware involves recognition We are pattern recognition machines--continuously comparing sensory data with memories in a process that is cognitively fundamental (Dave J. Snowden, U.S. Patent 8031201) There is room for neurobiology conjecture here However, the thalamus, in forming Awarenes"
5. Metaphors for peace require language patterns supported by neuroscience

--Psyus (talk) 15:22, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

It is a field I know something about, apologies for that. This method associated with Klein and others is nothing whatsoever to do with a pseudo-science like NLP. Trying to make it respectably by association is not wikipedia's purpose ----Snowded ^TALK 20:25, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Neutrality

I reworded the first couple of paragraphs to make them clearer and more neutral. The rest of the article needs more of the same. This page is way too ranty for a Wikipedia article. Readers deserve better, and they know it -- they'll abandon the article fast, and find their information about NLP somewhere else. I doubt anyone actually wants that! If I get around to it, I'll restructure the article properly, with the description in the beginning and criticism towards the end. (If you criticize a concept that has not yet been fully presented, it comes across as heckling.) I'm sure NLP's detractors can present their viewpoint far more creditably than they have so far, once the failed attempts are dealt with... RobertPlamondon (talk) 19:09, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Interesting that my edit to say "The name refers to the connection between neurological processes ("neuro"), language ("linguistic") and behavioral patterns learned through experience ("programming")" was reverted. This statement is 100% non-controversial. Is there anyone alive who would contend that there is no connection between neurology, language, and behavior? Of course there isn't. Learn to pace yourselves, dudes, I'm doing you a favor by making you look more reasoned. RobertPlamondon (talk) 19:17, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Asserting that a reverted edit is 100% non-controversial is unlikely to fly, for the obvious reasons. As an outsider, I can't see all that much between your edits, TBH, other than minor slant. I certainly wouldn't call yours "unbelieveable whitewashing". But as to the difference between Bandler and Grinder claim that the skills of exceptional people can be "modeled" using NLP methodology, then those skills can be acquired by anyone and Bandler and Grinder point out that, if the skills of exceptional people can be "modeled" (successfully learned through observation and imitation) by others, they will be available to more people. NLP modeling techniques are an attempt to achieve this - well, its susceptible to solution-by-looking-it-up. Do they indeed claim it? Or do they merely suggest that "if", "then"? William M. Connolley (talk) 19:46, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. Thanks. My point is that what we're dealing with here are definitions of terms in the form of "possibly unfamiliar term = universally accepted phenomenon." For example, if you look up the page on gravitation, it says, "Gravitation or gravity is a natural phenomenon by which all physical bodies attract each other." It does NOT start out, "Isaac Newton claims..." Similarly, we don't need to say, "Bandler and Grinder claim..." when we refer to the concept that our neurology, our use of language, and our behavior affect each other -- we all agree that they do. Similarly, in the modeling sentence, no one questions that one can learn from experts! But the term "modeling" is used in a sense that's unfamiliar to many readers -- splitting the difference between "role model" and "theoretical model," perhaps -- and I wanted to clarify what it means. The current references support this meaning. Mostly, I want the first paragraph to orient the reader to fundamental concepts and definitions before plunging into claims and counterclaims. Suggestions? RobertPlamondon (talk) 22:01, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

An important difference is that gravity works (is science) and NLP doesn't (isn't science). Thus, we are documenting claims, rather than accepted facts; so the word "claims" and names of the claimants would be relevant - David Gerard (talk) 11:52, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, that's true, but you can tar pretty much all of the therapeutic modalities with the same brush (see dodo bird verdict). The state of the soft sciences means that therapy is still waiting for the Handsome Prince of "valid and directly applicable theory" to arrive. It'll happen, but not yet. We're all still kissing frogs here. RobertPlamondon (talk)

No you can't "tar pretty much all of the therapeutic modalities with the same brush"; CBT and especially purely behaviourist-based psychotherapeutic modalities have a substantial evidence base in their favour. Again, I repeat: NLP has literally zero evidence demonstrating any efficacy beyond placebo. Neither behaviourism nor CBT are "waiting" for a "valid and directly applicable theory"—in any event behaviourism has a solid theory—but its raison d'etre is that it is efficacious in treating certain anxiety disorders (much better than placebo). Good theory is nice to have, but it is isn't and never was essential. The fundamental issue is evidence for efficacy (above placebo)—CBT and behaviourism have it, NLP does not. It is not mandatory that any form of therapy—pharmaceutical or psychotherapeutic—have a "valid and directly applicable theory" for it to be adopted as mainstream or even best practice; all that need be demonstrated is efficacy above placebo level and safety (or at least a favourable risk/benefit profile). NLP has neither an evidence base nor a cogent theory with superior explanatory power—it really is nothing but a bunch of silly rituals which have nothing more than symbolic efficacy. This is why many "NLP practitioners" have started moving to newer psychotherapeutic fads; if all you have is placebo then any silly ritual will do. So, to re-iterate, Bandler and Grinder have nothing more than naked claims and that is why we use the term claim in the article. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 11:33, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, CBT ain't what it used to be - https://uit.no/Content/418448/The%20effect%20of%20CBT%20is%20falling.pdf, suggesting that there may not be much more to it than placebo after all. Not that this makes NLP (whatever NLP is actually supposed to be) better, or not pseudoscience (which it would be, even if it was found to be effective - NLP is grandiose and over-reaching pretty much by design) - but the tar metaphor is stronger than you think. Maloot (talk) 20:10, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

And as a general comment, the changes follow a previous pattern from NLP practitioners associated with the 'new' approach and a quick internet search indicates that Robert Plamondon is offering NLP services. Nothing wrong with that but it means careful attention to use of the sources, rather than an idea of 'neutrality' based on a protagonists position.----Snowded ^TALK 15:59, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Actually, no one has ever sought me out for NLP services, and I expect no one ever will. People always see me for hypnotherapy. But I found many of the concepts presented in NLP (a) helpful and (b) not unique to NLP -- for example, cognitive reframing, operant conditioning, the "parts" metaphor, ideomotor response, imaginary rehearsal, therapeutic metaphor, and so on. I've found this lack-of-uniqueness useful when bridging modalities, but it makes the vitriol a bit startling! RobertPlamondon (talk) 23:14, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't know what is meant by 'vitriol'. 'NLP services' having been offered are by no means negated by having no one seeking them out, at http://www.hypnosis-corvallis.com/what-is-nlp-anyway/ , accessed Jan. 31 2016, Robert Plamondon's blog on, yes, hypnotherapy. The point must be made that, informally speaking, there is a perceived conflict of interest in at least the intellectual sense, where someone is playing apologist for what he or she is offering as a professional service. JohndanR (talk) 21:03, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Wow, comparing Newton's Laws with NLP. This (dis)analogy is so absurd I am tempted to think we are being trolled. There is literally zero evidence for the efficacy of NLP. This isn't my personal opinion, it is the unvarnished truth. NLP has no evidence base. Please re-read the previous sentence and ponder it for a few minutes. Given that NLP has literally no evidence base everything that Bandler and Grinder write or utter about NLP can be nothing more than an (unsubstantiated) claim. If you aren't trolling and you believe that Newtonian Physics and post-Newtonian physical theory about gravitation has the same evidence base and epistemic status as NLP then you are profoundly uneducated, naive and perhaps even delusional. Also, comparing Bandler and Grinder to Newton is risible; it is so absurd it is obscene and perverse. Mr Plamondon you have a clear WP:COI and you will not be permitted to obfuscate the actual evidentiary status of NLP by presenting unsubstantiated claims from Bandler and Grinder as fact. Also, the critiques of NLP are not mere "counterclaims", they stem from contemporary results from neuroscience, cognitive psychology, linguistics and clinical psychology based on evidence. Bandler and Grinder got nothing correct about the human brain and human language and they have been repeating the same unaltered neuromythology and pseudoscience since the 1970s. Bandler and Grinder are to neuroscience what Young Earth Creationists are to Geology. That is a more fitting analogy. Further, Bandler and Grinder are to the treatment of mental illness what African witchdoctors are to the treatment of HIV/AIDS in the sub-Sahara. The evidence base and epistemic status of African witchcraft is the same as that of NLP. Another more fitting analogy for you. Re NLP modeling: the meaning of NLP modeling is clarified in the body of the article and NLP modeling is not merely the idea that "one can learn from experts". AnotherPseudonym (talk) 14:06, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I was making a structural point, and with structure, the specific content of an example is irrelevant -- and in fact, using non-comparable content to make a structural point has some advantages. But we can use examples with similar content if you like. Compare the opening section of the NLP page with that of other far-from-mainstream modalities, such as the one for primal therapy. First the concept is summarized (I'd have defined the term "primal scream" as well), and then the different sections go into detail, including a Criticism section. RobertPlamondon (talk) 23:14, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure where to put this, so I'm putting it here: Neuro-linguistic programming is referenced as a standard technique to be used in the Army's Civilian Affairs manual, in the section on negotiation (STP 41-38II-OFS, Officer Foundation, Standards II Civil Affairs, (38) Officer’s Manual, April 2004). This may be useful, or not, as a reference or as research material. I read this recently, and came to Wikipedia to find out what NLP is. I still don't know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.119.111.71 (talk) 19:10, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Legitimate access to that manual requires authorized login. The 'NLP' references are vague therein and merely state their use, rather than quantify and qualify them. I.E., there is no 'NLP' training material proper, in the manual. The actual inclusion of what is called 'NLP' in the manual is confused by the fact that the Army investigation and dismissal of 'NLP' has been witheringly critiqued as essentially incompetent by an 'NLP' practitioner, at http://www.bradburyac.mistral.co.uk/druckman.html , leaving one with the conclusion that whatever the Army came up that is the actual (taught but non-documented) theory and praxis that backgrounds what it calls 'NLP' in the manual must likely be an at least equally incompetent version of whatever one might want to call 'official' NLP.

Probably someone in the army decided to ignore investigators' recommendations and bunged ahead with (some sort of) 'NLP' 'training' procedure. What that entails has to be a mystery. Another possibility is that the mention is included as a red-herring for foreign consumption: give them something to waste time researching and/or attempt implementing. A similar suggestion was made concerning the HAARP study on 'remote viewing'; one cognitive psychologist conjectured that the quasi-psychic practice was 'studied' to throw the Soviets off-track. JohndanR (talk) 20:22, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

RobertPlamondon still has a general point though when he says the page is way too ranty. Some of the sourcing is questionable e.g. "The balance of scientific evidence reveals NLP to be a largely discredited pseudoscience." is sourced from a blog post which I think can be pretty safely filed under WP:USERGENERATED. Yes 'Joe Greemfield' (I am guessing this is he - https://causewaycollaborative.com/joe-greenfield/) cites "Clinician's Guide to Evidence Based Practices: Mental Health and the Addictions" - so someone actually needs to go to the source as far I can see. Writing a good, 'balanced' NLP article is going to be a tough collaborative effort, but I don't think it's too much of an assertion to say that we could do better. Maloot (talk) 08:06, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Okay. I have made a change & addition reflecting the above, and providing somewhat of an authoritative response from the NLP world (as Steve Andreas has his own wikipedia entry, this seems very reasonable). Another key thing is I have replaced 'proponents' with Bandler & Grinder - now I would have to see the actual sources to verify whether the unnamed proponents were really references to Bandler & Grinder, but that seems a very reasonable inference and much better than a reference to unknown persons who may or may not be composed of dried stalks of grain Maloot (talk) 08:59, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Having a wikipedia entry is not a measure of authority and I'm not sure it would survive a challenge on notability. Also it is already tagged are depending on primary sources. As far as I can see from the quote we have an NLP practitioner asserting that (i) the existing research really doesn't look at the right things (ii) that there is no current research and (iii) NLP is indirectly supported. None of that really counts especially as their whole business is about NLP. I'm sure we can make a better article, but the whole idea here is to have third party sources not primary ones. We've also debated the statement on "the balance of scientific" before and agreed to leave it as it stands. So I've reverse those two ----Snowded ^TALK 09:47, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm not seeing this as justification for a full revert - can you point me to the aforementioned discussion? The edit makes it clear that the counter-claim is from a NLP proponent so what's the problem? Maloot (talk) 09:56, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

We don;'t do balancing statements in wikipedia we reflect third party commentary. The source you used is one practitioner with an NLP business no evidence of notability anyway ----Snowded ^TALK 10:27, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Moreover, I'm curious as to what kind of discussion made the use of a WP:USERGENERATED source like the Joe Greenfield piece okay. Maloot (talk) 10:07, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

I've been bold and removed the Joe Greenfield citation as it is WP:UGC. "None of that really counts" and "the whole idea here...." seem to me to be wooly. "When reverting, be specific about your reasons in the edit summary and use links if needed." - on that basis, I am putting the Andreas defence in there for now. "all majority and significant minority views" should be covered - it could be there is a better way to do this, but the current article does not do so at all. You can say 'we've had a discussion" - but thing is, I wasn't part of that discussion. Maloot (talk) 10:22, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

This is a controversial article. That means if you were reverted you wait for a consensus before you reinstate, You can look at the archives as well as I can. ----Snowded ^TALK 10:27, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

I'd prefer to see citations of WP policy rather than your proclamations, and the WP:CIVILITY to link to the correct discussion so we are both talking about the same thing Maloot (talk) 10:30, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

If you want policy look at WP:RS, if you want guidelines follow WP:BRD nothing uncivil about requiring you to do your own research. In practice the pseudo-science thing is all over the article with multiple sources. It doesn't need to be referenced in the lede which summarises the article. As it is all the statements in the Greenfield entry are linked to reliable third party sources so you can substitute one of those if you want. But the summary article is probably more useful to readers ----Snowded ^TALK 10:33, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

It's not really a case of me *doing my own research*, it's not really possible for me to do that and know that I understand what you're getting that. A justification for a WP:UGC source shouldn't be hard to muster. Indeed you try "the summary article is probably more useful to readers" - that seems pretty subjective. It doesn't meet sourcing policy. I don't see that I can substitute the links because I do not know that the links are actually the case because they are cited from an article that doesn't meet sourcing policy. At the end of the day, I don't see how you can justify not using one summary article but not another. My original edit retained both. If the lead doesn't require the reference, then fine I guess we can go ahead and remove it right? Maloot (talk) 10:54, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

If you check the link the article has the quote with links to articles. It tool me two minutes to check it. But you can remove the reference if you want it is not needed in the lede but the statement stands as it summarises material covered later in the article. Not sure what you mean by two summary articles ----Snowded ^TALK 11:03, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

"It tool (sic) me two minutes to check it. " is telling, and misses the point. I will remove the citation, and sleep on this more generally befire coming back to it. It seems to me that if a term like 'proponents' and the WP:UGC nature of the cited article was missed then a closer look at the rest of the article is going to yield other significant issues. Maloot (talk) 11:15, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

I suggest a brief stroll through the talk page archives as a part of that reflection. You will find a lot of discussion there ----Snowded ^TALK 11:23, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

I thought the source was good per our rules, though if there's good reason to throw it out then we should do so - David Gerard (talk) 12:41, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Strictly sources are not needed in the lede as it summarises the article. But its OK to have it there as the rererence had third party sources for all its statements. I assume you just meant to reinstate the source rather than reinstate the recent addition of an NLP practitioner's opinion ----Snowded ^TALK 13:01, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, fat-fingered edit, thanks for fix :-) - David Gerard (talk) 13:14, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

OK, can you please, in good faith, point to where it states that UGC isn't UGC if it claims to provide citations? Maloot (talk) 13:03, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Policy says "Self-published material may sometimes be acceptable when its author is an established expert whose work in the relevant field has been published by reliable third-party publications" and in this case we have an online repository of referenced material that just happens to use Word Press so I'm not sure its even a blog. But if it is an issue we can use one of the sources it references ----Snowded ^TALK 13:07, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

So clearly this doesn't apply (and btw, almost every other article on that site is a 'work in progress' which several years on we can deem never to be finished- calling it an online repository of referenced material is laughable). Please now help me to understand why you can just go ahead and lift the sources it references, without knowing what they actually say. Maloot (talk) 13:13, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

If you check the rest of the article you will find the articles it references already there. See my earlier comments on the lede ----Snowded ^TALK 15:44, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Okay, in the absence of a defence, Joe Greenwood citation will be removed. If there's a reversion without decent reasoning, I'll escalate in some way because there's just no way in my mind that this can be justified. I suspect that a decent investigation of the article would yield further questionable sourcing, and I also appreciate that people on here are somewhat hardened by puppetry and such in a way that has naturally compromised neutrality (the clinging to the Joe Greenwood source is a clear sign of this). There's no doubt that 'The Structure of Magic' is inherently pseudoscientific & pseudointellectual, but the entry on Postmodernism doesn't mention the Sokal affair in the lede. To declare, yes I have a NLP Master Practitioner certification (in addition to being a philosophy graduate fwiw) - but I am sceptical about most of the grander claims and sympathetic to much of this article. But focussing on representational systems & 'linguistic predicates' is misleading. What to do? Still pondering.... Maloot (talk) 07:08, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

As long as you don't remove the statement I'm neutral on including the reference. However there has been a defence its just that you don't agree with this. That doesn't give you a consensus to change. If David Gerard reinstates the reference then you should leave it ----Snowded ^TALK 18:23, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, I do think that's pretty obtuse (in what sense is Joe Greenfield established in his field and what work has he had published?). However, I have made it clear that I will not re-remove the reference and that I will escalate Maloot (talk) 12:26, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure there is any process to "escalate" in wikipedia but lets see ----Snowded ^TALK 13:02, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

I am new to editing Wikipedia but I am a Certified NLP Trainer with over 10 years experience in training and working with individuals. I can therefore speak from personal experience. I do find that there is a great deal of misunderstanding about NLP from those who are less intimately involved and the article in part reflects that. I would like to add: It is a generalisation to assert that NLP is discredited and should be regarded as pseudoscience. This is an example of ‘Universal Quantifier’ addressed by NLP in the Metamodel, and at the very least we should ask ‘which part of NLP specifically’ is being referred to.

Because NLP is concerned with the unique subjective experience of an individual, any attempt to study a group of individuals to produce some sort of aggregate or average response is fatally flawed. Grinder makes this point in ‘Whispering in the Wind’ in discussing academic studies of NLP’s Eye Accessing Cues model.

In therapy, a skilled practitioner of NLP may utilise one of NLP’s well documented techniques, but will finesses and adapt these to make them effective with each individual client. As such, it is not possible to aggregate the results because every individual has been ‘treated’ differently.

NLP has made little effort to understand how it works because it is more concerned with doing things that work than studying why they work. Any scientific quest is regarded as a search for the ‘territory’ and NLP is only concerned with the different ‘maps’ that individuals have made of the ‘territory. The map is not the territory.

The evidence for the effectiveness of NLP is vested ultimately in the individual testimonies of those ordinary people, businessmen, athletes and patients who have whose lives have been changed for the better through competent NLP practitioners.

Some cynicism has been expressed over Bandler and Grinder resolving their differences in the courts, rather than using their NLP skills. In The Structure of Magic Volume 1, Bandler and Grinder explain, ‘Our experience has been that, when people come to us in therapy, they typically come with pain, feeling themselves paralysed, experiencing no choices or freedom of action in their lives. What we have found is not that the world is too limited or that there are no choices, but that these people block themselves from seeing those options and possibilities that are open to them since they are not available in their models of the world.’ In NLP terms, they simply made a choice.

One organisation, INLPTA (International NLP Trainers Association) has published syllabuses and assessment standards for Diploma, Practitioner, Master Practitioner which INLPTA Certified Trainers are required to adhere to. Standards are also published for the training of Trainers and Master Trainers, Coaches and Master Coaches. — Preceding unsigned comment added by David B Smallwood (talk • contribs) 07:29, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

@David B Smallwood: The evidence for the effectiveness of NLP is vested ultimately in the individual testimonies of those ordinary people, businessmen, athletes and patients who have whose lives have been changed for the better through competent NLP practitioners. So, if the patient's life has been changed for the better they are tallied as evidence for the effectiveness of NLP. This implies that if not for the better, that data point is discarded? A similarly worded study would conclude that everyone who walks into a Las Vegas casino is a big-time winner. Please read up on anecdotal evidence. The use of anecdotal evidence for declaring that NLP is effective would be a valid basis for declaring NLP as pseudoscience.

...and at the very least we should ask ‘which part of NLP specifically’ is being referred to. If a part of NLP is unsound, why would it be kept as part of NLP? If no one is removing ineffective parts of NLP, the entirety of NLP is in doubt. Scientific reviews show it contains numerous factual errors David, do you know of parts of NLP which are ineffective, in error, or are problematic? If so, are you urging these parts be removed? Is there a system in place to excise them from NLP? If not, why? Jim1138 (talk) 10:08, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Reply from David B Smallwood. Effectiveness of NLP. If a skilled NLP practitioner works with a client with a phobia, and the client wishes to get rid of that phobia, and afterwards the client no longer has the phobia, then that (in NLP terms) could be because the NLP intervention has worked, or could be because of another unknown reason. Contiguity in time is generally regarded as best evidence - ie the client lost their phobia immediately after the NLP intervention. Where the client does not lose their phobia, NLP would say that the standard Fast Phobia Cure did not on this occasion work. This does not mean that it doesn't work, simply that on this occasion it did not. Richard Bandler said that he was not interested when his students came and told him that NLP had worked, he was only interested when it had not. In other words, the technique or procedure has limitations and it is of great interest to NLP modellers to discover the limitations of their models and how to overcome them. Robert Dilts, the prime developer of NLP since Bandler and Grinder, defines NLP as "What works". By this he means that the model works. when it doesn't, we go back and do more modelling.

Just because one NLP intervention on a particular occasion does not produce the desired result, is no reason to say that any part of NLP does not work. No more than taking two Anadin Plus and failing to get rid of a headache proves that Anadin Plus doesn't work, nor that Western Medicine as a whole is pseudoscience.

I don't know of any parts of NLP that are ineffective. Any aspect of NLP may not work on an occasion. It depends on the state of the client, the state of the practitioner, the rapport between them, the competency of the practitioner to adapt to that individual client's map of the world and if that change is totally ecological for the client. Success may not be replicable for many reasons, all of which return it to NLP's true quest - to model excellence.

In some ways NLP is similar to Theoretical Physics. There is no quest for truth, simply a quest for a set of equations which explain everything we can observe. There is no suggestion by theoretical physicists that they have discovered the truth about the universe, only that they have a set of equations which fit observations. NLP has no quest for any kind of truth about 'reality', it is a quest to understand the map that of each individual has of reality and how to work effectively with that map to help that individual achieve their outcomes. As such, factual errors are irrelevant. Only results matter.

The scientific approach seems to want to understand and validate NLP as if one were studying how to kick football. Evidence of multiple ways of kicking and the resulting flight of the ball can be accumulated and knowledge about how to kick a football deduced. Kicking in exactly the same way will achieve the same result. NLP could be likened to kicking a dog. The outcome of an identical kick is totally unpredictable as it depends on the mood of the dog and the ability of the dog to understand the kicker's intentions. Dogs can generally tell the difference between a deliberate and accidental kick, but not always. No scientific study will ever produce a theory which will predict the result of kicking a dog in a specific way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by David B Smallwood (talk • contribs) 14:08, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

I am really rather intrigued about how this article has been constructed.

Firstly,NLP has a basis in Philosophy, given that is significant cornerstone is Epistemology (the study of the nature, origin and limits of human knowledge).

Secondly, NLP treats individuals as wholly unique and so statistical analys is irrelevant when examining uniqueness.

Thirdly,, I would expect any analysis to look at a topic in a balanced manner, identifying opinions and evidence from both proponents and detractors.

I can see a number of misconceptions about NLP being expressed by individuals who appear to have then tested for their misconceptions... Iltaph (talk) 11:30, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

See material on your talk page on the various rules as to what is included. I'd read that before you start to make assumptions about other editors. We reflect the balance of what the reliable sources say, we do not balance pro and anti views of a pseudoscience. ----Snowded ^TALK 12:09, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

I see know similar bias on the page for hypnosis and the two are very strongly linked... Iltaph (talk) 14:59, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 February 2016

Under the "Main components and core concepts" section and there is a "Subjectivity. According to Bandler and Grinder:" section. In that section please change the second sentence "These subjective representation of experience are constituted in terms of five senses and language." to "These subjective representations of experience are constituted in terms of five senses and language." for grammatical reasons. The word "representation" should be plural.

Thanks Spitfir23 (talk) 23:53, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Done --allthefoxes ^(Talk) 00:01, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

EST hatnote?

Why is this disambiguated from EST? - David Gerard (talk) 19:38, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

NLP and the genesis of "Pick Up Artists"

The pick-up culture relies heavily on these distorted views of human interaction. I will hopefully find time to add to the article, but if it interests anyone else to do so, the Wikipedia article would more closely reflect modern reality if it at least mentioned that the origin of the PUA ethos is rooted in the pseudoscience of "NLP". 173.217.205.130 (talk) 12:10, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Don't know about origin, but they certainly seized upon it. Bandler loves these guys because they're a notable market for him - David Gerard (talk) 22:19, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Neurolinguistic programming: An interim verdict

New link to PDF document for

Heap. M., (1988) Neurolinguistic programming: An interim verdict. In M. Heap (Ed.) Hypnosis: Current Clinical, Experimental and Forensic Practices. London: Croom Helm, pp. 268–280.

www.aske-skeptics.org.uk/nlp1.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.144.50.58 (talk) 11:20, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

MEDRS

David Gerard: RE: This sentence that you reverted. When it's a medical claim, I don't think it matters if it's in WP's voice, otherwise MEDRS would be irrelevant. It would be ok in their voice if it said something like, "Bandler and Grinder claim as well that NLP can treat a number of psychological and physical in a single session." The issue is that it names specific disorders that it supposedly treats, especially because there are so many citations and all of the terms are wikilinked, that part really jumps out at you. I'll ask at WT:MED. —PermStrump(talk) 19:29, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong with documenting the founders' ludicrous claims, given NLP's status as not just a pseudoscience, but an exemplary pseudoscience, is made clear in the article - David Gerard (talk) 22:00, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

My last edit looks bigger than it really was. There were a couple of duplicate citations that I named replaced with shortcuts, so that took out a lot of text. I also combined related sentences into paragraphs and hid some of the citeclutter. I didn't change the wording, except for replacing some words with more common terms (e.g., myopia→near-sightedness). —PermStrump(talk) 18:00, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

biased

why is this article so biased? i was looking for an encyclopedia article not an opinion on the method. i thought there was a places opinions under criticism. this is not at the least scientific. Yasemincakmak (talk) 17:15, 17 July 2016 (UTC) if wikipedia is a place where there is space only for "accredited" sciences then it is not a encyclopedia for all. i find this greatly disturbing. my trust is shattered. who is to say what is what is not pseudoscience? who are you? and what about those that have been helped by this and those that could be helped that the article is preventing from accessing it. i was with a woman yesterday that after 16 years of dealing with extreme agoraphobia and having tried all the different routes decided to try npl and after 18 months of doing the program she was freed. she credits npl for changing her life. and this is a remark made 30 years after completing it. i feel like the pseudoscience hunters are a bit like christian witch hunters. full of self importance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yasemincakmak (talk • contribs) 17:30, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 August 2016

Please add this to the chapter History and conception --> Early development, right at the beginning, before all the other text. I think it is an important part of the early beginnings and it adds to the text already written.

NLP began in the mid of 1960s in California, when scientists started to question earlier developed psychology. The psychology dealt primarily with mental disorders and abnormal behavior. Its aim was primarily to restore the working capacity of the affected people. But scientifically oriented psychology ignored the part of the human mind that makes us good, powerful and human. Therefore, scientists started to explore what makes people happy, successful and prominent. The result was a human potential movement. Its aim was to explore and to promote the possibilities that are lying dormant in people.

On the ideas of people like Abraham Maslow, Carl Rogers, Fritz Perls, Alan Watts, Viktor Frankl, Milton Erickson founded this new movement. Many scientists and therapists developed methods and theories that followed this new way of psychology.

One of these scientists was Richard Bandler, a student of computer science and psychology. In 1972 he met with John Grinder, a teacher of linguistics. They both had similar interests and started to work together. First, they looked into speech patterns that people use in different situations and developed a new model of communication. Then they started to explore not only the spoken language but also the non-verbal components of language. By their work they targeted specifically at individuals who stood out in their field. So they contacted the three most successful therapists in the United States, Milton Erickson, who had revolutionized hypnotherapy, Fritz Perls, the inventor of Gestalt therapy, and Virginia Satir, the mother of family therapy, and asked to take part in their therapy sessions.

MarTina (talk) 20:00, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

References

Not done for now: Currently, what you've offered, looks like an independent essay - not written in encyclopedic style - that you want inserted into the article. Far too many "peacock" words: "incredible", "young, creative and dedicated", "much more significant", "revolutionized" etc. Some of the sentence structure is quite tortured, as well: "met eleven years older John Grinder", "which aim was to ...". You can reinstate this request by offering a better version suitable for immediate inclusion.  —jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:45, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

In comparing your (now revised and improved) requested edit with the existing content of the article, I see that many of the points you wish to insert are already addressed, including some that are contradicted by other sources. Please consider how to better integrate the changes you want to make with the existing article.  —jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:49, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Revision of NLP's status as pseudoscience (Recent Peer-Reviewed Meta-Analysis)

Consider the abstract from recent peer-reviewed research as evidence that, while NLP is not a mainstream therapy, it is does not qualify as pseudoscience under the neutrality rule: Zaharia, Reiner, & Schütz (2015) Psychiatria Danubina, Vol 27(4), 2015. pp. 355-363. I won't edit the page yet, but it bears discussing... Bmcdani4 (talk) 21:11, 19 September 2016 (UTC)bmcdani4

What does this source say about the pseudoscience in NLP? Alexbrn (talk) 21:38, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

I've read this paper and I've got serious concerns about it. The authors of this meta-analysis appear to have a professional interest in NLP but there is no COI notice in the paper. Three of the papers they review have NLP therapists as authors and two of those papers (unsurprisingly) report positive results. This data is presented, but I cannot ascertain why those papers were not immediately excluded on COI grounds. I cannot fathom how the authors of this meta-analysis have controlled for 'risk of bias'. Two papers apparently contained "no information about the effect" and another "reported significant results but gave no further numerical information" so I don't know how they obtained the numbers they use in later figures/tables. I'm concerned at the inclusion "of conference proceedings (and) unpublished data" in the meta-analysis. There are 3 sources that are not obtained from scholarly databases but seemingly plucked out of thin air - and they are not identified. That's worrying. There are several PhD and Master's theses included in the meta-analysis and the largest pro-NLP effect is from a lowly Master's thesis. Nice try, but no cigar. In my professional opinion this is an example of garbage in, garbage out. Famous_dog (c) 12:05, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

A new editor tried reversing the tone of the article at Methods of neuro-linguistic programming - see Talk:Methods_of_neuro-linguistic_programming#recent_advocacy_edits. I suggested they come here, but reviewing the new claim there may also be useful - David Gerard (talk) 21:46, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia contradicts themselves when Suggestion is a real process too

But NP is basically Suggestion. And Suggestion is a real thing - supported also by wikipedia - so I don't get the extremity of this article to discredit it. Yes, not all of it is true but the BASICS of it, the Suggestion, is obviously a real thing. --188.4.150.161 (talk) 12:50, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

We work from sources not the personal views of any editors ----Snowded ^TALK 12:57, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Large amount of false information

It would appear that the contributors of this page appear to have a professional interest in undermining the usefulness of NLP. Since many psychologist are adopting the practice to help those where talk therapy is not working over long periods of time. Even the articles put forward as evidence against the science do not support what the contributors are claiming. That is, they are falsely and purposefully misleading the reader with links to articles that do not support the claims they made. It would be like linking an article about aliens to a medical journal on high blood pressure.

The page should be returned to its original few posts until which time factual data can be introduced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Swanback (talk • contribs) 17:26, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

@Swanback: Welcome back to Wikipedia. It seems that you've forgotten that you can actually edit the article yourself. If you find references that do not support the content, you are entitled to flag that content or remove it. Since what you are proposing sounds somewhat contentious, please be prepared to hash out the changes here on the talk page. Unspecific suggestions for changes will probably languish until someone comes along with a more specific proposal.  —jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:08, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

@Swanback: You might also want to lay off the personal attacks and declare any COI you have. ----Snowded ^TALK 08:01, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

@Swanback: So, to break this down for you: "It would appear that the contributors of this page appear to have a professional interest in undermining the usefulness of NLP. Since many psychologists are adopting the practice to help those where talk therapy is not working over long periods of time. Even the articles put forward as evidence against the science do not support what the contributors are claiming. That is, they are falsely and purposefully misleading the reader with links to articles that do not support the claims they made. It would be like linking an article about aliens to a medical journal on high blood pressure." Famous_dog (c) 12:03, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Neuro Linguistic Programming: Rapport

Studies suggest that "confederates mimic the posture and movements of participants and showed that mimicry facilitates the smoothness of interactions and increases liking between interaction partners" Chartrand, T. L., & Bargh, J. A. (1999). The chameleon effect: The perception-behavior link and social interaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 893–910.. As such the controversial idea of "mirroring and matching" is supported by a relatively high quality and peer reviewed study.

Additional Studies that support the concept of "Rapport": Above source repeated for easy browsing: Chartrand, T. L., & Bargh, J. A. (1999). The chameleon effect: The perception-behavior link and social interaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 893–910. http://www.spring.org.uk/2009/11/the-chameleon-effect.php Lakin, J.L., Jefferis, V.E., Cheng, C.M. et al. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior (2003) 27: 145. doi:10.1023/A:1025389814290

Mimicry is Over Simplified by NLP: Mirroring a person that is undesirable makes the third person dislike the mimic-er

Kavanagh, L. C., Suhler, C. L., Churchland, P. S., & Winkielman, P. (2011). When it’s an error to mirror: The surprising reputational costs of mimicry. Psychological science, 22(10), 1274-1276.

First published date: September-15-2011

Based on the above sources and marketing psychology the Rapport section of NLP may not be off-base. If these studies are quality they lend support to the basic mirroring/matching concept of Rapport. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Watson2.0 (talk • contribs) 05:00, 28 February 2017 Watson2.0 (talk) 06:48, 28 February 2017 (UTC)Watson2.0

Looks like original research or synthesis on a quick scan. Is there third party material relating to this in the specific context of NLP? ----Snowded ^TALK 07:19, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 April 2017

Please consider changing footnote 98 from:

See, for example, the following:

• Lum.C (2001). Scientific Thinking in Speech and Language Therapy. Psychology Press. p. 16. ISBN 0-8058-4029-X.
• Lilienfeld, Scott O.; Lohr, Jeffrey M.; Morier, Dean (1 July 2001). "The Teaching of Courses in the Science and Pseudoscience of Psychology: Useful Resources". Teaching of Psychology 28 (3): 182–191. doi:10.1207/S15328023TOP2803_03.
• Dunn D, Halonen J, Smith R (2008). Teaching Critical Thinking in Psychology. Wiley-Blackwell. p. 12. ISBN 978-1-4051-7402-2.

To:

See, for example, the following:

• Lum.C (2001). Scientific Thinking in Speech and Language Therapy. Psychology Press. p. 16. ISBN 0-8058-4029-X.
• Dunn D, Halonen J, Smith R (2008). Teaching Critical Thinking in Psychology. Wiley-Blackwell. p. 12. ISBN 978-1-4051-7402-2.

Rationale: The Lilienfeld article does not mention NLP and is not a relevant citation for: "In fact, in education, NLP has been used as a key example of pseudoscience." I do not have access to the other citations and I cannot speak to their veracity. Eturk001 also found this to be true.

Thank you! Theobfuskate (talk) 15:40, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Done. Daß Wölf 23:47, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

I beg to disagree. The Lilienfeld article: The Teaching of Courses in the Science and Pseudoscience of Psychology: Useful Resources has been a topic of numerous discussions. See archives. I am restoring the Lilienfeld reference. Jim1138 (talk) 01:50, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

E-Prime

I added E-Prime to the see also list. @Snowded: reverted this edit. It's a small thing, but I think E-Prime is very appropriate for the see also section, as it also uses specific linguistic techniques for a purported therapeutic benefit. (See E-Prime#Influence in psychotherapy) There are also claims that Neuro-linguistic programming uses E-Prime as a technique and that NLP's theoretical basis relies heavily on the work of Korzybski and Bourland, developers of E-Prime.

The Wikipedia Manual of Style says that the see also section should include "topics similar to that discussed in the article" I apologize for ignoring the MOS guidance that "Editors should provide a brief annotation when a link's relevance is not immediately apparent" Do others have suggestions what an appropriate annotation might be? Sondra.kinsey (talk) 16:50, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Is there anything in the E-prime literature which references NLP or is this an NLP claim? ----Snowded ^TALK 21:01, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

@Snowded: The use of E-Prime in NLP may be a dubious NLP claim, but I still think they are similar enough to be included in see also purely on the basis of the similarities I described. Sondra.kinsey (talk) 19:05, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

We need a third party reference ----Snowded ^TALK 21:23, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

@Snowded: I have been editing Wikipedia for a while now, and am not accustomed to citing see also links. The Manual of Style says See also lists typically include "Links to related topics – topics similar to that discussed in the article." I have described what seems to me to be a significant similarity between them. I believe it is acceptable on Wikipedia for us as editors to make such connections that others have not made before in see also lists, although of course, not in article content, per WP:NOR. However, in addition to the claim I cited above, other works have discussed connections between them. Please correct me if I am mistaken about Wikipedia policy, and I welcome input from other editors. Sondra.kinsey (talk) 13:46, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

I've been editing for some time as well, and paid attention to this article. There is a general issue with NLP in that it seeks to create an association with other (more credible) techniques. This looks like something along those lines. On first sight the references you quote look like NLP proientated material not third party But if I am wrong give me the link ----Snowded ^TALK 22:03, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree. Including a see-also link to E-Prime to the NLP article seems somehow promotional. Making a connection between the two seems more like pushing an agenda than pointing readers to to related topics. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:28, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

@Snowded: Ah, I think I understand now. NLP advocates use name-dropping and mention of other more scientifically grounded theories to bolster their appearance of scientific standing. Therefore, you would rather not include theories or techniques in the see also list solely on the basis that NLP advocates claim association with them. I respect that, and that probably makes all of the citations I mentioned except perhaps Kellogg 1987 irrelevant.

I have been hoping to include E-Prime on the see also list not on the basis of NLP claims, but on the basis of similarities per MOS:SEEALSO. I recognize that your concerns about NLP name-dropping may make it appropriate to deviate from Wikipedia conventions for this article, in which case I would urge you to add a notice of some kind to this talk page.

I have no particular knowledge or interest in NLP. However, I am interested in the idea that training ourselves in particular patterns of speech can have positive psychological affects or be utilized in psychotherapy. I believe my own need can be met with the creation of Category:Linguistic practices with purported psychological benefits. You can find and discuss my proposal on that topic at Talk:Psychology#Linguistic practices with purported psychological benefits. Sondra.kinsey (talk) 16:14, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 6 June 2017

This part is missing in the article and I want to add the main and important thing to it

In essence, all of NLP is founded on two fundamental presuppositions:

• The Map is Not the Territory. As human beings, we can never know reality. We can only know our perceptions of reality. We experience and respond to the world around us primarily through our senses. It is our 'neuro-linguistic' maps of reality that determine how we behave and how we create meaning, not reality itself. It is usually not reality that limits us or empowers us, but rather our map of reality.

• Life and 'Mind' are Systemic Processes.

The processes that take place within a human being and between human beings and their environment are systemic. Our bodies, societies, and our universe form an ecology of complex systems and sub-systems all of which interact with and mutually influence each other. It is not possible to completely isolate any part of the system from the rest of the system. Such systems are based on certain 'self-organizing' principles and naturally seek optimal states of balance or homeostasis. 

All of the models and techniques of NLP are based on the combination of these two principles. In the belief system of NLP it is not possible for human beings to know objective reality. Wisdom, ethics and ecology do not come from having the one 'correct' map of the world, because human beings would not be capable of making one. Rather, the goal is to create the richest map possible that respects the systemic nature and ecology of ourselves and the world we live in. The people who are most effective are the ones who have a map of the world that allows them to perceive the greatest number of available choices and perspectives. Adnansaram (talk) 16:22, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

•  Not done. No sources provided, so fails WP:V for starters. Alexbrn (talk) 16:24, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
• It's WP:COPYVIO anyway. -Roxy the dog. bark 17:50, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

While what you say is valid Adnansaram, and I do understand where you're coming from, it's not going to happen on Wikipedia. Things like Second-Order Cybernetics and Cybernetic Epistemology for the large part fall far outside of the guidelines and scope here, that's just how we roll.

-- That Guy, From That Show! 08:23, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

NLP has since been overwhelmingly discredited scientifically. Poor selection of words

"NLP has since been overwhelmingly discredited scientifically". This is statement is bias and diminishes the scientific content of the article overall. As an example, Christianity has been "overwhelming discredited scientifically". The same has been said of the work of Galileo and Einstein.

There are millions of users, practitioners and believers in the methods proposed by NLP. People have healed and learned to live a better live using NLP. It is now used in life coaching, and self-help programs

The statement should be modified to reflect a fact from an opinion. Jtllz (talk) 23:28, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Have you any WP:RS for these claims re NLP? Roxy the dog. bark 00:15, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Christianity is a religion, and thus its premises within faith are not subject to the scientific method. It may have also improved the lives of many of their practitioners, but that doesn't make it science either. On the other hand the line between religion and pseudoscience (trying to achieve tangible effects based on non-scientific reasoning) is blurry, and you mentioned the word "believers". Should NLP be classified as a religion instead? 2A02:AA13:8105:2500:D8C8:333E:8ED3:DEEC (talk) 12:52, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Pray tell, could you clarify what you mean by the discrediting of Christianity? Its belief system is questionable, but last I checked we had empirical data confirming that this religion exists.Dimadick (talk) 14:49, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

The words reflect the sources, we are not required to be neutral as to NLP claims or to take seriously evangelical claims such as those above ----Snowded ^TALK 14:54, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Edited it to better describe what is discredited. Hackwrench (talk) 09:42, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

This is a controversial page - get agreement to changes here first. I can't see those changes reflected in the body of sources we have so I have reverted them ----Snowded ^TALK 19:36, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Give me sufficient evidence with which to accept the credentials of someone to ask, and I will. Otherwise, you can fuggedaboudit! Hackwrench (talk) 00:44, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Furthermore, I am unaware of a Wikipedia policy that reflects your demands. Hackwrench (talk) 00:48, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Then you need to read on wikipedia practice you were bold, you were reverted, you now discuss. You don't simply reinstate your edit. As to the first sentence of your comment it is not clear if you are talking about other editors (in which case it is not a valid question) or the sources (in which case you need to be clearer) or something else completely ----Snowded ^TALK 03:42, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Just because something is not scientific does not mean it's wrong. The false idea that everything real is quantifiable and testable depends in itself on an unquantifiable, untestable premise. It is not scientific, and there is no scientific evidence for it, but there is plenty of experiential evidence for it, and that is proof that it works, at least in their experience. Svend la Rose (talk) 16:05, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Your argument then is that "experimental evidence" lies outside the realm of science. That is daft. Alexbrn (talk) 16:35, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

I do not know how to add in reflist, but all the researches claiming that NLP are not regarding it as science are themselves outdated. I hope that the moderators can have a look to this https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26609647 or here http://hrcak.srce.hr/file/239625 and inform the Wikipedia readers correctly and shows also what it works in NLP. Another notable research is http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1080/14733140903225240/abstract and I do not think that only one side of the story should be shown. If that is the case Wikipedia is discrediting itself. Drcz (talk) 13:30, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia is self moderating, no one arbitrates content issues. If you can make a case using third party sources (not primary ones) changes can be made. ----Snowded ^TALK 04:36, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

 Required edit requires sourcing which specifically addresses scientific workings of NLP - efficacy studies aren't proof of discredited claims about the workings of the brain

• your sources - a quick rundown:
  • 1) Mind Master Association, Bucharest, România They do a reasonable job of discrediting themselves by noting that a number of the studies included in their 'meta study' were sourced from NLP sources. Even if they hadn't cast this doubt on their study, the authorship consists of three NLP trainers from Bucharest, Croatia and Austria, making the source wp:primary They aim, not to study the scientific mechanisms of NLP, but to study observational reports based on patient feedback as stated in their paper, "AIM AND OBJECTIVE This meta-analysis aims to evaluate all available data regarding the effectiveness of Neuro Linguistic Psychotherapy (NLPt) and Neuro Linguistic Programming (NLP) for the treatment of individuals with different psychological and/or social problems."
  • 2)a paper on perceived effects Effects of Neuro-Linguistic Psychotherapy on psychological difficulties and perceived quality of life. This is a study on application of therapy and patient reports. The conclusions were: "Neuro-linguistic psychotherapy is an efficient intervention, which is on a par with other, well-established psychotherapeutic techniques."
  • 3) the other is a duplicate (link to pdf) of the first source.

Sumamry: The proposed edit is to alter the sentence, "NLP has since been overwhelmingly discredited scientifically". The sources do not justify or support an amendment here. They might support the sentence, "Neuro-Linguistic therapy has been used as an therapeutic intervention technique with results similar to that of other counseling techniques". They provide no support for the idea that neuro-linguistic programming works in the manner prescribed by its advocates or practitioners. Papers which study efficacy based on patient observation do not equate to support for their claims regarding the scientific validity of this technique, which as has been sourced, are discredited. I will remove the word "overwhelming" based on WP:PUFFERY. The sentence regarding discredited science will remain there based on the source we already have vs WP:BURDEN and WP:EXCEPTIONAL. It may be possible that some sources exist demonstrating the scientific validity of this commercial practice, but reports on the outcomes of treatment - no matter how shining - do not equal proof of an extraordinary scientific claim. Edaham (talk) 06:02, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Good call all round ----Snowded ^TALK 06:33, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

"Discredited"

"Mixed results" is more accurate than "scientifically discredited."

Did you know that all forms of Psychotherapy have mixed results? Yet not a single one of these list in the first paragraph as being "scientifically discredited". Did you know all forms of surgery have mixed results? If you cheery-picked all the "failures" and put them all together into a "study" you could "discredit" 100% of all western medicine. Because there are rarely silver bullets that work 100% of the time for 100% of the people. And we don't know why, people are very dynamic beings. None the less, there are PLENTY of NLP studies that report success. So should we only look at these and say it's a blinding success? No, we look at both, and you can claim mixed results. That's fair, balanced and accurate. Officially, not even that vernacular should be used, UNLESS you go and change every single other medical procedure first paragraph page as well as being "mixed results." Because that's is 100% honest scientific truth. Darrellx (talk) 18:34, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Whataboutism -Roxy, the dog. barcus 19:20, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Well, Whataboutism that was easy. Calling me a "lunatic charlatan" trying to be fair and balanced? Wikipedia really is broken beyond repair. (Citation: Cofounder of Wikipedia; Thomson, Iain (13 April 2007). ’’Wikipedia ’broken beyond repair’ says co-founder” http://www.iwr.co.uk/information-world-review/news/2187709/wikipedia-broken-beyond-repair. Information World Review.)

Darrellx (talk) 12:00, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Here is your scientific journal (Psychiatr Danub. 2015 Dec;27(4):355-63.) Evidence-based Neuro Linguistic Psychotherapy: a meta-analysis: "Neuro-Linguistic Psychotherapy as a psychotherapeutic modality grounded in theoretical frameworks, methodologies and interventions scientifically developed, including models developed by NLP, shows results that can hold its ground in comparison with other psychotherapeutic methods."

"Meta-analysis is a statistical analysis that combines the results of multiple scientific studies." Meaning they looked at all the other scientific studies. "From a total number of 425 studies, 350 were removed and considered not relevant based on the title and abstract. Included, in the final analysis, are 12 studies with numbers of participants ranging between 12 and 115 subjects. The vast majority of studies were prospective observational. The actual paper represents the first meta-analysis evaluating the effectiveness of NLP therapy for individuals with social/psychological problems. The overall meta-analysis found that the NLP therapy may add an overall standardized mean difference of 0.54 with a confidence interval of CI=[0.20; 0.88]."

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26609647 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darrellx (talk • contribs) 18:49, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Lunatic charlatan? what the hell are you talking about. Who called you that? -Roxy, the dog. barcus 19:27, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm guessing they mean your profile badge:

This user resists the POV pushing of lunatic charlatans.

73.202.40.143 (talk) 07:04, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

But they used pointing it out as a form of Whataboutism, straight after calling them out for Whataboutism, despite the original point not being Whataboutism and just making comparisons to how the bias may be different on other topics, but the point about being called a lunatic charlatan WAS, rather than addressing their concern either, so this appears to be going round in circles.146.198.219.40 (talk) 22:38, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

As has been pointed out before, @Darrellx: the authors of that meta analysis appear to work for some Romanian company specialising in, yes - you guessed it, NLP. Find me a scientific study supportive of NLP that is not written by an NLP practitioner and I will buy you a beer. Until then, case closed. Famousdog (woof)(grrr) 13:11, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

How about you go point for point for my initial argument? Is every part of western medicine 100% works 100% of the time for 100% of the people? Or is it mixed results? Of course NLP works for some people. A PLACEBO works for 30-80% of people. Lots of FDA drugs on the market today wouldn't be able to pass the current FDA requirements for better than placebo.

Darrellx (talk) 15:31, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Oh dear, I thought we were finished with this. My mistake. OK, @Darrellx:. You are right that many therapies and medicines have "mixed results", but evidence based medicine requires that any therapy or intervention provide a statistically significant improvement over placebo in a randomised controlled trial, preferably one in which the therapy is compared to a sham version of the therapy in question. There is no such study to date and the only potentially reliable meta-analysis in support of NLP is tainted by a clear conflict of interest). Ask yourself this: would you trust the results of a study demonstrating the effectiveness of a drug if the study came from BigPharmacorp, Inc. who where actively marketing the drug? No, you damn well wouldn't and you'd be right not to. Looking at "all" the evidence (as you suggest, and which is what the editors of this article have been doing) it is fairly clear (to me, at least) that NLP is just plausible-sounding waffle with only a tenuous basis in human psychology and neuroscience (in which I have a PhD, but I'm sure you'll assume that I'm lying about that). It has had decades to provide reliable sources to demonstrate its effectiveness and all it has managed to do in that time is become a weird managerial personality cult. If you have "PLENTY of NLP studies that report success" (and meet the criteria for good science) then please link to them here. So far you have provided only one study by NLP practitioners published in a journal that nobody has ever heard of (Psychiatria Danubina). Is that "point for point" enough for you? Famousdog (woof)(grrr) 07:37, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

I know nothing about the subject (I came to the article to learn about it) but the style of the paragraph beginning 'NLP has since been discredited scientifically' looks terribly familiar — it looks almost as if the sceptics have a template to work from to discredit ideas that they disapprove of. My apologies, if there is no truth at all in that suggestion. --Brian Josephson (talk) 10:36, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

I accept your apology. -Roxy, the dog. barcus 11:48, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

I make no apologies for indicating my belief, which appears to be shared by others, that the article gives the impression of being distinctly biased (all achieved strictly in accord with w'pedia's specifications, I'm sure). --Brian Josephson (talk) 12:47, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Over the years, Brian, you have shown you believe all sorts of things, many of them without accompanying evidence! -Roxy, the dog. barcus 12:50, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Such as memory of water? Last weekend there was a conference where clear evidence of water structure was presented. The w'pedia page is going to have to be changed soon. It may be that the cymascope will give very clear evidence of water memory, but the work is in a very preliminary stage at present (the w'pedia page on the subject is a bit limited). --Brian Josephson (talk) 13:18, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Oh my !! You and Luc together at the same time. I wondered what caused the ripples in the space-time continuum. Be that as it may, as this is well outside the scope of Talk pages, I shall not respond further. -Roxy, the dog. barcus 13:31, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

I agree, but let me just close by saying that I discovered at the event that Luc and I are both banned from speaking at the Lindau meetings.

Semi-protected edit request on 18 August 2018

Kirin Soo is the youngest NLP Practitioner trained by Dr Richard Bandler during May 2017 in London.Source:

. This is the idea that your senses are not binary, but rather exist on a spectrum. Senses generally fall into four categories: Visual (sight, images, spatial), Auditory (sound, voice), Kinesthetic (propreceptive, somatic), and Olfactory/Gustatory (taste, smell).

There should be subsections for popular NLP models. A few popular models include:

• Affirmations
• NLP Fast phobia cure/model
• Swish NLP
• Six-step reframing
• Visual squash NLP
• Meta-programs

Dennisconsorte (talk) 10:22, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

References

Problems with this article's introduction

Missing from the NLP introductory paragraphs is mention of the decades old and ongoing controversy surrounding "Comparative effectiveness of paraprofessional and professional helpers".

Just as a cheap generic drug can eliminate highly profitable pharmaceutical product lines, NLP has the potential to undermine various lucrative psychological business (as well as career) models. Hence, critical reviews of NLP done by those with financial or other conflicts of interest must be appropriately scrutinized. That scrutiny also does not seem to have been applied to this Wikipedia article.

Properly performed studies comparing internal psychological modification techniques must, at least initially, be correlational. The essential question is "has the individual's life improved" after application of the technique, and although the answer may be nuanced, it will be fundamentally binary. None of the sited studies in the introduction appear to cover the breadth of NLP and meet the correlational (observational and non-experimental) requirement. In an absence of properly performed studies by unconflicted researchers, the general claim that NPL is pseudoscience is likely a simple attempt to discredit the technique and bias the reader*, and thus inappropriate here on Wikipedia.

* Caveat emptor of course always applies when seeking help in exchange for money, and this must of course be applied both to NLP practitioners as well as the more widely recognized professionals who charge for services. But just as any practitioner in any profession may not posess the skills or ethics needed for a positive result, who practices, and for what purpose, cannot be used to judge the overall effectiveness of the techniques in question.

Duanev (talk) 22:21, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

This is essentially the Big pharma conspiracy theory or "Pharma shill gambit". When a study result disagrees with the own opinion, the people who did the study must be corrupt! Problem solved, the result can be safely ignored.

No, the correct way to check the validity of studies is to check the content, not the author.

Independent of that, you need reliable sources making this argument about NLP, otherwise the article cannot talk about it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:30, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 February 2022

NLP isn't pseudoscientific; it has a good research base proving both its efficacy as well as validity 1.186.180.95 (talk) 02:27, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: See above Cannolis (talk) 04:40, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

This article is dismissive of the inevitable and existing successes of NLP

NLP is an umbrella term for many (hundreds of) practices, which is why denouncing it as a whole in this article is severely inappropriate and biased. Studies such as one published in the journal Counselling and Psychotherapy Research found psychotherapy patients with an improvement in their symptoms and quality of life following NLP treatment, noticeably different from the control group. There is a limited amount of research done on NLP compared to established therapies- therefore it is not accurate to claim it is completely ineffective. Changing the way that people think about things is inevitably going to work for some, even from the standpoint of PLACEBO. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.24.98.144 (talk) 14:12, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Astrologers use the same reasoning. Astrology cannot be refuted because you always refute only those astrologers who participated in the study, and their specific methods. But unfalsifiability is not a good property for a serious worldview to have. The burden of proof is on the NLP side.

Independent of that, you need reliable sources making this argument about NLP, otherwise the article cannot talk about it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:30, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

HeartfeltRationalism (talk) 15:43, 16 December 2021 (UTC)Which is why I included a study in the above comment... I have also now added an edit request with multiple credible references

• What I think should be changed:

"There is no scientific evidence supporting the claims made by NLP advocates"(subtract) (add into the introduction) "NLP is an umbrella term for hundreds of techniques and practices. Some of which, such as reframing- otherwise called 'cognitive reappraisal' (The reframing of stimuli and experiences) are also used in [behavioral therapy|Cognitive Behavioral Therapy] (CBT). "Cognitive reappraisal, is one powerful way of skillfully nudging your emotions back toward baseline" Cognitive reappraisal has been found "one of the most effective strategies for emotion regulation. . Another proven technique often used by NLP practitioners is Anchoring. The anchoring effect is one of the most robust cognitive heuristics.

Studies such as one published in the journal Counselling and Psychotherapy Research found psychotherapy patients with an improvement in their symptoms and quality of life following NLP treatment, noticeably different from the control group. There is a limited amount of research done on NLP compared to established therapies- therefore it is not accurate to claim it is completely ineffective, especially considering its breath of different techniques.

• Why it should be changed: This request asks that false statements be removed and some information added for a more balanced, non-biased article. As already mentioned in the talk section by another user: "one of the sited studies in the introduction appear to cover the breadth of NLP and meet the correlational (observational and non-experimental) requirement. In an absence of properly performed studies by unconflicted researchers, the general claim that NPL is pseudoscience is likely a simple attempt to discredit the technique and bias the reader*, and thus inappropriate here on Wikipedia." I suggest at the very least SOME additions and edits that will be more appropriate for this article. Likely to update with more information at a future point.

HeartfeltRationalism (talk) 15:35, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

References

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:37, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

WP:PRIMARY studies are not good enough. There are primary studies claiming that sugar which has undergone a magic ritual (homeopathy) helps against illnesses, and anyone who concludes that homeapthy works because of those does not understand how science works. Same here. You need WP:SECONDARY sources that are good enough to cancel the existing ones saying the opposite.

Also, integrating a few useful ideas into a pseudoscience does not turn them magically into science. --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:29, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

I have referenced Zaharia et al below as an example of a secondary source meta-analysis for the effectiveness of NLP. Mekaneeky (talk) 23:42, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

“A few useful ideas” you mean repeatedly proven practical techniques used in respected therapies such as CBT? (Also a collection of various concepts).. Therapies are rarely ever one concept or science, they are often interwoven and take contribution from other fields HeartfeltRationalism (talk) 12:13, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

When you mix "repeatedly proven practical techniques" with pseudoscience, fantasy and superstition, you get pseudoscience. Like mixing apple pie and cow pie: cow pie wins.

Listen, this is is Wikipedia. If you want to change the article to say NLP is science, you need reliable secondary sources saying NLP is science. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:32, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

The suggested change appears to violate WP:MEDRS. XOR'easter (talk) 16:39, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

HeartfeltRationalism, while those aspects that you mentioned are definitely supported by significant scientific evidence, what is needed if we're going to remove that statement is reliable secondary sources showing that NLP as a whole is supported by science. If you'd like more information about what that term means in the context of health-related content on Wikipedia, see WP:MEDSCI (and the other sections on that page). Secondly, you are requesting that information is added about the components of NLP that are supported by evidence. If we do that, then in the interests of accurately representing the evidence, we will also need to include information about each unsupported or disproven component of NLP - and at that point, it's too much detail for the lead section and would need to be moved into the body of the article. That is definitely an option, but it still won't lead to a change in the statement you requested to have removed, unless reliable secondary sources exist to support that change. --Xurizuri (talk) 06:09, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

There is literally a mountain of academic research on NLP which supports the ethos and practice of NLP, it is a threat to psychology, psychiatry and other bodies of knowledge so be aware of who is writing and adding this information WilCC (talk) 23:56, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

If that is true, then please provide us with any number of sources from literal 'mountain of academic research'. MrEarlGray (talk) 11:11, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Complete quotation from Sturt et al

A more complete and appropriate quote than: 'A systematic review of experimental studies by Sturt et al (2012) concluded that "there is little evidence that NLP interventions improve health-related outcomes."[53]' is: 'A systematic review of experimental studies by Sturt et al (2012) concluded that "there is little evidence that NLP interventions improve health-related outcomes. This conclusion reflects the limited quantity and quality of NLP research, rather than robust evidence of no effect."'

There is much more to say about this particular treatment of "NLP" -- I have concluded from above that to continue would be like "pissing into the wind." I expect more "None of this can be used for improving the article. This is not a forum. --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:58, 25 September 2022 (UTC)" response. The Sturt et al (2012) [53] reference [1] is clearly a more objective assessment. 47.14.164.55 (talk) 16:13, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

contradiction of the Christian view. The Bible says man is a sinner and is saved by God's grace alone

Bovbjerg's secular critique of NLP is echoed in the conservative Christian perspective of the New Age as represented by Jeremiah (1995)[107] who argues, "The 'transformation' recommended by the founders and leaders of these business seminars [such as NLP] has spiritual implications that a non-Christian or new believer may not recognise. The belief that human beings can change themselves by calling upon the power (or god) within or their own infinite human potential is a contradiction of the Christian view. The Bible says man is a sinner and is saved by God's grace alone.[citation needed] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A601:AD9D:B700:8855:9BBF:D04:69AB (talk) 03:27, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Is NLP Pseudoscience

I almost split a gut when I read the lead paragraph of this article claiming, wiithout qualification, that NLP is pseudoscience. Well, I know better than to battle the religious ultra rationalists on Wikipedia so all I will do is say that Richard Bandler bragged that he could commit murder with an eye witness and get off using NLP on a jury then [redacted - serious BLP violation]. Pseudoscience works! Ronald Joe Record (talk) 03:48, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Or, maybe it was the 80s, and the jury just went with the testimony of the white guy over the cocaine dealer. Either way, Richard Bandler does not come out of it looking like the kind of guy your would listen to for advice. Iskandar323 (talk) 04:11, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

There are at least three other things wrong with this:

1. Wikipedia will not say someone committed murder when he was acquitted.
2. Courts of law do not decide whether is something is science.
3. Conclusions drawn by Wikipedia users are not reliable sources. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:17, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

If the evidence for NLP is that its practitioners have extraordinary powers of rhetoric and manipulation, surely they would be doing a better job of convincing everyone that it's legitimate science. Jyamine (talk) 17:44, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

I’m a humanist, so you’re so wide of the mark it’s hilarious. Of course it’s a pseudoscience. Demonstrate it’s a science by the same standard as physics, biology, chemistry, etc. if you’re so sure. Ambitus (talk) 08:30, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Well, I disagree with the premise, psychology in general does not hold the same experimental rigor as Physics/Chemistry. NLP should be held to a similar standard to psychology, and to similar treatments that are not considered pseudoscience such as CBT.

It is easy to prove that at least some of the interventions devised by NLP are valid (as NLP is both a framework for modelling behaviour and a collection of techniques that were developed from this framework). To take one technique called "Visual Kinesthetic Dissociation" here is some of the peer-reviewed research done on this technique found by a simple google scholar search

Additionally, there have been statistical studies of the effectiveness of NLP that found its effect to be positive on patient/client well-being. For example, Zaharia el al performs a meta-analysis on the effectiveness of NLP as a form of therapy and finds evidence for it, there are other studies which reach different conclusions. However, my premise is that since NLP has backing with scientific peer reviewed work, then it shouldn't be considered a pseudoscience. Mekaneeky (talk) 23:34, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Pfft. Homeopathy has backing with scientific peer reviewed work too. With several meta-analyses in favor of it. Only, it turned out their methodology was faulty, as is common with science done by pseudoscience proponents. Unless that paper has gained traction and you can supply non-NLP sources agreeing with it, we have more than enough other sources to override that one.

That meta-analysis has to convince enough people to turn around the scientific consensus before we say that scientific consensus has changed. Let's wait until then. WP:NODEADLINE. It's only been seven years since it came out. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:51, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Having a degree in Behavioral Psychology as well as having attended NLP practitioner trainings; I know that in fact, NLP trainings and practitioners use behavioral observation similar to that used in Behavioral Psychological. Yet, on a subtler or finer level of physiological observation.

In behavioral psychology, observations are made regarding a target behavior that is going to be increased or decreased using positive or negative reinforcement patterns or schedules of reinforcement. The important point being, that these behaviors are defined in a way that two observers can agree on the target behavior using objective, sensory terms, of physical behavior.

A trained NLP Practitioner uses observation of physiology, and two observers use those physical observations, and can agree upon those observations in doing change work.

In NLP this is called “state.” In behavioral psychology this is called “desired behavior.”

One difference between Behavioral Psychology and Neuro Linguistic Programming, is that Behavioral Psychology only defines and observes external physical behavior. Where NLP observes a persons external physiology(state), as well as considers a persons internal experience or their subjective experience, through the own persons feedback.

If someone is in a state of joy, their physiology traits will be quite different than when observed in a state of panic or fear.

So because, objective, sensory observation is used in NLP. And these observations can be agreed upon using sensory terms between two observers; NLP is science based, not a pseudoscience, period.

The same stimulus response mechanisms taught in Behavioral psychology using a Skinner Box, are also used in NLP, but on a subtler level of peoples internal processes.

Since internal processes are subjective, NLP let’s the individuals subjectivity be interpreted and codified by the individual, using sub-modalities, such as the location of a feeling, the temperature or size of a feeling. NLP Isn’t a philosophy as such; but an experiential process. And it’s basic practices have roots in observation of physiological traits and uses a person’s physiology as a determinant, to apply treatment. Also, it uses physiological observation to determine successful outcomes or target states.

Indieside (talk) 17:40, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

None of this can be used for improving the article. This is not a forum. --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:58, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 May 2023

Please un-italicize "pseudoscience" in "...it has been called a pseudoscience." toward the end of the lead. It's just a normal word with no particular emphasis (which should be marked up as such rather than bare italics anyway) used while reading. Nothing in MOS:IT supports the use of italics here. Thanks, 35.139.154.158 (talk) 20:42, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

 Done 〜 Askarion ✉ 20:55, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Tony Robbins

The contribution of NLP to personal development industry has been understated in this article. Tony Robbins acknowledges Bandler and grinder's NLP in every seminar and acknowledged it as a major influence on him personally.

'The second most influential mentor in my life came to me when I was in my 20s. I met a man named John Grinder, who was the founder of Neuro-Linguistic Programming (NLP) — a communication approach that focuses on adapting a person’s neurological processes and behavioral patterns to achieve specific goals. John introduced me to the concept of modeling. He taught me that if you want to accelerate the tempo of mastery of any subject, you must find someone who is getting the results you want, study them, and do the same thing. Because “success leaves clues.” This has become the No. 1 secret in my life for anything. This is what I do, the curating of success and results, and it’s really the magic behind any great mentorship.' - https://www.tonyrobbins.com/mind-meaning/the-mentors-who-coached-me/

See also https://www.businessinsider.com/tony-robbins-money-book-carl-icahn-ray-dalio-2014-11 124.150.139.62 (talk) 15:17, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Biased article alert

While informative and no doubt well-researched, there seems to be a bias on the part of the author toward the pseudoscientific aspect of NLP, as this shows up several times in the article, both in its own section and in the introduction. Perhaps a little more neutrality is in order, lest we run the risk of a polemic in the guise of an objective treatment. 2601:643:4000:9070:3093:E204:A07A:21AD (talk) 19:25, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

??? I recommend this wikipedia essay related to pseudoscientific believes: Wikipedia:Why Wikipedia cannot claim the Earth is not flat

This article does not violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view. Rodrigo IB (talk) 19:31, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Definitely reads that way to me, biased and negative. 74.127.200.18 (talk) 14:26, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Please, leave personal opinions and perspectives out of this, I don't want to start a "debate" down here if it's not for the purpose of improving the article. By the standards of the Wikipedia, most editors would tell you that this article doesn't violate any of them. The wikipedia doesn't follow the "neutrality" from popular opinion. Which more often than not is used to generate a false debate for fallacious reasoning, unscientific thesis, doctrines and so on.

If NLP wants to demonstrate it's supposed effectiveness, then the burden it's on their advocates. Until that day, no one is in the wrong when it calls NLP pseudoscience. Rodrigo IB (talk) 16:02, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

This is worse than bias, it's ridiculous. Any source considering itself an encyclopedia that actually uses the authors of books like The Oak Island Mystery: The Secrets of the World's Greatest Treasure Hunt and you ignoring PsychCentral and the APA?! Literally, the American Psychological Association isn't cutting it regarding an approach that is taught at most universities in this country and instead you include the people who wrote a book about a haunted island? That isn't bias, that's moronic. The best part? Half of the bashing on this page, actually would be aimed at CBT considering the overlap is quite noticeable.

Just as an aside, there's a world famous philosopher who Wikipedia has his views on a subject actually in reverse because editors literally don't understand that he was the editor of an anthology of positions he argues against. The view of another thinker is what dominates his page and ascribed to him. This view is entirely contradictory in fact, because these 'editors' never looked at the table of contents (and to this day refuse to) much less actually read the damn book.

If Wikipedia was any worse it would be TMZ. 2603:9000:77F0:7F60:84E7:FFEF:63D2:98B6 (talk) 18:37, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

If you would like to suggest or make an edit to the article with reliable secondary sources in tow, you may. OverzealousAutocorrect (talk) 16:10, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

This is so common. You are the one being "moronic" (im just using your words, don't complain).

"Half of the bashing on this page, actually would be aimed at CBT considering the overlap is quite noticeable."

Ha!, no my lad. CBT and NLP are way more different than you seem to think or in the way which you deceviously portray it.

First, NLP is constructivist, most of the influence done in this aspect is directly from General Semantics; so to clarify. The theory of Alfred Korzybski was considered since the beginning as a "crankish" work, Bertrand Russell showed his disdain to the conception Korzybski made of "aristotelianism", which, according to Korzybski, is the main cause of "semantic-issues", to which the array of problems caused by it, can be solved thru "Non-aristotelian systems", even science can 'benefit' to this approach, because according to the count, "Science is ultimately verbal" (Science & Sanity p.10). I have read like just 600 pages of Science and Sanity and the problem is more than obvious, the point here being, that the soft-idealism of Korzybski, mainly based on linguistic constructivism (Even is worth pointing out that Neil Postman wrote about the similarities of Korzybski's linguistic notions and the work of Benjamin L. Whorf) affects negatively most of the theory made by Blander and Grinder because language doesn't influence thought in that form and degree, which some people don't seem to get.

And no, modern CBT is not REBT, yeah psychologists and therapists acknowledge some of the work of Albert Ellis. But, its flaws just left it out of "mainstream" therapy.

The funniest part for me is that even in the Institute of General Semantics, in the archive of articles there's a mention to the Structure of Magic (don't worry i uploaded it to the WebArchive :) ) and the similarities to GS.

So no tho, you are trying to portray two things that are way different as equals, the efficacy of CBT has nothing to do with NLP. Rodrigo IB (talk) 03:04, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Is there a non-pseudoscientific aspect of NLP? --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:56, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

"Intellectual property disputes" section seems poorly sourced

This section contains several citations marked as permanent dead links and I can't find record of a lawsuit called Not Ltd. v. Unlimited Ltd., et al.. There's another lawsuit, Bandler v. Hall, that I could find online that seems to tell a slightly different story about the dispute that took place between Bandler and Grinder in or around 1981. I think this section is in need of a cleanup. Does anyone here have any decent sources to offer on that topic? Or would most of these sources be offline? The Wikipedia Library is returning nothing useful from my search. 〜 Askarion ✉ 23:57, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

I suggest that you change the heading on currently "Intellectual Property Disputes" to "Legal Disputes" with the following introduction: "Neuro-Linguistic Programming was the subject of a series of contentious legal disputes, primarily between its co-founders, Richard Bandler and John Grinder. These disputes, spanning several decades, centered on intellectual property claims, allegations of breach of contract, and broader issues of commercial rights related to NLP." Then you can add some reliable sources to substantiate that. I also suggest adding something about the impact of these disputes. Something like: "The various lawsuits and their outcomes had a significant impact on the trajectory of NLP. The lack of a single, undisputed owner of NLP's intellectual property contributed to the unregulated and diverse nature of NLP training and certification practices." That could be in the following section. I do have an issue with neutrality with the term 'Granfalloons' in the section that follows. So my question is, how do we find a neutral alternative to "granfalloons" that still conveys the issue of potential meaninglessness of some certifications? --- Notgain (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 22:03, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Not to be confused with...

I think you should replace the 'not to be confused with Natural language programming' to the NLP disambiguation page. 124.150.139.62 (talk) 14:54, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

I meant to say to replace it with a link to the NLP disambiguation page. 124.150.139.62 (talk) 14:56, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

 Done: Added NLP disambiguation page to the top header in addition to the one already there, because Natural language programming does have a similar name and it's possible someone might confuse the two terms. 〜 Askarion ✉ 16:30, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

How do you know that someone would confuse the two? Can you cite the Wikipedia policy that you are basing this decision on? 124.150.139.36 (talk) 03:09, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

On the NLP disambiguation page, it currently listed Neuro-linguistic programming under the 'Personal Development' subheading and is described as "a pseudoscientific method aimed at modifying human behaviour". According to Google n-gram, Neuro-linguistic programming and Natural Language Processing are the two most prominent uses of NLP. In comparison the others are minor. So the first two should be listed at the top of that page, the other others in alphabetical order. Also, it should not be labelled pseudoscientific here. It is customary for scientific disputes and criticism to be the body of the main article, not on the disambiguation page. ---Notgain (talk) 22:17, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

There is absolutely no doubt that the two most common use of NLP, are Natural Language Processing and Neuro-linguistic programming (also, Neurolinguistic programming). I've updated the disambiguation page to reflect that. I determined that by searching on Google Scholar: "NLP + ("neuro-linguistic programming" OR "neurolinguistic programming" OR bandler OR grinder)". Neuro-linguistic programming has 17,000 results v. 303,000 results. The other uses are very small by comparison, E.g. NLP + ("natural law party") has less than 100 results. So Natural Language Processing is definitely the number one result. In academia, Natural Language Processing is certainly the most prevalent. However, in wider society I suspect the use of NLP to refer to Neuro-linguistic programming would be more prevalent. Just saying to answer this question, you'd definitely use Natural Language Processing! --Notgain (talk) 02:29, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

It's not a "scientific dispute". NLP is far outside of science. Read the article and the sources linked there. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:53, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Section on Persuasion ?

While NLP not been widely embraced by psychologists, it has been popular on the motivational and sales speaking circuit. This is yet covered in the current article. The following text book on persuasion could serve as a starting reference: Gass, R. H., & Seiter, J. S. (2022). Persuasion: Social influence and compliance gaining. Routledge. —-Notgain (talk) 11:43, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Pending changes

May I suggest that the page is changed from semi protection to pending changes so that edits can be made by unregistered or new users? This page has been semi protected for a long time and those engaged in sockpuppetry or disrupted editing have likely moved on. 124.150.139.36 (talk) 03:43, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

You can make a request for page unprotection here if you wish. Thank you! 〜 Askarion ✉ 16:22, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Those of us who have been around a long time know that they keep coming back and there is also past evidence of meat puppetry. -----Snowded ^TALK 04:43, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Extremely biased introduction

As a first-time wikipedia contributor, this article struck me as so incredibly biased that I had to create an account to comment on it.

"Neuro-linguistic programming (NLP) is a pseudoscientific approach to communication"

Why is it starting off like this right off the bat? It's starting out as opinion on NLP instead of just explaining what it is to the reader.

"NLP asserts that there is a connection between neurological processes, language and acquired behavioral patterns, and that these can be changed to achieve specific goals in life. According to Bandler and Grinder, NLP can treat problems such as phobias, depression, tic disorders, psychosomatic illnesses, near-sightedness, allergy, the common cold, and learning disorders, often in a single session. They also claim that NLP can "model" the skills of exceptional people, allowing anyone to acquire them."

These are distinct claims. Is there a connection between neurological processes, language, and behavioral patterns? Are there any scientists claiming there isn't one? This seems to me a very uncontroversial claim. The claim that NLP can treat all sorts of disorders including the common cold and allow you to acquire exceptional skills is a much, much stronger claim. The juxtaposition here is between an extremely weak and uncontroversial/plausible claim to start with, followed up by a ludicrously strong claim and the article is saying that this is what NLP is. Well as a reader of this article I would like to know more about the first claim. Is there any diversity in the field of NLP where some of it is making weaker, more plausible claims that are less pseudoscientific?

It seems to me that the article is so biased that it wants to say no, there isn't, never was, and never could be any version of NLP which is not pseudoscience and therefore should be dismissed. That's fine if that's your opinion, but that is not why I go to Wikipedia, to inform myself about a subject and as a starting point to explore it. I'm not interested in your opinion, I'm interested in an unbiased description of the subject that doesn't start right in the very first sentence expressing a dismissive attitude.

"There is no scientific evidence supporting the claims made by NLP advocates, and it has been called a pseudoscience.[11][12][13] Scientific reviews have shown that NLP is based on outdated metaphors of the brain's inner workings that are inconsistent with current neurological theory, and that NLP contains numerous factual errors.[10][14] Reviews also found that research that favored NLP contained significant methodological flaws, and that there were three times as many studies of a much higher quality that failed to reproduce the claims made by Bandler, Grinder, and other NLP practitioners.[12][1"

"No scientific evidence" is an absolute claim and seems very implausible. Really, there is not one shred of evidence anywhere that there is a connection between neurological processes, language, and behavioral patterns? Doesn't that describe the entire field of psychology? The principle of charity states that even if your opponent is not making the best possible argument for their claim, it is your job as someone with intellectual integrity to create the most plausible version of their claim, and construct the strongest possible argument for it (even if that is not the one they themselves are making). I believe this is a requirement for a neutral point of view, which is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia that any neutral observer would agree, this article is violating.

Instead of the article starting with the perspective that we should find everything wrong with NLP and ensure that the reader knows everything that is wrong about it, why not start with the perspective that yes, there may be parts of it - even large parts - which are pseudoscientific, but coming from a neutral point of view, these are some aspects of it which are more plausible and could mesh with a commonly held scientific worldview?

I am not an expert on NLP and I cannot go into detail about scientific studies for and against. But I think that at the very least, the introduction to this article could set a tone which is less biased and more designed to be informative rather than prescribe a judgement on the topic at hand. Mhugman99 (talk) 18:09, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia reflects what is in third party reliabe sources. Your opinions (and mine) are irrelevant. If you want to propose changes then please be specific and supply sources -----Snowded ^TALK 18:55, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

My comment refers to the manner in which the article reflects third party sources, specifically the tone and demeanor of the introductory paragraph, which in my view is not neutral. What processes does Wikipedia use to ensure that the way in which Wikipedia reflects third party sources is neutral, unbiased, and fair? Do we have to cite a third party source on how to cite a third party source, and does that not lead to infinite regress? It seems to me that authors of this article, rather than being accountable for their approach, are hiding their bias by presenting themselves as not authors at all, but merely transparent reflectors of other sources, which is scientifically impossible and in itself pseudoscientific. If this is the approach which is endorsed by the Wikipedia community, then so be it, but realize that it reflects poorly on its supposed image of neutrality it tries to project. Mhugman99 (talk) 19:57, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps you could consider less strongly-worded alternatives to heighten neutrality. For example, replace "pseudoscientific" with "controversial" or "lacking scientific support." Instead of "has been called a pseudoscience," consider "has been criticized as a pseudoscience.". I was thinking that this article might also cover the topic of what Prof Katherine Dormandy and Psychologist Bruce Grimley referred to as gatekeeping as they discussed in their recent paper "Gatekeeping in Science: Lessons from the Case of Psychology and Neuro-Linguistic Programming". They discuss the EMDR an NLP controversy. EMDR was once dismissed as a pseudoscience and is now considered a legitimate intervention according to United Kingdom's National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE). ---Notgain (talk) 22:59, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

External link: Gatekeeping in Science: Lessons from the Case of Psychology and Neuro-Linguistic Programming (Taylor & Francis); courtesy link. 〜 Askarion ✉ 23:23, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

See also Rosen's paperRevisiting the Origins of EMDR where he discusses the controversy about the possible source of the core pattern used in EDMR without citing sources in the NLP Community. Note that Shapiro denied this. ---Notgain (talk) 02:54, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

THe phrase "Prominent NLP-representatives reject this verdict" in the Gatekeeping article makes the point. Wikipedia is not balanced in a controversy, it reflects the weight of third party reliable sources. -----Snowded ^TALK 07:38, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Sure - they would probably in the first of the three types of NLPers identified by the authors: (1) Science-Minded NLP-ers (Seek scientific validation of NLP through research and theoretical development; recognize its limitations and the need for improvement), (2) Ascientific NLP-ers (View NLP as a practical tool without a strong scientific basis; focus on personal experience and anecdotal evidence), (3) NLP-Bullshitters (Promote NLP with exaggerated or unsubstantiated claims for commercial gain; often engage in pseudoscientific practices). You could probably identify different perspectives too. For example, Rosen believes that scientific inquiry should focus on investigating principles for changes, not trademarked or proprietary systems. I've personally held the view that those in the first category should just drop the name altogether. I don't know why I'm here. ---02:48, 28 April 2024 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Notgain (talk • contribs)

replace "pseudoscientific" with "controversial" Read WP:FRINGE and WP:FALSEBALANCE. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:56, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Skeptics may want to frame NLP solely as pseudoscience. However, NLP sits in this grey area. Its not fully embraced by mainstream psychology and not wholly rejected as a pseudoscience either. Wikipedia requires even fringe theories to be described fairly, including areas where the theory functions on some level (e.g., some NLP rapport-building techniques have common ground with established communication practices). --Notgain (talk) 08:15, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Do you have reliable sources for your opinion? --Hob Gadling (talk) 03:58, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

There are still high quality trials being registered/conducted on NLP techniques in medicine so it has not been wholly rejected eg. [2][3][4][5][6] Or are you asking for reliable sources that show rapport building techniques from NLP have common ground in established communication practises? —Notgain (talk) 05:12, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

The text book on Persuasion by Gass (see below for link) is a mainstream. Do you have access to it? —05:15, 30 April 2024 (UTC) Notgain (talk) 05:15, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Those are not reliable sources for your opinion. They are reliable sources you based your opinion on. Read WP:OR. You need sources explicitly saying something like Its not fully embraced by mainstream psychology and not wholly rejected as a pseudoscience either.

For the question of whether NLP is pseudoscience, it is not relevant that there are trials about NLP going on. There are trials about homeopathy going on, and it is still pseudoscience. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:01, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Hob - Even if there was a series of RCTs validating NLP therapeutic techniques in a variety of settings found their way into a systematic review in a high-ranking journal, it might justify reclassification as an evidence-based practise in clinical psychology but that's not going to make a science-based practise (see Rosen's work I cited above on EMDR and NLP). The point I was trying to make earlier was that ascientific NLP practitioners as Psychologist/NLP practitioner Bruce Grimley aptly noted (cited above), will continue to use their rapport-building techniques such as mirroring and matching to build rapport, the 12 language patterns of the meta model, etc. --Notgain (talk) 08:33, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

So your point is in vain. The neutrality policy of Wikipedia favors the academic consensus. As Hob pointed out, editors can't do original research. Rodrigo IB (talk) 17:31, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

"These are distinct claims. Is there a connection between neurological processes, language, and behavioral patterns? Are there any scientists claiming there isn't one? This seems to me a very uncontroversial claim. The claim that NLP can treat all sorts of disorders including the common cold and allow you to acquire exceptional skills is a much, much stronger claim."

In fact, there is just one, the much stronger claims are based (specifically in NLP) on the supposed strong connection between language and thinking. By my knowledge around NLP, most of this approach is based on general semantics and other different sources that are not worthy to discuss down here.

"It seems to me that the article is so biased that it wants to say no, there isn't, never was, and never could be any version of NLP which is not pseudoscience and therefore should be dismissed.[...]I'm interested in an unbiased description of the subject that doesn't start right in the very first sentence expressing a dismissive attitude.[...]No scientific evidence" is an absolute claim and seems very implausible. Really, there is not one shred of evidence anywhere that there is a connection between neurological processes, language, and behavioral patterns? The principle of charity states that even if your opponent is not making the best possible argument for their claim, it is your job as someone with intellectual integrity to create the most plausible version of their claim, and construct the strongest possible argument for it (even if that is not the one they themselves are making

The principle of charity never states that. For logical reasons, the principle of charity has limits.

You cannot create an argument in favor of your opponent or interlocutor(?), because you are subjecting their claims to a distorsion, a favorable one, yes, but a distorsion nonetheless.

Even you fall into a strawman, because you accuse the authors of the article with a supposed bias against NLP.

Wikipedia can claim something is a pseudoscience when there is scientific consensus around it. And still don't violate it's neutrality.

More on this subject here: Wikipedia:Why Wikipedia cannot claim the Earth is not flat

NLP is a pseudoscientific approach, and a few studies don't change that. Rodrigo IB (talk) 23:04, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

I am not a scientist in this field, I consider myself more a generalist and a philosophical thinker, so I'm going to answer from a kind of zoomed-out perspective here.

The modern-day science of chemistry has its roots in the pseudoscience of alchemy. Now, alchemy is by definition a pseudoscience, and I don't think it would be biased or controversial to claim that. But what if there is a future version of NLP which is scientific, which does take the connection between language, thought, and action seriously from a scientific point of view and establishes with strong evidence what those connections are, such that the input of language/thought (i.e. neurolinguistic programming) is linked, via these established processes, to desirable actions? Sure, it may not be possible to cure all illnesses or become an elite athlete with it - just like its not possible to turn lead into gold, like alchemists thought - but there is scientific potential in the field, the potential for a science to emerge from it.

Suppose "Wikipedia" existed in the year 1500, at the height of alchemical "science" - lets say in the form of some collaborative scrolls - and stated unequivocally, alchemy is a pseudoscience: it is not possible to create gold from lead, and all such attempts are foolish. Or rather, to use the language of the time, we would say it is blasphemy. Would this not involve a failure of the imagination, of all the possibilities of scientific chemistry? From that perspective, chemistry not having been invented yet, you would see no difference between chemistry and alchemy. It's all blasphemous, against God. And likewise, I'm saying, with this language of this article and the perspective it immediately stakes in the first sentence, it is like saying NLP blasphemes against the accepted practices of science. That establishes a limited perspective, since it is a new field and we don't know all the possibilities that are capable of being explored in it. So to be absolutely definitive that it is a pseudoscience is a biased position, the same as the 1500's churchmen would be biased not only against alchemy but also against legitimate chemistry.

So neutrality, in my view, requires more suspension of judgement with a new field that can be interpreted broadly and charitably in terms of its potential, whereas that same suspension of judgement may not be required for a historical field which has already been surpassed, like alchemy. Mhugman99 (talk) 15:51, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Love it, applaud your intellectual efforts. But i'm afraid the talking section purpose is not for an intellectual discussion around philosophy and what is and what is not science. More about Wikipedia's neutrality here:Wikipedia:Neutral point of view Rodrigo IB (talk) 17:00, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

I'd argue that questions of what is and is not science are inherently philosophical - see Philosophy of Science. But its fair to say that an internet philosopher's view doesn't in itself carry too much weight. So based on these guidelines, I will concur with Hob Gadling above: we would need sources saying something like "Its not fully embraced by mainstream psychology and not wholly rejected as a pseudoscience either." My comment was trying to introduce some ambiguity there, and I was reacting to the absolutely unambiguous statement at the beginning of the article ("NLP is a pseudoscientific approach") where I perceive there to be ambiguity, based on what I perceive the potential of this field could be from a philosophical lens, not so much what it actually is since I don't know enough about it to say. If a reliable source from philosophy of science were to be found arguing that actually there is some ambiguity about whether it is a pseudoscience, would that be enough to challenge the tone of the opening sentence, such that presenting NLP as unambiguously pseudoscientic would not be justified as a neutral point of view? Mhugman99 (talk) 17:48, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

You are proposing a change to a wikipedia article, you need to stick to Wikipedia's guidelines, not to your personal views around a field.

The claims of a disagreeing group are not taken into consideration to change the academic consensus, which is mainly taken into consideration in controversies around a pseudoscientific field.

More on this

WP:POV

WP:OR

Please, read carefully. Rodrigo IB (talk) 17:59, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Rodrigo. 97% of the experts Norcross surveyed in 2006 (cited in article) were phd level psychologists in the United States. It was no a randomised sample so limited in what you can infer about the population of academic consensus. Do you have a reliable source on this ‘academic consensus’? —21:20, 1 May 2024 (UTC) Notgain (talk) 21:20, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Which is one of the surveys done in academic consensus. That sole survey is not the whole picture in respect to the academic consensus, which is clear in the article and that's why its not the only one cited.

To this point, adding this study [7] Is even more worthy than the poorly suggested changes that have been put on the table recently... Rodrigo IB (talk) 22:15, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Passmore et al say NLP for coaching was poorly supported, not wholly rejected by psychological research. Like it or not, NLP is identified as preferred system of change for a large chunk of coaches registered with ICF. There are a number systematic reviews or comparative analyses in organisational change and HRD[8][9], and a review of evidence on NLP for anxiety[10]. How does that compare to the source you suggested in terms of weight? —00:01, 2 May 2024 (UTC) Notgain (talk) 00:01, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

"NLP is identified as preferred system of change for a large chunk of coaches registered with ICF."

Which is not a psychological association.

"There are a number systematic reviews or comparative analyses in organisational change and HRD"

I really hope tho, and im not kidding. That you didn't just picked the first results that appear in google schoolar.

My concern about the 3 papers that you link is that they don't support your point. Like, the first link [7] is a really small meta-analysis (which is more comparable to the study made by Passmore & Rowson).

" The literature search yielded 952 titles from which seven studies met all of the inclusion criteria. Findings indicate that NLP can be effective for improving a wide range of work-related psychological outcomes including self-esteem and occupational stress."

Yes, the abstract says that: "findings indicate that NLP can be effective for improving a wide range of work-related psychological outcomes".

But then the authors remark the fact that: "there were concerns regarding methodological rigor." Which makes the analysis non-conclusive.

The second study says something similar: "more rigorous research and universal regulations of practice are needed for NLP to move onto the next level of acceptance.", again, nonconclusive.

The last study lacks methodological rigor, if you don't believe me, the paper itself in the tenth page remarks: "This study has a diverse population so that biased factors occur, so further research is needed to find a uniform population".

So no, until NLP advocates and academics provide sufficient evidence for their claims and methods. NLP will still remain in the realm of pseudoscience. Independently of which "side" we are.

Wikipedia is not responsible to settle such debate. More on this here: WP:FLAT Rodrigo IB (talk) 01:23, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Just let the evidence speak for itself. I just searched for reviews of research since

Witkowski’s in 2012 as we have heavily cited it in this article. Do you have any recent reviews other than the ones I mentioned? —-Notgain (talk) 01:57, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

That's why i suggested the one of Passmore and Rowson which was done in 2019. Rodrigo IB (talk) 02:00, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

This one is more recent but focussed on nlp and anxiety. I’m not sure about the ranking of that journal but the journal that Witkowski was low ranking anyway so I do not know how to assess [11] —Notgain (talk) 02:21, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

polish psych bulletin has hindex of 18 and KnE Life Sciences of 11. Both considered moderate impact depending on field. What’s your opinion? —Notgain (talk) 02:35, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

The polish psychological bulletin is a reliable source. It doesn't violate the WP:V

If you have concerns in respect to that, then clarify them.

Independently of how reliable the 'British Journal of Guidance & Counselling' is. The study you present doesn't say that scientific consensus around NLP has changed. Other editors have said this, you cannot make conclusions based on a few studies. Because it violates Wikipedia's No original research policy.

Neither a survey can serve as an excuse; when is not the whole picture of academic consensus (neither the article suggests such point, because it cites meta-analysis which show the lack of scientific evidence around NLP). Rodrigo IB (talk) 02:36, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

There is no issue with discussing sources to arrive at a consensus on the talk page, in fact it should be encouraged. I was referring to the "Effect of Neuro-Linguistic Programming (NLP) on Anxiety: A Systematic Literature Review"[12] that was published in "KnE Life Sciences" (that has a similar impact factor / h-index as the polish psychological bulletin). It was published after Passmore and Rowson (as it cites those authors). However, it focussed on just the application of the evaluation of NLP for the treatment of anxiety disorders. The focus was also on papers in the 5 years prior to the paper was published (2015-2020) e.g. [13][14][15] I must apologise as I cannot read Indonesian so cannot read those papers. The systematic review concluded that "The results showed that there was an effect of NLP on anxiety. NLP can improve knowledge, skills and attitudes, communication skills, self-management, mental health, reduce work stress, and self-efficacy. The biggest role of NLP therapy is to help humans communicate better with themselves, reduce unexplained fear, control negative emotions, and anxiety." --Notgain (talk) 04:51, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

"There is no issue with discussing sources to arrive at a consensus on the talk page", in respect of what the article should contain, not of what we can conclude of a few studies. Which violates the forever mentioned WP:OR.

"must apologise as I cannot read Indonesian so cannot read those papers." So you are citing sources which you don't have a clear conclusion.

And also the 14 link is broken. Rodrigo IB (talk) 04:59, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

I corrected that link (above). If I understand you correctly, you are asking us to resist the urge to make claims extending beyond the explicit findings of the "Effect of Neuro-Linguistic Programming (NLP) on Anxiety: A Systematic Literature Review"[16]. Citing the conclusion of a systematic review or the papers within it would not be WP:OR. Please clarify what you meant. --Notgain (talk) 05:52, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

That a study is not enough to change the scientific consensus around NLP. A few studies cannot be taken into consideration to say that NLP is on a gray area, which me and other editors have been repeating to you many times. Rodrigo IB (talk) 06:29, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Believe it or not, I am a scientist at heart. I made a proposed change as a new section so we can ground discussion to an actual change to the article. I agree with what you said, a single Systematic Review would not change scientific consensus per se. Except perhaps if it was a Cochrane review but the results of the RCTs I published earlier have not been released and certainly not part of any review that I have seen. --Notgain (talk) 07:39, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

"Except perhaps if it was a Cochrane review but the results of the RCTs I published earlier have not been released and certainly not part of any review that I have seen."

Which part of no original research you don't understand? Rodrigo IB (talk) 16:49, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

I meant ‘linked above’ (not published). You said that a single study cannot change consensus so I gave you the counter example of how Cochrane Review which is the bastion of scientific consensus. —-Notgain (talk) 20:07, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

I said a few studies too.

Just to clarify. Are you suggesting to edit the article using as a source a chunk of research or a systematic review done by yourself? Rodrigo IB (talk) 20:11, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

If I did publish a systematic review in a reputable journal then it would be best if someone else cites it on Wikipedia. But if it was a Cochrane Review it probably wouldn’t matter if I was an author on it or a paper reviewed by it, the peer review process is so rigorous. —-Notgain (talk) 20:51, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Can you provide a link to your review. Rodrigo IB (talk) 20:54, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

There are a couple paragraphs in this[17] which would be relevant for this article to the historical roots of NLP and the influence of the Palo Alto group, MRI and Gregory Bateson on its model. —Notgain (talk) 00:20, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

I just wanted to flag that the International Journal of Communication has a strong reputation (h-index of 61). That paper I linked has some good background information in early development section of the current article. Actually, I'd propose to change "Early development" to "Origins and Influences", and use this paper as a key source. --Notgain (talk) 03:43, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Proposed Change to "Psychotherapeutic" Section / Scientific Criticisms

1. Proposed text (at end of Psychotherapeutic section): "Recent research suggests potential benefits of NLP techniques in managing anxiety. A 2021 systematic literature review (Nompo, Pragholapati, Thome, 2021) found that NLP might improve communication, reduce fears, control emotions, and support overall anxiety management."--Notgain (talk) 07:28, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
2. Proposed Text (Scientific criticisms, Add after the part discussing meta-analyses that found no evidence for NLP's assumptions): "However, ongoing research investigates specific applications of NLP techniques. For example, a 2021 systematic literature review (Nompo, Pragholapati, Thome, 2021) suggested that NLP techniques could aid in communication, emotional regulation, and fear reduction, potentially supporting anxiety management. Further research is needed to confirm these findings and explore the limits of NLP's therapeutic use."--Notgain (talk) 07:28, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

   Why you didn't add the study by Passmore and Rowson?, It's relatively recent in the academic world in respect to NLP. There are a few studies, i don't see a reason to kept it out.

   Also, the studies you have put on the table have methodological issues, small population samples or inconclusive results. Which means that there is no such "ambiguity" to the academic consensus around NLP.

   Which according to WP:V and WP:NOR policies, means that the changes you ask for, cannot be done. Rodrigo IB (talk) 16:46, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

   Passmore and Rowson’s critical review was cited in Nompo et al’s systematic review. Passmore was interested in the psychological research on NLP related to the new field of evidence based coaching psychology. Nompo was more narrowly focused validation of NLP techniques for reducing anxiety. —-19:59, 2 May 2024 (UTC) Notgain (talk) 19:59, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

   I suggest the study made by the University of Reading, because if the changes you want to put forward are done just like you present them; then it would be an unbalanced 'picture' in respect to recent research. The title of the topic that you suggested involves scientific criticisms too, so it's a wider scale to just the studies done about the supposed benefits of NLP on anxiety. Rodrigo IB (talk) 20:14, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

   On what basis? —-Notgain (talk) 21:01, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

   On the already mentioned Wikipedia's neutral point of view. Even if was the case (which is not) that there was an ongoing debate in which the pseudoscientific status of NLP was in doubt. The policy of neutrality in that particular case, dictates that both "sides" should be presented proportionately, for that a reliable source such as the University of Reading could be an excellent addition to the article. Rodrigo IB (talk) 21:08, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

   Can you propose alternative to what I proposed so it is grounded in changes to the article? —-21:36, 2 May 2024 (UTC) Notgain (talk) 21:36, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

   Taking what the studies you put on the table say at face value, the changes would be: "Recent research around NLP has provided mixed results in the use and practice of its techniques in different approaches. A 2021 systematic literature review (Nompo, Pragholapati, Thome. 2021) found that NLP might improve communication, reduce fears, control emotions, and support overall anxiety management.

   Another systematic review by the University of reading (Passmore et al. 2019) found no evidence to the multiple claims of NLP benefitis on coaching. The authors advice practioners and people interested in the field, to avoid NLP in favor of models or techniques with a clear empirical basis." Rodrigo IB (talk) 22:08, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

   “However, ongoing research investigates specific applications of NLP techniques. For example, a 2021 systematic literature review (Nompo, Pragholapati, Thome, 2021) suggested that NLP techniques could aid in communication, emotional regulation, and fear reduction, potentially supporting anxiety management. Further research is needed to confirm these findings and explore the limits of NLP’s therapeutic use.”…”Additionally, Passmore and Rowson’s critical review (2019) raised questions about the empirical support for multiple NLP claims in coaching and it emphasizes the need for coaching psychologists and individuals interested in the field of coaching to consider evidence-based models or techniques.” —-Notgain (talk) 23:31, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

   “However, ongoing research investigates specific applications of NLP techniques."

   Not a neutral tone. You are implying that all the research before is not valid or "not enough" to sustain that NLP is a pseudoscience. Even when we take a face value the studies you present (assuming no methodological issues or other factors that make those sources reliable); the same studies don't support the changes you propose to the article.

   "For example, a 2021 systematic literature review (Nompo, Pragholapati, Thome, 2021) suggested that NLP techniques could aid in communication, emotional regulation, and fear reduction, potentially supporting anxiety management" Just, eliminate the "For example".

   " Passmore and Rowson’s critical review (2019) raised questions about the empirical support for multiple NLP claims in coaching and it emphasizes the need for coaching psychologists and individuals interested in the field of coaching to consider evidence-based models or techniques.”

   The "raised questions about the empirical support for multiple NLP claims in coaching" is not something that the authors left unclear, since the lack of empirical evidence it's a conclusion clearly stated in the paper. "emphasizes the need for coaching psychologists and individuals interested in the field of coaching to consider evidence-based models or techniques.", in that part, the authors advice against the use of NLP due to their findings, which i think that is preferable to remark as a guidance.

   You can write for the different papers that you present: "researchers suggest the need for further investigation". Which is more neutral language, so there is no confusion if it's a personal conclusion or something clearly stated by the sources (which many editors, including me, don't allow). Rodrigo IB (talk) 03:40, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

   Another way to not overstate Nompo et al 2021 systematic review would be to mention its limitations (the focus on anxiety, only including papers in five years prior to study, 2015-2020, or the small number of studies). Passmore and Rowson 2019 was a more comprehensive critical review as it also critiques the previous research across domain such as counseling psychology, education, etc. --Notgain (talk) 04:45, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

corrections: Satir, Perls

The article currently says that Bandler and Grinder [modeled] "Virginia Satir so they could produce what they termed the Meta-Model". This is not consistent with what Bandler and Grinder claimed, and is at odds with the scholarly sources. Virginia Satir was the co-founder of the Mental Research Institute and was a prominent member of the Palo Alto Group. (see Wilder, 1979) as cited in [18] and they later co-authored a book together with her titled "Changing with families" (ISBN 0-8314-0051-X) published by Science and Behavior Books in 1976. However, according to Bandler and Grinder, the Meta-Model was modelled from Fritz Perls (Gestalt therapy) in addition to Virginia Satir, and the Milton-Model was "modeled" from Milton Erickson. Amit Pinchevski (2022)[19] citing Dr Robert S. Spitzer, a Prominent American Psychiatrist and former Chair of American Psychiatric Association's DSM taskforce, states that "In fact, NLP was conceived after Bandler (a university student at the time) was hired to record and transcribe both a month long workshop that Satir conducted in Canada and teaching films featuring the psychiatrist Fritz Perls. Bandler spent several months listening meticulously to the recordings, eventually adopting many of the two’s voice patterns and mannerisms" (see Spitzer, 1992). Karen Stollznow who is also cited in the same paragraph in her book also acknowledges that Meta-Model was modeled from Perls and Milton-Model from Erickson (See p.236 of Stollznow 2014 book 'Language Myths, Mysteries and Magic). Stollznow asserts that these models do not accurately represent those individuals. --Notgain (talk) 06:16, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Just wanted to make a correction. Dr Robert S. Spitzer (the one who published Bandler and Grinder's first book The Structure of Magic) is a neurologist but not the renowned Robert L. Spitzer who chaired DSM-III taskforce and was probably the most well-known psychiatrist of his time as I mentioned earlier. --Notgain (talk) 08:29, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Morgan 1993

Removed the following from further reading because it is impossible to find and its outdated or near impossible to find: Morgan, Dylan A. (1993). "Scientific Assessment of NLP". Journal of the National Council for Psychotherapy & Hypnotherapy Register. Spring. 1993. --Notgain (talk) 09:42, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

This has been discussed in the past in Talk:Neuro-linguistic programming/Archive_4#Morgan and Heap. The consensus was to replace any citations with citations to Heap. But that was already done and Morgan isn't used, so I agree removing it from Further reading is fine. Skyerise (talk) 11:15, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Looks like it... These were the Heap papers: [20]

[21][22][23][24] --Notgain (talk) 13:16, 6 May 2024 (UTC)