Talk:Neuro-linguistic programming/Archive 7

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

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Science

(this is a draft I've been putting together for my POV on the NPOV portrayal of NLP and science. It has some bits I'm quite happy with, and some bits that are incomplete or useless... I ran out of time and I'm going to bed!... I'm putting this here anyway and if anyone can help clarify or expand (without removing) please do) GregA 13:41, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

NLP began outside the academic mainstream. Many trainers describe NLP as a science, or as an art and a science (John Grinder), though there are also many NLP practitioners and trainers who don't refer to science at all. NLP is often described as "the study of the structure of subject experience", which fits the informal definition of science as "any systematic field of study, or the knowledge gained from it". However NLP's principles and epistemology differ from typical scientific studies - NLP does not teach or use the scientific method, nor does it use psychological statistical methods. Psychological testing of NLP processes has been done (and continues to be done) with varied results, and some responses from the NLP community to this research have lead some researchers to describe NLP as pseudoscientific (Lilienfeld et al 2003).

Comments

Hello Greg. Firstly, you will have to state exactly what is not a science, and who says NLP is not a science. As it stands, NLP presents itself as a science and that is how it is sold according to the literature. HeadleyDown 17:01, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

NLP and Psychology

NLP and Psychology have different approaches to people. When working with subjects, psychologists wish to ensure that any interventions have been researched and validated to ensure appropriate use and application (regardless of how the intervention was created). In contrast, NLP processes are taught as modeled on effective therapists, with the principle of constantly communicating with a client and adjusting what is being done to ensure appropriate use and application. These approaches can be combined (eg: NLP could model a process from an effective therapist, train multiple therapists, and Psychology could research whether the new process is effective), but the training and background of a Psychologist is quite different to an NLP practitioner's - and research has suffered.

Further differences exist between NLP Modeling and Psychological reseach - including:

NLP attempts to avoid having any beliefs or expectations (a priori knowledge) during the initial stages of modeling (or while working with a subject). Psychological research uses the scientific method which includes making a hypothesis - which is a proposed explanation to be researched to determine its validity - and NLP classifies this as a filter on our experience, something which may mask or distort what is being studied.
NLP models individuals to study the way they do what they do (to find individual examples of excellent processes), Psychological research uses representative sample groups combined with statistical analyses to determine overall effects and their significance.

Many Psychotherapies lack research support and there is a strong argument from the Psychology community to only use researched and validated techniques. Many therapists argue that the strict controlling manner in which psychologists study a therapy actually negates the therapies effectiveness (by isolating 1 or 2 variables of the therapy from all other associated factors).

NLP is not a type of Psychology

NLP can model a therapist, but it can also model a golf pro (for instance). NLP would model the golf pro, teach the new "golf" process to multiple people - and THEN the new golfer's performance can be measured (by playing multiple games).

Comments

Greg, you have to take into account that NLP claims that many things are models, and therefore NLP modeling is vaguely defined. For example it states that the SMART goals setting standard is a model. If so, then NLP modeling claims to be far more than the method you describe. Quite frankly, the less you mention about NLP modeling, the better for you. Otherwise, there is plenty of criticism that can make your lines look really stupid. HeadleyDown 17:01, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi Headley. I had no idea you didn't understand NLP's definition of modeling. 6 weeks back there was a criticism on the site implying that NLP models were of low quality and referencing Michie's info on Psychological models .. but it totally misunderstood NLP modeling. I wrote a section at the time, but JP criticised it (iirc) as irrelevant to NLP modeling (which it was), so it was removed. If there is still this confusion perhaps something must be said. [1] GregA 11:03, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Hello Greg. I certainly understand NLP does not like to give good definitions, and this follows with their use of the term "model". This has been criticised and NLP modeling has been criticised by Carroll (PHD) and others. I remember that someone asked what it meant that NLP models were different from psych models, and so an explanation was provided (Psych models show statistically measured associations between constructs, and the constructs themselves are subjected to thorought factor analysis and such). I think I still have that explanation stored away somewhere, though it needs to be shortened, it could provide useful in explaining Carroll and other's view (an option somewhere down the list of priorities). Regards HeadleyDown 11:44, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Scientific Testing

NLP processes have been tested and the results are inconsistent. Several psychologists interpret the mixed results as indicative against all NLP.

"NLP has been empirically tested over many years, and it has been found to be largely ineffective (Thaler Singer & Lalich, 1996)."
"A review of research showed that NLP is scientifically unsupported (Heap 1988)."

Early NLP research (pre 1987) was almost exclusively on representation systems (such as Eye Accessing Cues & Preferred Representation Systems) and largely found these to be unsupported. Later research expanded to other NLP processes (but less research), and there has been some more recent outcome-based research showing significant effects.

Comments

Sorry, Greg, but as we have many requests for exact quotes and citations, the line will read, NLP is scientifically unsupported, it's principles are unsupported, its's effectiveness is unsupported, and it is considered ineffective by Mr, blah blah etc.HeadleyDown 17:01, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Representation System Research

Prior to 1987, most research of NLP focussed on the primary representation systems (VAKGO)- particularly the theory that we have a Preferred Representation System (PRS - a system used in preference to all others). These studies have mostly failed to find any evidence to support the existence of a preferred system, and have also rarely found a correlation between the words used with an eye movement (eg: saying "It looked promising" should correspond to a unique eye movement, often up to the left) - (Reviews include Druckman & Swets, 1988; Heap, 1989). Platt (2003) cites 1/3 of studies supporting representation systems theories.

Druckman & Swets (1988) note that Richard Bandler (NLP co-creator) approached them during the government review and said that the Preferred Representation System was no longer an important component of NLP. It is not stated whether this came about through internal NLP development or was the result of the psychological research results.

Comments

Greg, here you are editing selectively. We have a great deal of views that state after 1990 that NLP modeling is highly suspect, if not pseudoscientific. HeadleyDown 17:01, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

That's nice. This section is on Rep System Research. BTW, since you aren't clear on modeling which do you mean here? GregA 11:17, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Hello Greg. Modeling draws a lot of background from Dilts, Bandler, and Grinder and their BAGEL "model". This was developed early on and is still used. They claim that it is a model in itself. As above, it is used to model geniuses as can be read about in Dilt's and other's books about Einstein, Jesus of Nazareth, Sherlock Holmes:) and others. Its not that I am unclear on modeling, its just that NLP is both particularly vague and unclear on modeling and erroneous/pseudoscientific according to basic tennets and claimed efficacy (according to critics). Regards HeadleyDown 11:53, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Comments

Greg, again, you are delving into discussion. If you want to do this, the article will be far bigger than necessary, and I notice that there is far more negative than positive in Druckman's paper (look at the section on the background concepts for instance). You will be wise to keep it breif. HeadleyDown 17:01, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

The representation system research has been criticisd by the NLP community as not effectively testing the actual NLP processes. This criticism includes the practitioner not being trained by NLP trainers, confusion between primary representation systems and preferred representation systems, inappropriate contexts to study representation systems, poor questions used to elicit these behaviours, and lack of calibration to each individual.

Comments

Greg, here you are overrepresenting a paper (Einspruch, that has since then been completely found to be wrong, including the addition of further empirical evidence. With further corroborating triangulation with recent authors. HeadleyDown 17:01, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Yeah Einspruch is one criticism. Andy Bradbury is another. More than either of them though is Druckman & Swets comments on problems in all the PRS studies. (Yes, ALL). GregA 11:17, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Research on other NLP processes

NLP contains many different processes for change work, though the great majority of research is on the Representation Systems. The first and principle NLP process is the metamodel (a pattern for linguistic intervention) and there is little research on the metamodel at all.

There is other minor research supporting various processes - V/K Synaesthesia patterns, Spelling strategies, Rapport, submodalities, swish pattern, and metaprograms [2]. Platt (2001) cites 9 studies of the phobia reduction process, of which 5 supported the process. No research on individual patterns is published in journals indexed by Medline, whether supporting or not supporting their efficacy.

(this section needs fleshing out considerably, and correction. There are multiple studies on specific processes though none indexed in Medline. I'm also assuming there will be some studies which show no support for various patterns. I'd like to identify these). I'd say the Research subpage also has more which I'll add asap (if someone else doesn't first)

Comments

Greg. It does not matter how much you flesh it out. The conclusions will make the whole circular extremely stupid looking. Again, the wise move would be to keep it brief. HeadleyDown 17:01, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

I was hoping you would provide some counter to the Research subpage stuff. I'm clear on PRS studies but this less so. GregA 11:17, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Moved headley's comments to the right place!GregA 11:17, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

OK, Greg, I have done some more work on the research you presented (the small positive support). I can find at least double the amount of research that looks at those NLP areas and shows negative findings, plus it points to the above research as being flawed or explainable by other means (not NLP). Now, I believe I am quite a mild reviewer and I generally pass PhD candidates on the first review as long as the hypotheses and arguments are sound, and pass conference papers on the first or second round after corrections. But to present your own research to this article is strictly against NPOV and you will end up with wars over each and every paper you present. That is going to be extremely antagonistic to the goals of wikipedia. Just picture the amount of dispute that you and other proNLPers have given others over the reviews, and apply that to each of the single research papers you present. That's going to be totally against normal wikipedia policy and convention, and a complete waste of time for all. Regards HeadleyDown 04:57, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

That's excellent, you've found lots I assume you have some links? I don't want to make this section big but I do want to read your proof that you're not making up stuff GregA 11:17, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi Greg. I have no weblinks, but plently of papers. However, similar to your thesis, that is my thesis. I have no place presenting it here or on the article. You can assume what you wish about my comments. You already seem to assume that highly respected professors are biased and should not be represented, and you and others have already removed those views at times and on multiple occasions. The fact remains, the views of scientists are highly relevant, especially in cases where you present pseudoscientific claims and argument. Regards HeadleyDown 11:30, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Outcome based Research

Once again... this needs more info.. anyone want to fill in some more?

There are several quality outcome-based studies, which don't define which NLP processes are used or in what combination, but study NLP practitioners in real world situations (actual clients), to achieve a given outcome.

Of the 6 outcome based studies cited in Medline, all showed a significant positive effect for the NLP test cases. Other outcome based studies show similar support for the NLP processes as a whole. Studies show results such as more effective physical rehabilitation for patients, greater success in quitting smoking, positive effects on the home environment, reductions in social anxiety, and increased self actualisation.

These studies are criticised for their lack of controls and/or placebo treatment. Although positive changes were found in the NLP treatment, the research mostly leaves some room to attribute the changes to something other than NLP specifically (Eisner 2000). For instance, the change may have occurred over time anyway, or be related to subject expectations or some other aspect of the therapy (eg just meeting and talking).

The positive results, while not conclusive, have been noticed by the business and government sector, with endorsements for NLP training in police and law enforcement, many management and staff training programs, and by various health services.

Comments

Greg, there is no outcome based research that supercedes the empirical results of controlled pre-clinical experiments. You need to get back into those research tomes and start to look into issues of academic rigour. HeadleyDown 17:01, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Mmm, GregA!..... You do seem to be proposing all out war. Your suggestions go against every neutral editor including VoiceOfAll's suggestion that redundancy be reduced. Furthermore, your suggestion would lead to disputes on all of those articles plus the only way we could properly represent the arrangement is by presenting a 500 kb article of mostly negative articles and by stating "GregA states that these particular articles are really cool, but Drenth, Lilienfeld, Heap, Sharpley, Eisner, Singer and all the others have used their expert judgment to conclude that the evidence shows NLP is unsupported and/or ineffective or erroneously based and pseudoscientific and so on". I believe your suggestion will lead to long and difficult editing trouble plus all the flaming you could take. JPLogan 07:50, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Sorry Headley and JPLogan. Are you both saying you have no outcome based research that shows NLP to be ineffective? It is not our place to judge whether Outcome based research is applicable - there are certainly those who say it's the ONLY thing that matters, and there are empirical researchers who want to control all variables. Medline considered these studies to be valid. So back to the point - do you have ANY outcome based research counter-examples? GregA 11:17, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

The Pseudosciences

NLP is considered to be a pseudoscience by several authors. NLP has no central control. They see it as having an over-reliance on anecdotal evidence, and linked to this an absence of self correction (practitioners will continue to use a process based on their own experience in preference to a psychological study). NLP has no scientific research program and approaches new processes quite differently to Psychology - the lack of a scientific research program within NLP is seen by some psychologists as a lack of connectivity with past studies to do systematic research, and also as an avoidance of peer review. The NLP community has criticised psychological research of NLP processes, and this is seen by some as NLP making ad hoc hypotheses, and a refusal to accept contrary evidence. The lack of apparent effort to research NLP processes is also seen as a reversed burden of proof.

Part of this is NLP's fundamentally different approach to psychology. Also, the lack of central control (or widely accepted standards bodies) within NLP means that when a process is changed, practitioners may not learn of the change. There is no academic community within NLP to encourage a research program, and the goals of NLP are quite different to Psychology. NLP may be a pseudoscience, or a new way of studying people (a protoscience), or it may not be a science at all.

Comments

Greg, there is a strong desire within the promotional editors such as yourself to skirt around issues of effectiveness (that has already been falsified). Your overall effort has been one of presenting your own thesis, rather than the views of academics who present the science surrounding NLP. I am happy with you writing as many of these essays as you like. If anything, it just shows how desperate you are. You want to take a simple scientific statement - (NLP is scientifically unsupported, or NLP has received no reliable evidence for effectiveness and so on, plus an increasingly significant scientific view is that NLP is pseudoscientific) and turn it into a 1000 word essay in order for it to mean something else. The fact is, you are not working encyclopaedically. You are just trying to use wikipedia to promote your business. HeadleyDown 17:07, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Just a last quick reply I'm very short on time. We are discussing effectiveness.... you are skirting the issue. I would much rather present a review, I do not consider books on cults, skeptics dictionary, or pseudoscience to be unbiased reviews. This article has bloomed for many reasons - one thing I've noticed is an editor sees a NLP perspective mangled and doesn't want to delete since there are reverts, so they add an NLP perspective... it grows, repeats, gets changed. If you allowed an NLP perspective the article would shorten considerably - and I note you've just suggested that this week, almost identical to many other editor's suggestions (I know I said it too)... I agree. JP doesn't. Oh well. GregA 11:17, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

There is a fundamental misunderstanding going on:

Writing for an encyclopedia is not the same as writing for an academic paper. It's more like writing the bibliography for an academic paper. We aren't trying to decide what is "true" and what isn't. To be honest, we don't care what "the truth" is, in that sense, because it's not what an encyclopedia is. An encyclopedia is a collation of multiple perspectives and views. It's more like the bibliography of a paper (listing all kinds of sources so long as they bear on the topic) than the paper and its conclusion itself. Every view of note is in there, represented neutrally. Theres no decision to make, few opinions to form, other than to observe which views seem to be more or less common views of note, and to understand each (and its sources) well enough to document.

We care that we document each view fully and with understanding. That is the "truth" we work to here. That, and that alone. Our truth is the truth of the bibliography, and the measure is, have we represented the various more noteable multiple different views. Drawing conclusions from all of them is a use of an encyclopedia, not the work of encyclopaedists.

FT2 01:18, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

This is an erroeneous and objectionable view which does not reflect the content of artcicles on Wikipedia that are concerned with scientific matters. Consider Wikipedia's article on Earth. Coverage of "fruitcake" theories such as the earth being flat or hollow is reduced to a solitary sentence: 'In the past there were varying levels of belief in a flat Earth because of this'. Thus in an article of many hundreds of words, the view that the Earth is flat -- because it is unsupported by science -- is merely mentioned in passing. That is not to say that there are not people that contend that the Earth is flat (see http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/fe-scidi.htm), or that the Earth is hollow (see http://www.v-j-enterprises.com/holearth.html), or that the earth was colonised by space aliens (see http://www.rael.org/download.php?view.1). If what you were contending were true we would find the Wikipedia Earth article giving coverage to not only every nutty idea about the earth but equal coverage to every nutty idea and the scientific view. The Flat Earth Society's conception of the Earth as flat and the Hollow Earth advocates view that the Earth has a habitable hollow core would stand as peers to the scientific view that earth is spherical and solid. If your reading of Wikipedia policy is sound then it would be appropriate for you to explain the absence of pseudoscientific theories from the Earth article (for example). You aren't advocating Wikipedia policy but instead a post-modernist worldview with its associated epistemological relativism, eclecticism and the zealotry about not "privileging" one view above another. If your and FuelWagon's editorial intention -- which is dissociated from Wikipedia policy and content -- were fulfilled, the usefulness, reliability and credibility of Wikipedia would be severely damaged. A cursory survey of Wikipedia content makes it evident that Wikipedia does indeed privilege science above pseudoscience, superstition, speculation and conjecture. This is true irrespective of the quantity of people advocating a non-scientific view or the passion with which they advocate their non-scientfic views. The consensus of scientific opinion is that NLP is empirically unsupported, theoretically unsound and pseudoscientific. flavius 02:57, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

The reasons that flat earth is not heavily represented here is as best I can work out:

It is not a widely held view

Neither is NLP relative to the worldwide population of psychiatrists, psychologists, neurologists, linguists, philosophers, and computer scientists. flavius 03:54, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Unlike psychology, it is a view that can be proven or disproven rather than opinioned.

Modern psychology is experimental psychology not armchair (or barstool in the case of Bandler and Grinder) theorising. Matters of psychology are no more "opinioned" than matters of geology. flavius 03:54, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

There is a lot to say about earth. There probably isn't much to say about it being round, either. Its shape is noted in passing, and gets little space regardless.

That is incorrect. The implications of the Earth being flat are profound and widespread. flavius 03:54, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia privileges notable views, not just the one most notable view.

On matters of science (versus religion or aesthetics) there is only one notable view, namely that of the scientific community. flavius 03:54, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia describes each honestly in its own light, regardless of which one may be thought true.

"Fruit Loop" opinions are typically distinguished by a qualification that there is no evidence to support the view. They are not erected upon stilts and marched around in a surreal parade. flavius 03:54, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia lists evidence where appropriate but it does not advocate.

I see no demands for advocacy from the critical editors. The problem here appears to be that you would like the actual position of numerous prominent (and in some cases preeminent eg. Levelt) scientists regarding NLP censored or placed on equal footing with the baseless opinions of NLP promoters. This is perverse. The NLP article would achieve NPOV by reflecting the status of NLP amongst scientists and clinicians. flavius 03:54, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

In addition,

The word "objectionable" is personal opinion and not of value here.

No it isn't. In so far as your editorial intentions conflict with NPOV policy then they are objectionable. flavius 03:54, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia has its own perspective. It's not post modern or relative. It's called NPOV and while you edit here, it's the water you and I both swim in. Read it carefully, again -- all of it. Especially the bits about writing for the enemy.
Last, did you do as I suggested long ago and look up how genuine pseudosciences such as Homeopathy are represented in Wikipedia? I think you should. Try to understand why they are written as they are.

What of the Homeopathy article? How did you distinguish Homeopathy as a "genuine pseudoscience" and NLP -- by implication -- as non-genuine psuedoscience? Using what criteria? Drenth and Levelt both regard NLP as a pseudoscience. Don't you think Levelt -- the director of the Max Planck Institute of Psycholingusitics -- can distinguish genuine science from bunkum? flavius 03:54, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

FT2 03:20, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

OK, FT2, I think we should start talking about how people write on the article, rather than how they present their findings on the discussion page.

Perhaps I can give my own view on pseudoscience (for what its worth) Yes, genuine pseudosciences are treated exactly as they have been presented within science. Homeopathy is a really interesting one as it does have some close similarities with NLP (placebo and so on) and yet it is far less measurable by scientists. NLP, in contrast has undergone a lot more testing, and the conclusion was that for effectiveness sake, the US army (and it's director, plus the 14 or so profs who did the research) decided it was not effective. They rejected NLP as it is not effective. In line with providing explanation for pseudosciences, they did present other methods that were scientifically explained and showed efficacy. I believe that this article may be slightly better if chosen alternatives (by scientists) were presented. Anyway, NLP is more genuinely pseudo due to having more characteristics of pseudoscience, plus it has been well tested and has been falsified to an overwhelming level (Lilienfeld 2003) yet it is still promoted using scientific terms but in a grossly misleading way (Winkin 1991). We do have a duty (according to wikipedia) to briefly explain why there is a view that NLP is pseudoscientific. HeadleyDown 04:14, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

As far as presentation goes, stating that "Scientists such as Smith, Jones and 30 others said ......." seems to be doable, as long as you are willing to apply that format to the rest of the article. HeadleyDown 04:14, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Headley, I'm going to point you one last time to WP:NPOV. Specifically to the very first section:

"Articles should be written without bias, representing all majority and significant minority views fairly. This is the neutral point of view policy."

"It [NPOV] says to fairly represent all sides of a dispute by not making articles state, imply, or insinuate that only one side is correct."

Read that and think about it. You, and flavius, and Logan, and everyone else involved. Here, on Wikipedia, you learn to edit neutrally rather than advocating, and thats a bottom line. That is the definition of wikipedia "neutral". You are a scientist. You understand the concept "laws of nature". On wikipedia, NPOV is a law of nature. Laws of nature are ignored at one's own risk, since they do not stop existing and impacting you just because you think they should be different.

Let me apply this directly and impersonally to your situation and editing. You probably see yourself equivalent to a scientist pushing back misinformation. I see you as equivalent to a a man who goes to an airport and shouts "I've got a bomb" and is confused why you get to play the follow-up by police rules (prison, fine etc) ratheer than yours (treat as a joke). An NLP practitioner like Greg would probably see you as someone stuck in 1st position. All three of these views probably have some truth to them. As with the rest of wikipedia, I am not advocating any. I'm describing the various views that seem to exist, characterizing the debate, and letting the facts speak for themselves. Some facts that are speaking right now are, that you find yourself unaccountably referred by more experienced wikipedians to Arbcom. FT2 16:38, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

OK FT2. Some really highly experienced wikipedians who are totally in agreement with our highly rational mediator make absolutely no personal attacks towards me ever, and who never gang up with editors who spend months blanket removing all nonproNLP facts or recruit vandals, and have never ever done any selective editing, who know everything there is to know about NLP research, and never post their own views on the article, and who have never spent any time trying to post their own work, and who never remove negative facts from the article, and who are in no way hypocritical, have told me to look at the NPOV page again:) Now it is time for me to ask you; Can you answer my question? Do you have any comments regarding you being allowed to write about NLP in its own main section without any criticism whatsoever? HeadleyDown 01:03, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, I'm glad its the last time, FT2. I have had so many irate pointings towards the NPOV page, or pointing out edits I made during mass NLP censorship sessions as if the whole thing were completely my fault:) I and others have made some suggestions to help this neutrality process along, specifically regarding giving you room to represent NLP without early criticisms. Any comments? Regards HeadleyDown 17:20, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, one comment. At least one other user (GregA) has stated: "In general I have no problem with what Headley et al says he'll do - they often seem very reasonable. His actions are quite different". [3]. Take a moment and ask yourself, why you imagine wikipedians keep pointing you to WP:NPOV in this manner? FT2 17:30, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Presentation of Criticism

I was looking through the reviews of research again, and noticed that the scientific papers are really very critical of NLP. They use words such as - cult, banal, fad, trite, infantile (they use these in a neutral "citation" fashion) in addition to their findings that the results show prior studies were simply a statistical illusion, and can be explained by factors other than NLP, and so on.

Anyway as those papers are so damningly critical, it does seem to be a bit of a nonsense to have 2 criticism sections. I think it was GregA who said, why don't we change the criticism section to "more criticisms". That is a valid point. I notice also that a lot of other pseudoscience articles have the same format. - criticisms, the overall scientific findings, and further ramifications of the pseudoscience with critique from other sources.

Clearly that would also put the pseudoscience section within the criticism section also.

This would solve a great many problems and be beneficial for both scientists and proNLPers. It would also be both "sides" complying cooperatively with VoiceOfAll's recommendations;

the scientific results should show less redundancy in the article
the NLP can have more chance to show it's promotion without the science dismissing NLP immediately.

It would also be easier to briefly add more research (without the constant reverts) within that whole seperate criticism section. Additionally, the proNLPers would benefit from a good deal of primacy within the article to explain NLP using NLP terms (which are on the whole promotional terms). Yet, the scientists would be able to make the appropriate scientific clarifications within the criticism section just as in other similar articles.

From a reader perspective, I know there are a lot of NLP fans who want to look up NLP. It would be presented in its own top section so as not to shake the NLP fan's beliefs or views (they can simply ignore the criticism section). NLP fans look down on criticism in general because they are generally new agers. The scientific minded would be able to check out the actual scientific findings for themselves out of sight in the lower section.

This would lead to NLP being presented much more fairly, and brevifying would be far easier for all.

VoiceOfAll, would there be any other benefits you could envision with this arrangement? Regards HeadleyDown 04:38, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

JP's response

Well, now that the antiNPOV accusations have died down somewhat, it is time to assess recommendations.

Firstly here are my objections to Headley's suggestion.

Science should get priority here. I don't really care how other articles are presented, the fact is, NLP is largely pseudoscience, and significant authors state that NLP is fully pseudoscience. Therefore, I find it extremely offensive to have NLP described in vague and woolly pseudoscientific salespitch terms as it is in the opening and the first part of the article. Science comes first and that is the clearest way to describe and define NLP.
If any section on the article needs reduction and brevifying, it is the NLP promotion sections. They babble like dirty water down the drain.
All NLP terms that have been unscientifically applied should be highlighted in a way as to show they are erroneously termed from the outset.

Here is reality though:

There is no way NLP promoters are going to term NLP in a scientific way. They will constantly resist science or play dumb just as they have always done.
Other wikipedia articles have been presented with the pseudoscience claims first, and with scientific explanations afterwards. I blame the editors for not being strong enough in sticking to their guns and using NPOV policy properly. That negative trend will probably continue on this article.

Therefore, I believe we will just have to put up with wikipedia convention (as distinct from NPOV policy) and give a couple of paragraphs to NLP claims, and a paragraph of brief explanation and criticism from the skeptical/critical science perspective. Then allow NLP promoters to present NLP with whatever claims they like as long as they are presented within a reasonable format (as close to NPOV policy as possible). Then contain the findings of science within the criticisms section just has been done according to wikipedia convention on other similar articles.

I do feel that this is completely unfair to scientists who have spent time and funding in order to successfuly falsify NLP according to scientific rigor. It is also unfair to the more neutral editors here who have presented science and wide world views of NLP with the general conclusion that it does not work. Whereas, proNLPers have constantly striven for NLP to be restricted to their own POV. Fairness is perhaps less important now though, as a solution is needed. You can guarantee this article will be subject to more attacks from fanatics in future. If those deletions are restricted to a particular section, then they are easier to deal with. Equally, if people write "NLP promoters are scum of the earth" on the proNLP section, then that also can be dealt with more easily when the conventional arrangement is followed.

One very big benefit that I see from that practical arrangement is that it should help the mediator and his requirement that people stop spreading edits to multiple sections. It will be less likely to happen when criticisms are kept within their own section, and NLP claims are kept as a starting point. So there are things I don't like about it, but practicality definitely comes first now. I want this article to look more encyclopedic and I definitely want the file size closer to recommended levels fairly pronto. Its all possible if we find a way to avoid the war of attrition that has occurred and that threatens to continue for months. The most realistic way for a long term arrangement to work is to follow wikipedia convention. JPLogan 07:32, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

JPLogan, What do you mean by NLP terms that have been unscientifically applied? Do you mean scientific terms that NLP has applied incorrectly (unscientifically)? If so I think these should be made clear in a section (under science or criticism, whatever). Particularly common NLP terms (uncommon terms aren't necessary?). What terms do you have in mind. GregA 05:41, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

OK JP--- I see where you are coming from. I think your perspective may be more in alignment with Flavius' than mine. However, I do think that the views of science you and Flavius have noted can be well represented in the criticism/science sections as they are both scientific and both well supported in the literature. There are plenty of scientific references building up that we still havn't added that state NLP is daft and dangerous, or is a desctructive cult. I dare say we could even find evidence of the term "fruit loop" somewhere:) and even make a neutral presentation of that view. But lets put that stuff aside for now and focus on containing the problems, reducing redundancy, and as you say... being practically conventional. More neutral editors have shown a lot of tolerance towards the proNLPers' attacks over the months, as is evident in the rather foggy presentation of NLP indefinitions in the opening and the months of unreasonable deletions, and I'm sure we can tolerate it for a while longer while we get the article back into stablizing and concise shape. Regards HeadleyDown 09:01, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Headley, I daresay you could find evidence of any term you want. And we could find evidence of anything we wanted. The challenge is to represent what's actually said, believed, etc - and to use the best quality of sources we can find for that representation... I'm surprised you think you could use "Fruit loop" do describe NLP neutrally...? GregA 05:41, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Informing the public; Cults and NLP consumption

Yes perhaps on the right track Headley although I disagree with being able to quote a scientist evaluation of NLP as being Daft, or fruit loop it sounds more like a personal representation than a scientific argument or explanation. What I am concerned with is that people (the general public) wanting to know about NLP or happen across the page will come away none the wiser as to the reasonning of the accusations of NLP being "Daft" or "Fruit loop". After all where does the scientist criticism stop and the personal criticism begin? Daft and Fruit Loop dont sound very scientific to me and lack vital information. I'd rather the public were informed. As for being dangerous or being a destructive cult that would contradict your research which says NLP is inneffective. How could it be dangerous if it is inneffective? Clarity of defining which group of scientists said what and seperating them because they are clearly two seperate points of view would clarify that, and be more NPOV, letting the general public know that scientists are divided on the subject and not all comments on the page are a scientific general view. Justin.

Hi Justin. Terms and phrases such as daft and "Fruit Loop" should be confined to the discussion unless they are used by a reviewing scientist (which is highly unlikely so you need not worry). As for the tension beteween danger/ineffective, this is more apparent than real. NLP has been characterised as a destructive cult by some scientists not because it gives the "cult leader" some supernatural power over his/her subjects via the application of banal NLP techniques but rather because it exploits vulnerable individuals, charging exhorbitant amounts for worthless training (that does nothing more than make one a member of the NLP granfalloon), it prevents people from seeking professional help from psychologists and psychiatrists, it produces a dependence between the NLP "guru" and the "disciple" such that the "disciples" mental health actually deteriorates (as a consequence of the dependence) and the "disciple" returns for more and more seminars. The techniques used by NLP cult leaders are not peculiar to NLP cult leaders nor even predicated on NLP, they predate NLP (see Robert Lifton's "Thought Reform and the Psychology of Totalism: A Study of 'Brainwashing' in China"). NLP cult mind control techniques are non-NLP for two principal reasons: (i) if they were were NLP techniques they would be ineffective; and (ii) the shrewd NLP cult leader knows better than to reveal the tecgiques (s)he is using to produce blind obedience, dedication and slavish dependence in his/her subjects. I'll see to producing some references regarding the cult aspects of some schools of NLP. flavius 11:26, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Flavius, There are no "NLP cult leaders", the very term is biased. And you imply someone says NLP gives a cult leader supernatural power? Where do you get this? GregA 05:41, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes there are NLP cult leaders. Richard Bandler, Carmine Baffa, Tad James and Kenrick Cleveland are cult leader-like if not outright cult leaders. These cult leaders claim to have supernatural power. I have heard on more than one occassion Bandler claim he can induce a phobia in someone and that he's actually done that. Carmine Baffa runs off at the mouth and pen about his supernatural abilities:

Now there are many things that I can do, fly an airplane, build electronic systems from scratch, design and build jewelry from scratch, run a machine shop, use my communication skills to help anybody change any behavior quickly, effectively keep track of the multiple levels of communication coming at me from -- up to 100 people -- inside of a group -- while effectively tracking how my communication is being received by each and every one or them, I can explain and perform over a hundred different medical surgical procedures. (http://carmine.net/articles/genius/IQHypnosisandGeniu.htm)

Flying an airplane doesn't sound "supernatural" to me. Either he can or he can't, but if he can, it isn't a supernatural act. I will ask that you stick to quoting criticism rather than paraphrasing into your own words, because your own words usually qualify as original research. i.e. unless the word "supernatural" is in the quote, you can't put it in your paraphrased version. FuelWagon 14:22, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

It seems you are now assuming a contradictory position reflexively and on principal (as if this demonstrates your purported neutrality). Is Baffa's claim about "effectively keep[ing] track of the multiple levels of communication coming at me from -- up to 100 people -- inside of a group -- while effectively tracking how my communication is being received by each and every one or them" not supernatural? Baffa claims he "can explain and perform over a hundred different medical surgical procedures". He hasn't actually performed any surgery yet he somehow claims he can perform it. Would this not be a supernatural ability equivalent to some sort of sci-fi skill implantation? Furthermore this is a discussion not the body of the article so I'm not certain what the relevance of your injunctions and admonitions are. flavius 00:28, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Tad James claims to be a "Kahuna" and has assumed the traditional adornments of a Kahuna as well as a Kahuna title (http://www.cancerlynx.com/huna.html, http://www.nlp.com/Huna_Chapter1.pdf). Kenrick Cleveland claims in his "Advanced Hypnosis" tape set that using his NLP(?) skills he can evade detection by traffic police even when speeding by imagining a missile filled with bad feeling (IIRC) being launched from his vehicle and striking the police car ahead. Kenrick Cleveland is also a high-priest in Santeria. flavius 06:49, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

The term "NLP cult leaders" is biased, it presupposes that NLP is a cult, NLP processes can certainly be applied in cults, that's irrelevant. There are some POVs that NLP is a cult. Anyway I don't know Baffa and I would doubt his claims - but his claims aren't supernatural, just highly complex and certainly beyond most people. Which claim did you think was supernatural? As for Tad - Kahuna means "wise man"....? oh.. I see it includes spiritual in the meaning... yeah it doesn't belong in NLP (though he doesn't call it NLP, he teaches it separately afaik). Cleveland sounds weird - who's he and how does he relate to NLP? GregA 12:21, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Regarding Baffa, his claim that he can effectively track the concurrent communications of 100 people and that he has somehow perform over 100 surgical procuedures even though he hasn't actually ever performed surgery (which implies some sort of direct to brain/muscle skill stransfer) are both supernatural. Regarding Tad James, his NLP instruction is tinged with his New Age concerns. If you attend an NLP training from someone that appends "Kiaina'auaomaikalani" to his name (to demonstrate his Huna lineage) and wears a floral necklace and other Huna accoutrements then it is to be expected that his Kahuna teaching will find there way into his NLP seminars. Regarding Kenrick Cleveland, he's from the Bandler school of NLP and made his money teaching NLP-based persuasion courses. He's well-known amongst North American Bandler NLPers. flavius 00:28, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi Justin. Remember that NLP was developed at a time when Scientology and EST were making people into gurus and multimillionaires. It uses the same marketing formulas and methods that are instilled into the very words and obscurantisms of NLP. It doesn't mean that NLP is effective, but it does show that NLP has adopted some very dubious and unethical social psychology tricks to get people to behave themselves while the gurus sell them their potions.

Dianetics is ineffective and just as ineffective and pseudoscientific as NLP, yet it is still used in cults in a dangerous or harmful way.

So what you're admitting here is that Dianetics and NLP has some sort of psychological influence. Justin

Cults also mix NLP with other therapies such as drinking urine. Urine drinking is just the same kind of leap of faith as firewalking, and within cults it is useful to control people. It is also just as pseudoscientific and potentially dangerous as NLP. If someone starts to dissent, you can publicly accuse them of dubious behaviour (Drinking pee).

I listened to a Bandler CD from the library the other day (seminar form) and he uses a lot of highly dubious methods dressed up as "provokative therapy". In fact provocative is synonymous with aggressive or attack therapy. He swears and uses expletives throughout. This is a method often used in cults in order to dissuade questioning or dissent from the crowd. Nobody will question him because they are going to assume he will tear them appart or hex them with his magic persuasion. The social pressure is enormously strong in these situations.

Bandler also uses quasi-religious overtones. He states "Thou shalt not steal" when trying to dissuade people from using NLP for their own financial gain. So his audience is warned off teaching NLP to others. He backs this up with trying to sue people. The Scientologists use this method throughout their own organization also. In fact some NLP fans have accused Bandler of acting just like Scientology in his restriction of freedom. Of course he has no right to NLP intellectual property at all in those situations.

So, if my employer requires that I sign a non-disclosure agreement before they'll hire me, and they will sue me if I go to another company and pass along what I know, does that make my company a cult? Your methods of criticizing NLP have nothing to do with science and everything to do with anecdotal evidence. If Pat Robertson says on TV that "Thou shalt not steal" is he "quasi religious"? Clearly, everything you are saying here is original research based on your own personal anecdotal evidence. If you were criticizing christianity, you'd be talking about how Eric Rudolph is christian and used christian arguments to bomb multiple abortion clinics and justify killing people. That's anecdotal evidence. Rather than damn christianity based on some fringe knucklehead, how about looking at the core of christianity. What do the founders of NLP say about NLP, rather than ranting about what some witchdoctor-on-tape says about NLP for $9.95. FuelWagon 14:22, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi FuelWagon. I understand what you are saying. I do think that we are trying to make sense of this whole subject though while walking the tightrope. Remember that you have changed sentences that were originally quotes, but you decided to make them your own (perhaps inadvertently). This whole article is not easy to handle. Concerning core: Remember that originally B and G wrote the structure of magic as a way to be a theraputic wizard. They may have been metaphoric to some extent, but they did also talk about eyes and brain right and left, and photographic memory, and quite a lot of remote views. Regards HeadleyDown 16:10, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

FuelWagon. You are fragmenting an argument and constructing straw men from the shards which you are then processing to despatch with aplomb. Bandler has triumphalist music played when he enters stage at some of his Western European seminars -- he expects to be greeted like a cult leader. I've listened to many Bandler seminars and have heard Bandler repeat all sorts of New Age and Crowley Magick doctrine. Bandler -- not unlike a witchdoctor which claims (s)he can place hexes on enemies -- claims he can give someone a phobia. The cover art of Frogs, Magic, and Tranceformations is distinctively New Age and the metaphors of the wizard and magical change recur in the early Bandler and Grinder seminars. Carlos Castaneda -- a seminal New Age writer -- was a major influence on B&G (especially Grinder) during th time when NLP was being formulated. One of the Magic volumes (I don't have it with me) contains a lengthy quotation from one of Carlos Castaneda's writings. flavius 00:28, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

So yes, even at its core, NLP proponents are using highly dubious and extreme cult characteristics and techniques in order to control things for their own benefit. Many other cults have also used the techniques in this way, plus the very new age aspects of NLP in order to do what scientologists do (claim you have enormous resources and can do the impossible and charge lots of money while providing ineffective solutions under conditions of social pressure) ATB AliceDeGrey 04:12, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

again, taking the worst of some topic and using it to condemn the whole concept. Do the main developers of NLP advocate drinking urine? Or is this simply yet another example of Eric Rudolph? FuelWagon 14:22, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Alice, Would you be able to give any references to your accusations against Bandler.. what CD?. I've personally heard some bad things about Bandler that I believe, but your exagerrations suprise me. And "Cults also mix NLP with other therapies such as drinking urine."... I'm amazed you think this is even remotely relevant... "urine drinking is as pseudoscientific as NLP"... GregA

"Bandler Doing Bandler" is one such example. It from the mid-80s (IIRC) when Bandler was still using cocaine. Between his constant nose sniffing (which he tells his audience is due to an allergy -- yeah right) he swears profusely, antagonizes his audience, tells all manner of apocryphal stories and bold lies. flavius 06:50, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

I haven't heard it, I appreciate you giving a name though. So lots of accusations against bandler. To stay on track here - would you care to show ANY relevance to Alice relating NLP and urine drinking? GregA 12:21, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

FYI "Bandler Doing Bandler" is subtitled "An NLP Perspective on Ericksonian Hypnosis" (IIRC). Bandler's NeuroHypnotic Repatterning (which is just old wine in new bottles that Bandler could trademark) tape set is also quite "instructive". I'm suprised that someone that has decided to fly the NLP flag is unfamiliar with Bandler's body of work. I'll allow Alice to explain her post. The relevance of the urine drinking -- as I understand it -- is that it is an act of commitment that prompts subsequent behavioural consistency and alters self-identity in such a way that adherence to the "cult" is reinforced. If you spent 10 years and tens of thousands of dollars on NLP seminars and have made NLP a part of (or perhaps the totality of) your world-view discovering that it doesn't work will not necessarily cause you to exit the NLP granfalloon. The cost -- in terms of dollars, time, cognitive dissonance and self-identity -- may be too great, making it easier to stay (see Robert Cialdini's Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion). Thus if you have drunk the bath water of Asahara Shoko (Aum Shinrikyo see http://religiousmovements.lib.virginia.edu/nrms/aums.html and http://www.cdi.org/terrorism/AumShinrikyo.cfm) for example, there is a good reason to continue beliving he is god incarnate, otherwise the consequences are personally devastating. flavius 00:55, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Flavius, Correction: "Bandler doing Bandler" is subtitled: Hypnosis and Submodalities. Notice that this is not core NLP, but an application NLP patterns. NHR is also not NLP. They are both influenced by NLP. Bandler does recommend people read Cialdini's book on this web site. All that stuff about cults is not relevant. --Comaze 01:18, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

It IS interesting that you say Bandler sues people, and so do Scientologists.... and that NLP fans consider them to be similar based on this restriction of freedom? That's a pretty loose reason to associate 2 things together... stronger than both groups speaking English, but really... your bias is extreme. GregA 05:41, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Bandler's troubled existence is well documented (see Richard Bandler). I have one of Bandler's DHE seminars on CD and at many times it descends into pure New Age bunkum. For example, Bandler alludes to the Akashic record and he claims he can attain telescopic vision by "hallucinating" a pair of binoculars. Also John Grinder sprinkles his seminars with references to Carlos Castaneda. flavius 06:49, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Flavius, you are failing to make the distinction between pattern and content (structure and story). --Comaze 00:47, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

How so? flavius 01:17, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Ask yourself what Bateson-NLP patterns have been identified by Grinder in Castenda, a few examples to get you started... Bateson's Multiple descriptions (see Whispering), Erickson's Double inductions (see Transformations p.83), what else? --Comaze 01:26, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Just deleted a paragraph of my response... since you still didn't address your association of "Bandler sues people, scientologists sue people, therefore Bandler is a scientologist"... you've just brought up more claims without addressing the first ones which I was replying to.

This is more NLP bunkum. I appreciate the difference between form and content and that conceptual distinction is not relevant here. The notion that there is a "pure NLP" on the one hand and "NLP applications" on the other is a false dichotomy that is promulgated for the purpose of product differentiation. There is no such thing as "pure NLP", there are no such things as "pure" patterns or structures. Are the Meta-Model or the Milton Model patterns without content? flavius 03:22, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Patterns contain content, of course. And our content, the stuff we do, often forms in patterns. Content that repeats itself, where you can have something happen at the beginning and you know (from past experience) what's likely to happen at the end. The trick is to identify which parts of what you're seeing are not part of the pattern. For example - if every time you eat a chocolate icecream you get sick - this is a pattern (one we haven't explored much). We may use various techniques to explore this. If we learn that every time you eat ANY icecream you get sick, then this is a more accurate pattern (the "chocolate" part of "chocolate icecream" was 'content'... since it didn't matter in the 'pattern'!). It really comes down to the basic modeling goals - finding the necessary and sufficient elements of the pattern, such that all of the elements are part of the pattern and removing one element (eg icecream) stops the pattern from occurring. This is where the talk of occams razor came in a few months back.

So to your question - is the meta-model a pattern without content? Since pattern is a specific type of content, removing all content will remove all patterns. Does the meta-model have unnecessary content for eliciting the patterns? Well, John Grinder has been arguing that some of the meta-model pattern is infact unnecessary (hence 'content'), and that the meta-model can be reduced to asking "what specifically" and "how specifically". GregA 04:46, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Further to my previous remark, Grinder appears to be haunted by the academic trends and fashions in the humanities that were dominant at the time he was lecturing at UC Santa Cruz. Structuralism was the dominant school of thought/mode of analysis in the humanities in the 70s (when Grinder was teaching) in partcular in lingusitics (which is what Grinder lectured in). The influence of Structuralism on NLP is evident. The notion of "pure NLP" versus "applications/patterns" is very Structuralist. Unfortunately the concepts of Structuralism (along with the concepts of many other disciplines and schools of thought) were pilfered by B&G to give NLP a thin veneer of conceptual sophistication and apparently deep intellectual antecedent. B&Gs use of Structuralist theory is as superficial and simplistic as their use of Transformational Grammar, Automata Theory and epistemological theory. The distinction between (pure) NLP and NLP patterns is mere marketing. flavius 03:52, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

flavius, I gave you page reference to connect Castaneda to Grinder and you seem to ignore it. Anyway, I'm attempting to collaborate with you (flavius) here. What are you thoughts on the meta model and milton model and being based on formal mathematics (see 4-tuple and 6-tuple as presented by Bandler & Grinder between 1975-1978). According to Grinder and Bandler this is pattern --- pure and simple.. --Comaze 03:41, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Comaze, the notion that the Meta-Model and Milton Model are predicated on automata theory -- I think (since you've asked me) -- is nonsense. B&G knew that most of the readers of Magic and Patterns won't have had any exposure to computer science theory and discrete mathematics so they put it in their as a means of "blinding their readers with (pseudo-)science". The automata theory adds nothing to their presentation so I can't conceive of any reason -- other than semiotic trickery -- to include it. I defer my opinion to experts that know more about linguistics than I do. NLP has had no impact on linguistic theory or psycholinguistics. Levelt -- a preeminent psycholinguist -- regards NLP to be total bunkum. Also, there is nothing "pure" about the Meta-Model or the Milton Model they are both techniques. As models they are lacking because they are incorrect (i.e. the map has no relation to the territory). The Meta-Model and the Milton model are merely a collection of speech idioms used by two clinicians. flavius 04:12, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong... it's a great strategy for confusing stuff... it is just useless. GregA 12:21, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Oh I listened to one of his tapes a while back, and Bandler talks about the ultrasonic or whatever background he uses. He actually said that he recorded the sound of cheering and overlaid the sound with the frequency of an orgasm:) This is really quite wierd. Now I don't know the frequency of his orgasm, but I don't see how it can be a constant.

There are also some parts of Bandler's audio that are supposed to talk directly to the subconscious and result in effortless learning. Now this is something to be explored, as there is just about zero evidence for practical effortless subconscious learning. This is similar to superlearning or suggestopedia or sleep learning that went on in the 70s and simply did not work. I will do my best to present the research on that one. I remember now that there was some criticism on this point. Regards HeadleyDown 11:38, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

HeadleyDown, What you describe here is NOT NLP. You are failing to make the distinction between pattern and content. --Comaze 12:17, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

This is a conceptual distinction which is part of the NLP metaphysical baggage. Why would someone that is critical of NLP take on board a fundamental plank of NLP dogma? flavius 03:22, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

The following pages are illuminating (Warning: Both of these are thick with psychobable):

http://nlpschedule.com/reviews/rb-la-97-1.html

http://www.paulmckenna.com/article19.htm

The first makes it plain that Bandler's teaching of NLP incorporates elements of Crowley's Magick and other New Age themes. It also makes reference to Bandler's process of "unconcious installation" in which he magically installs complex skills directly into the "unconscious mind" of his students. The second devotes much space to explaining the wonders of "Accelerated Unconscious Installation"(TM-of course) and how it makes it possible to condense 21 days of training in 7 days (with better outcomes!). flavius 01:14, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Yow Flavius! Look at all those amazing clinical skills: "Practitioner: Multi-level communication; form, content, form of content, tacking multiple patterns, modal operators and sequences, strategy elicitation and chaining, using submodalities to drive strategies. Tonal and kinesthetic anchoring, state-chains, propulsion systems through posthypnotic sug. Hypnosis, mixed-state communication, eliciting trance phenomena, integrating Milton model with basic techniques of NLP, stacking presuppositions to create change,

Magick, receiving and projecting energy / states, seeing auras, meditation and deep trance Strategies." multilevel communcation

Let me explain:

Look, clearly they meant to say "stage magic" you know, with magic wands and sawing ladies in half, just like they do in clinical psychology
Seeing auras is also a highly respected medical training as is taught by most respected alcoholic doctors.
And of course, meditation is what we all do during clinical psychotherapy sessions. You know, when the psychotherapist has eyes closed and goes, MMMMMMM, MMMMMMM, during the session
Multilevel communication is simply a way of telling truth whilst fibbing through your teeth. Just like when a surgeon tells you - "oh, yes you will be absolutely fine" when you are in fact going to die slowly and horribly within the fortnight. Or when you get knocked down in the street, and the doctors tell the media you are in a "comfortable condition" when in fact you are laying in agony covered in plaster with pins sticking out of every limb. The secret to this technique is to tell the fib and rub your finger and arm along the philtrum of your nose in long side to side sawing actions.
Form, content and form of content, are actually intermediate level. If you are lucky they will also teach content of form.
Tacking multiple patterns is actually a useful sewing technique that is also probably used in brain surgery, either way it is useful for stitching people up Cheers DaveRight 03:51, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Very good ;-) What is taught in NLP seminars is often more questionable than what is published in NLP books. You will find similar New Age and occult themes in Tad James', Carmine Baffa's and Kenrick Clevelands's seminars. flavius 04:25, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

No Comaze. NLP talks of speaking directly to the unconscious. So far, even hypnotherapists say that is pseudoscience. And to claim effortless learning is also against the nature of learning according to more than one theory of learning. These criticisms have been made by more people than me. HeadleyDown 16:15, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, and none of this addresses my response to flavius which related NLP to scientology based on Bandler suing people. Anyway, yeah, unconscious learning probably has a place in the article.... NLP is a big field. GregA 12:21, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

GregA. I think you are confusing me with AliceDeGrey. Alice posted the rematrk about urine and about litigation and Scientology. Your uptime anchor may not be firing ;-) flavius 01:17, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

I feel I should remind people, this is a discussion page. We can be speculative. Part of the reason for this is corroboration, and for sense making, and for verification as a reality check. There has been quite a lot of accusation of bias from proNLPers towards the language of nonproNLPers. I have noticed that the language of nonproNLPers is consistent with that of the scientific papers that review NLP. They use words such as flake, fad, cult, psychopablum, pseudoscience, and so on, as do we. We are only reflecting what science is saying. Of course it will be offensive to proNLPers, but we should not shy away from offensive material on Wikipedia. Stand back and realize why Drenth and others have been so critical. The fact is, the books are incriminating enough in terms of pseudoscience. But what goes on in seminars, meetings, therapies, audio recordings and such is far more damning. This does rather support the fact that the scientific reviewers, and the journalists, and even the bloggers, are being quite fair and neutral about NLP when they make their criticisms. Regards HeadleyDown 16:26, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

My response (OK its me DaveRight 02:24, 21 November 2005 (UTC))

Yo Headley. It sounds much more reasonable the way you tell it:) I think this'll give everyone a better chance for all to completely assess what each other writes. The chances are, we will be better able to judge the sections for what they are. Actually one think I read on the NPOV page the last time I read it (about 2million years BC) was that it doesn't matter so much if an article looks like total propaganda. Deletion isn't necessary, but balancing with science will help. So we can always keep it balanced. I think that is fair. Anyway, that looks like another benefit. Is it me or do the proNLPers seem to be deliberately ignoring this point? DaveRight 02:24, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Hallo again. I reckon you are right about the reader's view. It doesn't matter whether its a flake or a scientist, whoever reads the current page is going to be phased by having "science that shows NLP doesn't work, Claims to science (as if NLP is really doing its best job to be fraudulent, and then the pseudoscience section. A reader'll look at those three as if they are a big boot up the arse for NLP. And then come the criticisms! Wierd! This'll also be made worse if you have actually read other similar articles, who do actually put all the criticisms (including science) into a single section. Thats confusing AND inconsistent. I also reckon we could take those 3 sections, put them into the criticisms section and cut them down to about a couple of paras each while applying them properly to the criticisms without any extra underlining, repeating, or undue emphasis or reiterations that make the proNLPers so sleepless at night tossing and turning and gnashing their teeth and pulling out their hair as they do. This should work well. I still think the best thing will be the lower section is generally out of sight. Most flakes will be blinkered towards the shining example of post-modernist psychotechnololgy in the above section, that they will not even notice the criticisms section. Or they'll just see the word "criticisms" and go "Yuk! What a bunch of skeptical uncool and heavy negative looooosers"(Just as some of Greg's recruits did:) and they'll just turn their noses up and drift off on their righteously mellow way. Cheers DaveRight 02:45, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Dave - you're calling NLP supporters "Most flakes ..."? Mentioning Headley's allegations of my "recruiting?. It's a good thing we don't do personal attacks. GregA 05:41, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Hey Greg, are you trying to start a fight?:) I was just explaining what the odd situations are as they stand and what is likely to happen in future. And proposing solutions. Cheers DaveRight 03:33, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Sure Dave, it does seem to be a reasonable arrangement. I also rankle at the thought that NLP gets primacy, but needs must when the devil keeps deleting science just because a couple of words are out of place. Basically, allow NLP to have it's say and then put the concise section on science within criticisms to explain the criticisms for the sake of clarity and to keep all the nasties in one section. AliceDeGrey 03:20, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

~~Dave~~... The bias increases! Are you saying we are "devils"? GregA 05:41, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi Greg. You are calling Alice Dave, and really I think you have accused far too many people of bias when in fact they seem to be explaining their points pretty constructively and clearly. HeadleyDown 11:33, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Each accusation of bias is specifically stated,

[4]., it's a pity the replies don't address them. I don't care who I'm accusing, each made some pretty strong assertions and presuppositions. The points are one thing, the implicit messages are biased. Though yes I called Alice Dave in the last paragraph - sorry Alice, sorry Dave. GregA 12:21, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Hello Greg. I must say, you have often provided hope that we can work together, no matter what you have done previously. Like a lot of people are saying, the fact remains, there must be some kind of cooperation. You have provided the most honest and authentic voice amongsts the proNLP team, in a way that distinguishes you from the others. I expect no compromise from you. The fact is, NLP perspective is different from scientific or clinical psychology perspective. This can work. Your devotion to the science is a sign of your persistance. There is no hope of finding NLP scientifically supported, though I understand your persistance. However, your willingness to represent editor's views honestly puts you in quite a position of power. Like I said, you are in a position to voice the views of NLP proponents, and you have the credentials. What I would like to do is give a full hearing to all sides. I realise it is impractical to discuss and disrupt a monologue full flow. It is time for science to listen and give full space to NLP in a prime position. Whatever science does afterwards will do it's best (according to my effort(I don't know about others)) to match and balance your view. Then, of course, you/you all will make adjustments, and I/we will make adjustments, and the dance will go on and refine itself until it stabilizes somehow. I believe this is a good way to go. I am open to suggestion, as I feel, are others. HeadleyDown 14:44, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Headley, as usual your words seem fair and reasonable and it even sounds like we might work something out without arbitration. As I said to arbcom though, I often have no problem with your words, just with your actions. As you know from my other replies, I support NLP proponents clearly representing NLP (with the proviso of being realistic and representative of what NLP is), and though you say you support this you continue to insist NLP is something it's not (you have no grasp of the fundamental tenets/principles, and keep insisting spiritual linkages). It is also unfortunate that you can't even consider that there is supporting psychological research on NLP.

The article as it stands does not say everything you say you want represented, nor does it say what I want represented. However, it does offer a sometimes contradictory stance and misrepresents NLP in several ways - it will successfully mislead a reader who wants to know what NLP is. If a cynical editor wanted to achieve that, they would likely be quite pleased with the article as it stands - and quite frankly I believe this may be your goal. Both representing NLP as a pseudoscience, or ensuring the page is confusing, achieve the same ends of detering a reader from investigating NLP. Anyway, hopefully Arbcom will have something to say about that.

Lastly, I note your implication here that I've done something wrong. "you... provide hope that we can work together, no matter what you have done previously". If you wish to accuse, say it blatantly (again?). GregA 22:11, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Space for balance

Hello Everyone, Just reading the article and it still lacks balance. The NLP section that describes processes does not state a true statement of intention. It is technical and the general public might not see it's purpose for being there. Could there be a section before the scientific and criticism sections that states that NLP is taught with the intention of improving the quality of life and self esteem of individuals and applied in business fields for optimum performance and gaining new skills etc...which is the nature of any therapeutic art or business training. A lot of the other stuff that is mentioned seems to be the misuse of NLP by individuals. Richard Bandler is not NLP Nor are some of the others that use NLP "Dubiously". I think this is NPOV NLP trainings generally do undertake this role and as so it is fact. Oh, And I'm hardly ripping my hair out Dave but thanks for the concern. Cheers everyone. Justin

Hello Justin. Glad we are getting back to practicalities. I believe there are many aspects of the article that are not balanced, but that will improve when we get a chance to make it briefer and better prioritised. Some information can be assumed. Of course therapies are not intended to harm people. There are other sections that do state that is not what NLP is about though. For example a significant view states that NLP is only beneficial for the NLP salesman or NLP therapist. You may think that Bandler is not NLP, but there are sources placing him as central to NLP and central to dubious practices. In the end it doesn't matter what your view is, the facts are clear from the literature.

I do think the present solution will work though. Giving full space for each view will help. If the views are uninterrupted by critique on one hand or excuse on the other, then we can really get all the most important facts down. Balance will be a matter of adding or condensing items that are lower down on our respective priority lists, according to how much weight the respective subject areas have. JPLogan 02:30, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Well guys, how come all the proNLPers are completely against the idea of having a - NLP first, critics second - article? Is there something going on there? Are they waiting for arbitrators to delete all the accounts of nonpronlp editors because they are uncool enough to not constantly promote NLP? I will be generous and put it down to FT2 and others being worn out from writing extra wikilinked subpages for promoting NLP. Cheers DaveRight 03:31, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

When an article is stating what something is, then it usually follows the format of stating what the pro-view says it is, followed by what the anti-view says it is. When a section is strictly to criticize something outside of what it "is", then it is usually in the form of anti-view criticism followed by pro-view rebuttal. FuelWagon 04:30, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Greetings FuelWagon. Well that sounds a bit confusing and ripe for disagreement building. I'd also like to talk about practical measures to stop people attacking each other or changing quoted text and a lot of the other problems we seem to be having here. I noticed you stated you were tired of various negative activities, and I also suffer from the same exasperation. If a rebuttal is to be made after a criticism, there is almost guaranteed for another criticism of that rebuttal. Should that be disallowed and where do we stop? And just imagine how the text would look. Yes no yes no yes no all the way. People would be editing each others crits and rebuts and really getting in each other's way and causing a lot of grevous agro. However, if the sections were there to balance each other, there would be a general balancing act going on, but there would be far less chance of people deleting each other's work or changing it subtly to rehash or reframe things their way and so on. I also know that you are proNLP and would love to make the engram stuff in the opening disappear as well as other quite incriminating information, and this is pretty much going to happen under the pro-crit arrangement. I can only see you winning under such an arrangement. Less work to do, less hastle, and a relatively out of sight set of criticisms. Remember also, that a rebuttal after the criticisms will draw attention to the criticisms, rather than explain NLP from an NLP view, and from what I see, all the NLP rebuttals are lame and after reading the pseudoscience section, they will seem even worse. Also, a lot of the rebuttals in NLP are preemptive or similar to cop out clauses. So if you have people wanting to add more and more to the rebuttal (guaranteed), you will end up with another war. I believe the NPOV page (or is it the tutorial?) states that if you come to an article and see it is not balanced, don't delete or start a war, just balance it using facts. The solution to the NLP article will be to tackle the problems specific to NLP and the NLP editors. That'll be far easier (less work) with the proNLP and the crits clearly distinguished and not treading on each other's toes all the time. Bookmain 06:27, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

It does sound a bit confusing... I think the spirit of what you suggest is useful - somewhere to write what NLP claims. Somewhere to criticise. We are in a position where a skeptic doesn't need to "write for the enemy", nor does an NLP practitioner need to "write for the enemy" - since we have those 2 sides. I believe this article would be far shorter if we didn't rewrite each other until neither side is represented in a paragraph, after which we subsequently add more info. Now I don't think that has to be represented by "pro then con" - but the separation into 2 sections would be valuable for our editing sanity. I suggest that both a pro and con section has to talk about the other section to some degree, and ultimately we need to set it out in whatever way makes most sense, and is readable, with the goal of fairly representing both sides (through either mutual agreement, or some editor such as voice-of-all that we agree to).

There is a flaw to this. It's not as simple as "NLP works great" vs "it's a pseudoscience". There are differences in the NLP claims (see the Bandler discussion that's starting). And if Rep Systems were the only processes of NLP it'd make the science easily a criticism - however there are studies of other NLP processes, and there are outcome-based studies (which lack appropriate controls mainly) which need to be represented as well. Some psychologists seem to equate NLP with Rep Systems still, and the reviews of NLP studies seem to be heavily Rep System based, though you may have some other sources.

I'm just saying it's not black and white, but I think representing like this is possibly the only way in a collaborative edit with 2 strong views. However, we are now in arbitration - arbcom can take a look at what's going on and who is doing what - and help to make this article work. My words (or yours) here may make sense but it's actions that matter, so I ask them to judge the actions. When I suggested representing Pro and Con a month ago I got no comments and when I attempted to do it for one section I was constantly reverted - I no longer trust that this idea would actually be followed, the proof is in the actions... so we'll see what we see. GregA 07:44, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

There are also supporting scientific studies of some NLP processes (the rep system stuff is far less supported).

G'day Greg. I think we are getting somewhere. FT2 seems to be still off in a huff somewhere because his multitude of niggles on the request for arb page did not turn out to be so crushingly and diabolically illegal after all:)

Anyway, we could do without his sort for now. I understand your distrust of the situation, although we would be in quite a different situation with a fair amount more amused scrutiny from the Wiki Gods.

Though perhaps you are right to some extent, considering Comaze was deleting huge tracts of facts from the article even during the latter part of mediation. We may still have Comaze doing that, plus FuelWagon deleting science due to minor speeling misatkes, and FT2 adding comments such as "well actually NLP gets huge support from every psychoanalyst in the universe", or "Well, if NLP works for destructive doomesday cults, then it works for me":).

But I'm sure the Gods are on the side of reason in this case. I see your science project is still on the go, though it is clear also that you are trying to Frankenstein a dead horse. I couldn't imagine a more likely situation for war. Greg etal's research against Drenth/Lilienfeld/and so on's expert view.

It doesn't matter how you phrase it "Pubmed has these on their database and......um I can't say because I am not an expert, but these all say NLP is super, and those other negative stuck up snotty ones say NLP is demonworship". There will be constant deletion/reversion over how those various papers are presented or whether they are presented at all. It doesn't matter how you, I, Flavius, or anyone else presents those references, they will be incomplete, and will have a particular bias. They will also take up a huge amount of time and space, and lead to all kinds of problems in the article itself due to people making their own conclusions.

The expert view is that the NLP is scientifically unsupported overall, and I cannot see any area of NLP that gets support. PRS is a major part of NLP, but there are a great many other studies out there that neg it and diss it in many other nasty ways. What do the experts say? The few studies showing support for NLP are flawed, and the studies that falsify NLP assumptions and efficacy are fine(Lilenfeld, Drenth, and the others). That's the accepted encyclopedic way of doing it.

On the other hand, in reality to a great extent, NLP tends to distance itself from science in both philosophy and practice. It is quite definitely new age, and although it uses psychobabble it's also quite a dashing cavalier - a renegade. Why should NLP even bother itself with science? It certainly hasn't so far! If you seperate NLP totally from science, in the eyes of a lot of readers it gains higher ground. Science is crap! Hey dudes, science is so negative, lets just stick to our guns and go the way of eclecticsm and pragmatism. Scientific nitpicking can go hang. It works and we have a million anecdotes to prove it! With the pro-criticism organization you probably have space to post an exemplary testimonial of your choice. That's pretty much where NLP stands anyway. Teach through anecdote, and do what works.

I think one quite convincing excuse that can be stated in the opening is that, one higher value of NLP is to be non judgmental. Sounds great! Just emphasize that in the NLP section and you are well away. Science will be seen as a bunch of judgmental fusspot cynics who have not one practical hair on their heads, and all they do is try to squash the magic and rain on the parade. To me that looks like a win win. DaveRight 09:23, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Gday again. I had a vision of the NLP pro section as it might be. Basically remove all early criticism (there is a lot). Put your modeling/rs/principles in whatever way you like. Take all criticisms from the applications section. Probably remove the energy section altogether, you never liked it. So you have removed all those claims and removed early critical bitching, and emphasized the nature of NLP: A lovely postmodern view of life that makes you happier to be alive in this crazy world. You could even state that NLPers generally prefer to stay aloof to criticisms as they strive to be non-judgmental (as long as you could provide some evidence for that (I think Dilts does a lot of that stuff)).

Then we have our dastardly evil-scientist/Christian fundamentalist Communist-anti-cult/anti-freedom section labeled: CRITICISMS! KEEP OUT! Cheers DaveRight 09:45, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

I would have to agree, Dave. Perhaps JP and Flavius may have different ideas, but I say we can present all arguments and facts in seperate sections quite well using these popular perceptions. Certainly NLP is attractive to people more because of the magic/Derren Brown stage hypnosis/mesmerism/human potential/new age/open minded liberalism factors, more than the claims to science aspects. The fact is, NLP proponents do not precisely claim NLP to be science, they generally only infer it for promotion purposes in some circumstances. Some critics do complain that it pretends to be science and that can be handled later.

So NLP is elusive, magical, mystical, self-helpful, alternatively theraputic, gift from god, and is full of wild mavericks from Esalen institute who look like old progressive rockers. NLP proponents have managed to make that image attractive/fair, so I'm sure proponents can do that here in their own section. Science will always be the skeptic but that can be kept to its own skeptical section with all the other skeptics. Perhaps its just spiritual cavaliers vs puritanical roundheads. Best regards HeadleyDown 11:43, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Hello Headley, Dave and all. I think its our best option. NLP survives and even thrives on damage control. Look at the developers: Bandler doesn't give a hoot about science and just wants to do his charismatic change thing. Grinder focusses on epistemology to avoid the science trap, and he does is well. Tony Robbins is undeniably charismatic and successful, and promotes NLP all the time. Cavalier rebels? Maybe. In the therapy world, NLP is defititely alternative, business sees NLP as a motivational hypnosis seminar with a few whacky tricks thrown in and some self help wisdom.

So how about something like this?:

Opening = representitive of article
NLP goals and brief hint at where it is applied and who likes to apply it
Some principles and a bit about epistemology and how that helps
History to show where the principles came from and perhaps about the charismatic aspects
Some technique (mirroring/matching perhaps, and stuff about reading people and change)
Applications with a testimonial/example or two

Criticisms-- Science findings by experts (brief)
Pseudoscience section
Criticisms/worries from clinical psychologists/biz
New age dubious aspects (cultishness, associations with psi/emdr etc)
Dislike for commercial promotions/fads

Damage Control for NLP

I would say damage control would involve keeping the article brief (to avoid writing in too many obscurantisms) and that would restrict the size of the criticisms also. It doesn't really matter how that top section is arranged. The science and scientific conclusions and criticisms will always be the same. If the top section uses aspects of charisma/epistemology/and all the other things people like about NLP, then I think the article will be presented fairly. However, if you do an FT2 and write reams of unbalanced obscurantic info, then people are going to have to talk about Russian NLP mass suicide cults and so on, or give details of Bandler's more seedy existence. As the proNLPers have demanded so much from the scientists here, I think it is up to the proNLPers to make the first moves, and then we can follow suit.JPLogan 02:25, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Hello folks. The biggest problem on this article is resistance. The proNLPers, especially the likes of FuelWagon, flatly deny the facts. For example, the new age label is written all over NLP. Its completely undeniable. NLP is scientifically unsupported. There is still nonsense going on about providing anchor point articles to deny that. Also, instead of proNLPers just admitting that NLP prefers to use anecdote and exemplar, rather than science to support it's claims, they are still hoping for miracles, or demanding more facts (that get supplied and subsequently deleted). Following suggestions from the above, I did look at the Dilt's sites and they do seem to be pretty cool headed and zen. It does seem to be a significant view that NLP prefers to be non judgmental. This is also because it fosters new age philosophies (prayer is not enough, state change is necessary, and all religions and views are valid, and your resources are unlimited even to the degree where you can change reality/subjective reality to some extent). If these factors are presented in the proNLP section, plus the info about epistemology/NLP flexible views for self help and so on, then damage is indeed reduced. It may not reduce criticism, but it would put criticism in a whole new light. Any further ideas? Bookmain 05:48, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm afraid that your definition of what "proNLP" is is misguided. I mean, NLP did start at the same time as many New Age movements, and does share some characteristics. But it has no religious or spiritual belief associated with it. Those beliefs can be modeled, religious "experiences" can be modeled to - but this is more in line with saying the beliefs are actually physically replicable - you could well argue that NLP takes the spirit OUT of spirituality in some ways. Your comment

"This is also because it fosters new age philosophies (prayer is not enough, state change is necessary, and all religions and views are valid, and your resources are unlimited even to the degree where you can change reality/subjective reality to some extent)"

is off base. Prayer is not enough...? Not enough for what? State change is necessary... for what? NLP has no religious belief associated at all ... religion is a different field to NLP. It's like saying "electricians consider all religions and views to be valid"... it is probably reasonably true, you can have a light globe no matter what you believe. And you continue to misrepresent the presupposition that we have the resources we need - it never says this is true, just that people who believe they are able to change are actually more likely to be able to change. This is what concerns me about your saying "let the ProNLPers talk". If I expressed the above clearly, would you allow it? GregA 07:20, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Hello Greg. I think you should look up explanations for new age. New age does not recommend one religion, it is global and eclectic. NLP is the same. New age and NLP evolved together, and they were even together geographically surrounding Esalen institute. Both Bandler and Grinder attended and spoke there. Fritz Perls was quite influential there and got up to all sorts. He was also a strong proponent of Zen concepts and meditation (awareness). He did not invent gestalt psychology (which is mainstream) but he did more or less originate gestalt therapy (which is also fringe and often quite new age in it's approach). There are SO many authors/proponents/critics/websites who write about NLP and give it the new age label. Quite a lot of the research on NLP actually states that it is a new age therapy. But this is all advantageous for you. Firstly it makes it contemporary. It also makes it popular. Look at the self help/new age section of the bookstores, also take into account the ideas floating around in newspapers, women's and lad's magazines, in fact the whole of popular media including TV and film. It is full of new ager's looking quite glamorous in an earthy way. Richard Branson/Madonna/Angelina Jolie and many others have that new age view. Some of the ideas are even popular in business circles. The new age association really is indesputible, so make the most of it. There are plenty of benefits, and it does to a certain degree immunise/seperate NLP from science and convention. Regards HeadleyDown 14:03, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

NLP is New Age in terms of period of origin, influences, (post-modernist) worldview, implicit metaphysics, epistemology, participant "interest clusters" and even technique. It is not coicidental that most (perhaps all) of the pricipal NLP trainers (Bandler, Grinder, La Valle, McKenna, Breen, James, Dilts) incorporate mystical/spiritual/quasi-religious themese into their instruction. I can elaborate on the matter of NLP/New Age if necessary. flavius 23:54, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

HeadleyDown, Some trainers/practitioners (eg. Grinder) completely reject the New Age uncritical ideas about power, energy, forces, spirit, cosmic goals; see the work of Gregory Bateson (eg. Angels Fear) and Bertrand Russell's logical positivism. Using the same logic, some NLP practitioners are academics (eg. Tom Malloy); this does not classify NLP as an academic field. --Comaze 23:21, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Comaze, you do like to drop names but unfortunately your name dropping is entirely affectatious and without substance. Are you saying that (heaven forbid) Bertrand Russell (who wasn't a Logical Positivist by the way, Russell is termed an "analytic philosopher" by other philosophers) was somehow implicated in the NLP granfalloon (even though he died in 1970)! Bertrand Russell's entire life work is fundamentally at odds with the project of NLP. NLP promotes a form of idealism which Russell rejected absolutely. Russell was an epistemological realist. Russell was vehemently opposed to mystification and obscurantism (two features of NLP) and he was a strong supporter of the scientific method and the project of science. Grinder does what he has always done in "Whispering in the Wind", he name drops in a manner like you do. Russell's Theory of Types in Whispering serves the same semiotic role as Automata Theory in Magic I&II. It is intended to give Grinder's second-rate (amateur) philosophising a semblance of depth to non-philosophers. Also, the material in Whispering regarding the putative unreliability of the human senses is lifted from the first chapter of Russell's "Problems of Philosophy" (http://www.ditext.com/russell/rus1.html). "Problems of Philosophy" is used as a first year/first semester undergraduate introduction to philosophy. Russell's argument presented in the first chapter (and by implication Grinder's in Whispering) is easily refuted by most undergraduate students. Russell himself came to reject his notion of intermediate sense data. It appears though that Dr Grinder's (amateur) philosophical investigations did not extend beyond the first year/first semsester level. flavius 00:37, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Bertrand Russell influence dates back to the first book on NLP, Structure I (1975); see also Whispering (2002), Dilts Encyclopedia (online)... This may have entered via John Grinder's PhD in Chomsky's transformational grammar. I'll check Turtles for Grinder's 1986 epistemological positioning of NLP. Tom Malloy (university of utah) has joined John Grinder and Carmen Bostic St Clair as co-authors of their new book further explicating the epistemology of NLP. See Malloy's site a University of Utah for more info, see overarching framework. --Comaze 11:17, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Comaze. Bertrand Russell was not a Logical Positivist. Logical Positivists reject the branch of philosophy known as metaphysics as 'meaningless'. Russell wrote much on metaphysics. Dilts' Russell article in his Encyclopedia is ill-informed. Russell's Theory of Types was actually used to support refutations of Logical Positivism, specifically the "criterion of verifiability". Russell is categorised as an 'Analystic Philosopher' (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/russell/). Furthermore, Russell's Theory of Types does not enjoy much currency today, the elimination of self-reference also eliminates particular branches of abstract mathematics and cognitive theory. Russell himself came to reject the Theory. (See http://www.iep.utm.edu/p/par-russ.htm, http://www.cs.cornell.edu/Info/Projects/NuPrl/Intro/TypeSetDomain/typesetd.html, http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/russell-paradox/, http://www.steveandreas.com/whispering.html) Grinder's philosophising is not taken seriously by any respected philosopher. Grinder is entirely unremarkable and even uninteresting as a epistemologist. Grinder's triumph is to be able to present banality as profundity to a philosophically naive audience. Grinder and Bostic-St Calire's leisurely -- and they are leisurely its not serious scholarship -- excursions into undergraduate epistemology are best understood as an apologetic for barstool theorising. In response to the heavy empirical assault NLP has received from scientists and clinicians Grinder -- more scholarly than Bandler -- has retreated into introspection and philosophical musing. Bandler simply ignores all criticsm, the solipsist fish tank that he inhabits has been cleansed thoroughly of any criticism -- he is surrounded by sycophants (eg. La Valle, Breen, McKenna). Grinder -- on the other hand -- has decided to negate all criticism directed against NLP by formulating an epistemological position for NLP which will somehow, magically make all the criticism irrelevant. When he eventually publishes his "Red Tail Math" I expect that his followers will repeat the teachings contained therein as Gospel to anyone that will listen. flavius 03:42, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Regarding overarching framework.. I honestly can't see how any of this in any way substantiates or justifies NLP. Cellular Automata produce unexpected and sometimes complicated behaviour. So what? The site is incoherent, it is a motley collection of articles and Java applets relating to Cellular Automata without any apparent purpose or 'overarching framework'. This reminds me of the awful New Age film 'What the #$*! Do We (K)now!?'[[5]] that attempted to use Quantum Physics to substantiate and justify the New Age teachings of JZ Knight (who 'channels' the 30,000 year old spirit Ramtha that happens to speak English with a Hindi accent). What exactly are Grinder, Malloy and St. Clair trying to tell us? Cellular Automata can produce stripey patterns therefore we can dispense with the scientific method and just make stuff up in relation to human psychology? Please enlighten me? flavius 03:42, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't consider Richard Bandler to be the essence of NLP. Others have argued to me he is looked down upon by the NLP community so which way is it? It seems to me his more recent work puts a different spin on the original material. Besides the sectionI propose was about NLP noit what people have done with it. To write about what different people have done with it would be another sectionJustin

Your remark appears to presuppose that there is an "essence" of NLP. There is no such thing. NLP is not covered by any form of standards body, it is factionalised and each "school" takes on some aspects of the character of its proponent. In Lakatos' terms its research program is degenerating, i.e. it has data looking for a theory, so theories are grafted based on the peculiar interests of the proponent. NLP is what is taught as NLP in books, seminars, tapes and websites. This is self-referential but NLP has no clearly defined scope and limits nor fundamental principles that all proponents agree upon (consider Meta programs for example). flavius 04:39, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes Students are encouraged to choose presuppositions/beleif systems relevant to the way they want to grow. This is classic NLP too. Justin

Justin, Flavius, can we agree that the essense of NLP is referring to the classic or core NLP as defined between 1972-1979 (Structure 1&2, Patterns 1&2, Frogs into Princes, NLP vol.1, Reframing)? The core models are based patterns on Milton H. Erickson, Virginia Satir, Fritz Perls and Transformation syntax - all major schools of NLP agree that this is the base of NLP. Gregory Bateson was also very important in those years, but became more influential later. --Comaze 05:59, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Comaze... while NLP has changed considerably and there may not be an 'essence' of NLP (essence is a pretty loose word though!), perhaps the only thing that can be agreed on is the original goals (since others have taken it their own way). However, I would say the original goals are a start, but so are developments on those as agreed by most practitioners. This could be said to be "NLP", and we should also represent other significant views. GregA 07:44, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

GregA. Even the original goals of NLP are unclear. The only thing that I can find that unites all schools of NLP is the theory (and it is a theory) that memory and experience is encoded neurologically in terms of the Representational Systems (VAKOG) and their submodalities. Many of the other facets of NLP (PRS, cognitive strategies, submodality based patterns eg. Swish, eye accessing cues, sensory predicates) flow out of this central theory. This central theory remains untouched (and unchallenged) in Grinder's New Code and in Bandler's "Technologies" (NHR, DHE, NS). It is also present in Dilt's and James' conception of NLP. Stipulating that "NLP" refers to that NLP that existed between 1972-1979 (as Comaze has done) is entirely arbitrary. NLP is a post-modernist pastiche. As per post-modernism NLP is what people say is NLP. There is no set of scope defining principles within NLP that allow one to differentiate NLP from non-NLP. NLPs scope and limits are undefined. This is consistent with its categorisation as a pseudoscience by numerous experts. NLP practice is divorced from the practice of empirical verification, its theorising is not substantiated with reference to empirical evidence, it doesn't exploit the body of knowledge of established disciplines and its theoretical basis is actively denied to exist by many proponents. All of the means of discipline demarcation won't work. Grinder's pontification in Whispering, in his corerspondence to Hall regarding NueroSemantics, and on the Whispering forum regarding what is and isn't NLP is vacuous and predicated entirely on his authority. Grinder attempts by mere fiat to define NLP. flavius 01:11, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

You may not have looked enough Flavius. Firstly you're starting by defining a theory of NLP and that's the wrong place - theories are secondary. One aspect that unites NLP is the focus on communication both verbally AND non-verbally and the assumption that there is a rich information stream that's neither greatly understood nor deliberately used much - and that some people do use these other forms of communication effectively. Another is that people and groups often follow patterns of interaction and communication which we are often not aware of - we may not realise there's a pattern there at all, or we may focus on one aspect which actually is not part of the pattern (what NLP calls 'content'). There is also the belief that these communication methods can be detected, learned, and used... and that our ability to detect these things can be developed through experiential exercises and simple experience. This all leads to 2 aspects of NLP - one being that we can use our senses to model how someone does something, with the goal of replicating how they specifically do what they do. The other being that we can learn to more clearly work with someone by using this information (modeling or going 2nd position with them to gain more insight) rather than a focus only on what is being said. NLP doesn't teach the scientific method and there is another field that does that nicely. As you say, it doesn't exploit the theoretical body of knowledge, simply due to its focus on a specific individual's ability and skill (which psychology ignores) and the assumption that more goes on than we are consciously aware of. You say that the central theory remains in New Code NLP... well (aside from the above-mentioned problems with your 'theory') New Code has developed from the classic stuff, but it's still NLP. It has a greater focus on the impact of physiology and breathing on mental states, along with attention - and it uses these in modeling. It has added the concept of "content-free high performance states", and there is also more of a sounding out of consequences of change and an environmental metaphor rather than a mechanistic one. What Grinder says generally fits with the original NLP (imo), but often clarifies and contextualises it more (the lack of which was one of your criticisms). GregA 04:59, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

GregA, let me reword that, can we agree historically that between the years 1972-1980 that NLP was based on the work of Bandler & Grinder (Structure 1&2, Patterns 1&2, Frogs into Princes, NLP vol.1, Reframing)? According to Grinder & Bostic (2002) the core models are based patterns on Milton H. Erickson, Virginia Satir, Fritz Perls and Transformation syntax. Between 1978-1986, and 1986-2005 different schools formed, some to promote ecology, others with more concerned with commercialisation. Also, Greg, do you agree that that most of the criticism in this section is directed at the commercialisation? --Comaze 10:49, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes I'd say the core is the early stuff from Bandler and Grinder, after which it diverged in a few ways. Although different trainers took it in different ways, there are still commonalities - I'd add that to the 'core'. I'm not sure if I'd describe the split as ecology vs commercialisation ... but it's a start - unfortunately when we've tried to describe the various strands in the past we got nowhere (I still think describing these strands is required to fairly say what NLP is). GregA 21:48, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

GregA: "There is a flaw to this. It's not as simple as 'NLP works great" vs "it's a pseudoscience'. There are differences in the NLP claims (see the Bandler discussion that's starting)."

I have to agree with this. Lets simply keep in mind that while we have numerous claims from random NLP practitioners ranging from New Age, curing diseases, Huna, orgasims through sound, and subconscious learning; Other claims such as self-improvenment, sports/business applications are not so proposterous. Not all of these represent NLP. On the other hand, NLP has limited heirchy, no one group is really in charge; this likely explains the variance. We should first start out by focusing on Grinder et all, and then moving outward from there. The intro must mention NLP's variance, and the dubious nature of many, but not all, of its schools of though.

Some criticism will be re-worded to reflect this, as opposed to outright removed. Nevertheless, this article, as others have noted, still needs to be trimmed. Voice of All^T|@|ESP 15:05, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Hello VoiceOfAll and all. I have been working with the principles of NLP from the beginning. There is a center to this. Basically the flexible map they want to give people is to a large extent, a new age map. Eg. Your intentions are basically good (we are not fundamentally Catholic/protestant sinners). Your resources are abundant. Your map is not reality (life is a veil of tears/life is an illusion and so on), there are no failures (only philosophy of life), we all make the best choices (eastern/Buddhist view of fate), no substitute for good channels (awareness and meditation), and so on.

These are all sentiments from the new age and all the baggage that comes with it. On one hand you could say, B and G took all the most trendy and pleasant ideas from Perls/Satir/Erickson and made them popular for seminars/cults, or you could say B and G was making a fun to work with self help/therapy. It is impossible to seperate the new age from these core principles. From the beginning, it was the structure of magic, and that has been constant. The shamanism/lay healer part has been with NLP since Erickson. Erickson was mainly a therapist, and secondly a hypnotherapist. NLP is not hypnosis, but a method proposed for improving therapist skills (but the techniques have been falsified). The sidelines involve accelerated learning- business training and persuasion/negotiation and they are not core. NLP started as fringe and included all kinds of shamanism and occult. Then it became a theraputic fad. The fad dwindled as therapists became disenchanted in the 80s. It moved on far more to Robbins and motivation/self help, though the occult/new age aspects remained constant. The Robbins/biz aspects have increased, but only really as flavour of the month/empowerment/motivational seminars. So there are main areas: 1.Structure of magic (fringe therapy and hypnosis/lay/occult healing). 2 Theraputic fad of the early 80s (RIP or remains as a cult following). 3 Business motivational seminars and self help. Self help/self empowerment is actually the most popular now (the new age beliefs are to a large extent a substitute/booster for one's own "religion""beliefs").

This is basically the history and how it has changed. I think that is encyclopedic enough (with a few tone changes). Regards HeadleyDown 16:04, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

I believe you've atleast made our current impass clear. The suggestion that we could write the pro and you write the con is fairly good, but you disregard what we describe as NLP. It sets up NLP in the way you want it setup.

NLP doesn't say your intentions are fundamentally good - it's far closer to say your intentions are fundamentally selfish (ie interested in something good for yourself). Life is not an illusion. There are failures (though it is useful to use these as feedback in contrast to dwelling on them) - all of these you misunderstand or misrepresent and have done continually. "We all make the best choices", and "no substitute for good channels" are new from you, you'll have to clarify what you're saying before I can understand whether it's related to NLP in any way or not - your history is not encouraging. You say NLP related to Magic from the beginning, actually the original book was almost named "structure of madness" for its linguistic metamodel - a description of what people do wrong, and how they are helped. They were advised that it wouldn't sell so well (yes, commercial!) - the book explained in grounded linguistic terms (non-magic terms!) the "therapeutic magic" some practitioners were doing (who didn't know how or what they were doing). Anyway, you continue to misunderstand or misrepresent to your own ends. GregA 21:48, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi Greg. Your really do seem to be resisting solutions. The new age label is undeniable because it is sourced all over the place. It will certainly be in the criticism section even if it is not in the proNLP section. But it is actually a neutral label. There is nothing wrong with it. It is actually one of NLP's better excuses. Look at Bandler's attitude. He doesn't need NLP to be tested, and he doesn't need science's applause. He is the quintessential new ager - a shaman and guru! That does hold a lot of glamour in the eyes of a lot of people, and if I were you, I would represent NLP as distancing itself from objective science (because it does in fact), and because it makes the article more fair to the subject. It softens the blows of criticism. I cannot see why you would not want that. Regards HeadleyDown 02:49, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

You may be entirely right that associating with New Age has some positive aspects, but that you can't see why I wouldn't want that speaks volumes about your attitude towards me. I don't want NLP to be given positive coverage, I want to show NLP for what it is, including the misunderstandings, unsupported findings etc. You paint me as trying to make NLP something it's not, and to make it sound good - you really should consider that some of us here have a better idea of some aspects of NLP than you do!

Now, in light of that, do you have any comment about the multiple misunderstandings of NLP you had? I am willing to say that "New Age" is sufficiently vague that NLP has characteristics which fit... though my question is related to your mistaken notion of what NLP is anyway - you say it says we're fundamentally good, life is an illusion, that there is no failure, there is magic, etc. Any comments? Also would you be able to explain what you meant when you said NLP says "We all make the best choices", and "no substitute for good channels"? The other "neutral editors" & I (in contrast to "anti-NLP") want NLP to be clearly represented. (Notice how "neutral editors" has no meaning when it comes from an editor?). GregA 04:10, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi Greg. Headley looks to be consistent with the criticisms of NLP. I have also read those views in the literature. It doesn't matter how distant you think NLP is from new age. The literature makes those connections- that NLP and new age are connected inextricably. Your discussion is consistent with denial. Who really gives a toss about our views? The views of the experts are the priority. DaveRight 04:41, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

That's too vague Dave. NLP quite clearly defines positive-intention, map vs territory, failure vs feedback - though you attempt to misrepresent it. I do agree that there are many other people who don't understand it either, though our job is both to present what NLP says, and if there is a common different interpretation to show that. We've already argued through all this 6 weeks ago when writing the presuppositions and principles of NLP, are you now saying you don't agree with all that? And how does this fit in with your well worded idea of letting NLP say what it says, and THEN giving criticism? GregA 04:59, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Mmm, I think you are a little confused Greg. NLP defines those principles in their own way (some NLPers conflict also), but writers/anthropologists/scientists do make their own arguments for NLP to be classed as new age. Surely you can't argue for those views not to be heard? I don't see Headley or anyone wanting their own interpretation on the article. I do see you accusing people of being confused or not understanding though. The suggestion was simply to place the facts in the article as the experts see them. Not to write in your own interpretation.Bookmain 05:55, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

To be clear here Bookmain, are you saying that the section on principles and presuppositions discussed last month was wrong, and that the interpretation of the presuppositions given there should be what Headley is now saying? I think I've been quite clear that I want to represent all views fairly... which is exactly why I disagree with this most recent push. You don't see Headley wanting his own interpretation of NLP?... that is your view. I look at the misrepresentation and contradiction with our own agreed article and assume there's something else going on. Anyway - it's easy to agree with vague general statements, we're all happy there, but as soon as we nut it down we disagree - do you believe that NLP presents itself in the way that Headley implies, and if so have you got any new evidence? (we've been through this before... why don't you want to move forward?) GregA 06:24, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Greg, I have already stated I want to move forward. I have never seen Headley writing his own perspective in the article. I have seen FT2 do that though, and I have seen you and Justin argue for that in this discussion page(the inconsistency falacy). I personally think you can write whatever you like about presups in the upper section. You can call it postmodern wisdom with the support of formal logic and George Bush, if you like. I am resigned to the fact that you will restrict the views narrowly to the ones that make NLP look like rocket science. I personaly believe the rest of the world looks at you and all the other NLP promoters as a dianetics-like cult from your behaviour. There is new evidence being collected all the time. The new age evidence was abundant from the get go. I think you will just write your adverts, and the scientists can present the criticisms (as stated by scientists and other experts) in the lower section. Bookmain 06:46, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Okay, so you can't answer my questions. And your statements make it clear there is no room for discussion with you. The only question I have is what's "the inconsistency falacy"? If you don't want to answer please don't. GregA 08:37, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

No Greg Anderson, registered NLP practitioner/promoter. I have just written a reply to answer your question. I will clarify. I do not think the principles and presups passages are clear enough, and I do think Headley's/Flavius' account of scientists and anthropologists view is more correct and indeed more meta. However, I also know the best way forward is to allow you and the other promoters-with-vested-financial-interests to write whatever bullshit they like in that section without any interference from fact, logic, or balance. Then scientists and neutrally minded editors can clarify your twisted version of the NLP proponents view by presenting the facts of the matter within the criticisms section. Then of course, you can try to delete the criticism section in parts just as you have argued for for months, but it will be a lot easier for the wikipedians to restore that collection of facts when it is contained within a single section. Bookmain 09:08, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

The inconsistency fallacy is just as it sounds. You stated there was an inconsistency between NLP being ineffective, and NLP being used in cults. That is a fallacy because as you know, drinking urine is also used in cults, but it is just as dubious as NLP, and just like NLP it contains some associated hazards (as experts have stated). Bookmain 09:08, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi all. Well, yes Bookmain, I'm sure the proNLPers will write all kinds of nonsense, but that will be subject to some scrutiny. The main purpose of this section was to give them reasonable cop out clauses (that exist in the literature) instead of them filling the page with confusing psychobabble and obscurantisms that go against the very purpose of clear, concise and reasonable encyclopedic writing.

So; NLP claims to be about subjective experience, eclecticism, pragmatism, modeling rather than theory, do what works, and so on. The view of NLP being new age, occult or whatever else will also appear on the article somewhere as that is the view of both critics and proponents alike. Regards HeadleyDown 10:33, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Bookmain wrote 05:48, 23 November 2005 (UTC):

"The proNLPers, especially the likes of FuelWagon, flatly deny the facts."

I can only say that this is not encouraging me to believe that anything short of arbitration will solve this problem. I don't care about NLP either way. If I have deleted anything from the article it is because it is presented without a source, or worse, presented as a fact when it is actually someone's poitn of view. Wikipedia policies have certain requirements, and a number of editors are breaking those policies. The article must be written in accordance with wikipedia policy. Any piece that does not follow policy can be rewritten or deleted. Complaining that I'm deleting "facts" does not change wikipedia policy requirements. Even "facts" must be reported according to policy. And that has not been done in this article by a number of editors. FuelWagon 16:16, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Very officious, Fuelwagon. Here's some perspective: This article has been subject to months and months of NLP zealots deleting scientific facts and deleting cited expert views. It even went on during the mediation that the zealots demanded but hated because the mediator is not a certified NLPbrain. You decided to make edits to isolate general views to make those views look small. It didn't work so you became a full memberhip zealot and deleted using the same excuses as the multiple deletion per day zealots. You saw the nazis burning books and you decided to join. You used excuses such as "you cannot verify the sources using a single click". Well some people here do actually go to libraries occasionally and you have shown a reluctance to join them. Scared you may find some facts you don't want to face? Deletion is your solution even though that is not recommended in NPOV policy. If you want to join a rabble of fact denying thugs just to put the boot in, people are definitely going to notice. DaveRight 04:41, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, I see your point Dave. Perhaps a little harshly put:) I can balance my statement: I understand why FuelWagon and others gang up and vote for arbitration. In general the level of pressure they have applied is enormous (demaning facts and threatening to delete if there are only 9 citations rather than 10, and then deleting anyway, demanding explanations, denying they have been answered and deleting on that basis, demanding mediation and then demanding more than their fair share of compromise, then demanding arbitration, and demanding very specific wording although they don't apply it or citations to their own sanitised assertions). However, that pressure has never worked. Also, if fact supplying editors get annoyed, I can see why. OK, I will mitigate for FuelWagon. All proNLP editors flatly deny facts, including FuelWagon. Bookmain 06:05, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Sorry FuelWagon. You have always done it selectively in favour of NLP promotion. And you have always argued for NLP promotion. I can't see how you can honestly deny that. Regards HeadleyDown 02:41, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Much of this article does follow the pattern of how it started, and how it evolved out, altough the evolution and the criticism still need work in order to fit this idea.Voice of All^T|@|ESP 16:23, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes I fully agree, VoA. The upper section will show how NLP has been confusingly evolved, and the lower section of criticisms, will show the criticisms as they have evolved in response. Lets get on with it! Cheers DaveRight 04:27, 24 November 2005 (UTC) PS. Having two main sections does distance NLP from skeptical science anyway; NLPbrains can write whatever mindnumbingly banal tripe they like in the above section, the lower criticisms will always be distanced from it. DaveRight 04:44, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

That article structure seems promising. It is important though that a sanitised version of NLP -- without references to "energy", "genius", "unconscious installation" and the other bizarre aspects of NLP -- is not presented as NLP. NLP is occult in this regard in that books don't reveal all, the weirdest aspects of NLP are taught in seminars. A complete revelation of NLP would serve to properly depict it as post-modern pastiche and distance it even further from science. I have provided ample URLs (and can provide more) that demonstrate the New Age aspects of NLP. flavius 05:13, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Sure Flavius. Most definitely if the proNLPers were in any way neutral or NPOV friendly, then they would represent NLP with all it's oddments. However, they never have. Omitting the troublesome dirty laundry is what they have been fighting for all along, plus deleting criticism. I can't see how they are going to change. On the other hand, the criticisms section does require some explanatory text, and the unsanitized aspects can be placed there (the criticisms will have to be explained somehow). As it stands, the damage contol/balance/practicalities to stop NLPers censoring fact, will work to some extent with the pro-con arrangement. The proNLPers will love to present their own rosy view with ample cop out clauses, and the criticisms can be kept far away on another section. It perhaps should not be that way ideally, but it is a practical way of moving forward. Bookmain 05:49, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

What NLP is (applied to mostly)!

Hello all. OK we have suggested some damage reduction. Now lets look at what NLP primarily is. Here is the agreed view so far:

1 A self help system (books in the bookshops/websites/seminars for self help)
2 A how to for business people/persuasion/empowerment/
3 A fringe therapy as used mostly by NLPers, a mixed fringe such as prior life therapy and dancingmantra therapy and mixed with EFT, and
4 Accelerated learning technique
5 Used by some psychotherapists in a small way

What it is not:

it is not psychology
it is not linguistics
it is not neuroscience
it is not scientific
it is not religion

Is NLP Epistemology?

it is not epistemology (and it has nothing to do with epistemology, i.e. the branch of philosophy concerned with nature, sources and limits of knowledge) flavius 02:43, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

NLP is based on Cybernetic epistemology of Bateson (Grinder & Bandler 1975, Tossey & Mathison 2003)
"NLP was designed to be an epistemolgy from the very beginning" (Grinder & Deloizer, 1986) This is consistent with what is presented in Whispering (Grinder & Bostic 2001).
Grinder has offered refinements to Bateson's epistemology (Malloy 2005). --Comaze 12:25, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

If Grinder had anything serious to say about epistemology his name would appear in epistemology texts. I can find no such reference. What exactly is Grinder's contribution to epistemology? From my reading of Whispering he appears to be appealing to Representationalism or Idealism (which one is unclear). flavius 09:22, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Flavius, You raise some interesting questions about Representationalism and Idealism, I'll need to check Whispering to clarify things -- will get back to you on this. In Turtles, Grinder & Delozier state that they have attempt to bridge the gap between British empiricist usefully represented by Hume and by Kant in the German idealist tradition. Grinder & Delozier state (1986), "Hume and his troops are condemned to wander about, entertaining all and only experiences which are sensory-based while Kant and his band sit immobilized, locked into their (individual) neurologies. Hume and the empiricists have the task of freeing themselves from the tyranny of an exclusively sensory world, while Kant and his idealists, trapped in tmental categories, try to find a way back out to the real world. (p.xv)" They also say they attempt to do this "without appealing to mysticism". So this probably sums up the epistemological position. There are currently only a few published papers.

Redtail Math (working title) is primarily focused on "epistemology of everyday life".
Steps to ecology of emergence (Malloy, Grinder, Bostic-St Clair) is published is Cybernetic and Human Knowing (2005). You can view it online [6]. Malloy outlines Grinder's the contributions on this page [7],
Whispering and Grinder/Bostic St-Clair contributions are acknowledged and used in Malloy, T. E., Jensen, G. C., & Song, T. (2005). Mapping knowledge to Boolean dynamic systems in Bateson’s epistemology. Nonlinear Dynamics, Psychology, and Life Sciences, 9 , 37-60..
Bateson's foreward to Structure I or II is probably also important as it from memory vaguely supports the view that Bandler & Grinder contributed to the study of epistemology. --Comaze 10:24, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Comaze. I'll be frank with you. I can't take any of this seriously (and I'm in good company). Neither Grinder nor DeLozier have any philosophical maturity or sophistication. The stated project to reconcile Empiricism with Rationalism (in Turtles) reeks of the same imperialism that runs through Whispering. Furthermore, Grinder and Delozier have reduced Empiricism and Ratioanlism and the debate to caricature and parody. This is the sort of the thing Levelt was referring to when he writes of the absence of seriousness. The Empiricist/Rationalist debate has been running for hundreds of years and it has spawned much literature. This literature is part of our intellectual heritage. Where then is Grinder, DeLozier, Bostic-St Caires survey of this mountain of literature? Do they even mention the most salient philosophical positions in relation to the debate? Do they position their contribution in relation to all of the authors that have gone before them? The answer to all of these rhetorical questions is no. For this reason Grinder and his women can't be taken seriously as philosophers (and for the same reason psychologists, linguists, therapist). flavius 12:04, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

discussion

These are aspects we can talk about. Some critics have stated that NLP is like a religion, but they have not said it is a religion. All other issues here I am sure will be discussed. As far as world views goes, I am sure that NLP is more of a self help system than anything else nowadays. I know the amount of NLP going on within clinical psychology is small to non existent in practice because they have far more useful and empirically supported methods to use and there is evidence to back that up. It may be used by the pseudoscientific psychoanalysts to some small degree. Hypnotists do not take NLP seriously. Anyway, lets hear what you have to say about these issues. Regards HeadleyDown 13:33, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

For #1-3 you forgot again the whole difference between what NLP is, and what NLP can be applied to. Also, it is used in counselling or coaching very frequently (without past-life fringe stuff, and not necessarily by psychotherapists), it's one of the main places NLP is applied (many techniques can't be done effectively on yourself, you need to work with someone). Of course, we still have to say what it IS. GregA

ps. While NLP can be applied to many fields, some are sometimes still called NLP, others are not. This does need to be reflected. Coaching (for example) is field in which NLP can be applied and some NLP practitioners who coach simply call what they do "NLP". Law enforcement questioning can use NLP but it's not called NLP. GregA 21:46, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi Greg. Actually this bit doesn't bother me that much. I know its mostly self help/ARobbins. I'm just thinking of that hierarchy underneath in order to priorotise things (and make life simpler). I'm making the distinction between NLP therapists and normal (clinical psychologists with degrees). I know the latter generally don't take NLP seriously. You are probably right about coaching. It is about as popular as timeline/occult. Regards HeadleyDown 01:16, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

HeadleyDown says, "Here is the agreed view so far:" and then lists an extremely biased opinion of what NLP is. You have failed to make a distinction between NLP epistemology/NLP modeling, NLP Training, and NLP Application. These are important distinction if you want to enter an intelligent discussion about NLP (without going around in circle or confusing the subject). --Comaze 23:38, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Scientific research tends to come down on certain aspects of NLP a lot more than other aspects; this should be reflected in the article. Some areas where also researched more than others, which also must be noted.Voice of All^T|@|ESP 00:10, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Well you have to understand, Comaze. I'm just a dull wanker. Lets try to keep some kind of order to this thing for the sake of organization. HeadleyDown 01:16, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Comaze. I don't think its appropriate to describe NLP in terms of "epistemology". NLP is not a branch of epistemology (I've yet to find any reference to NLP in any epistemology text). Further, it does not have an epistomology. Grinder makes allusions to epistemological concepts but this is far from having an epistemology. NLP "modelling" cannot be justifiably characterised as an epistomology. It is a methodology with a set of epistemological assumptions and it is neither a unique method of inquiry or theory of knowledge. flavius 02:43, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

flavius, check the NLP text books (eg. Structure I&II, Patterns I&II) dating right back to the very beginning of NLP tends to agree stating that "NLP was designed from the very beginning to be an epistemology" (1986); Grinder makes this even more explict on Whispering, and more recent work with (2003-2005) Tom Malloy of University of Utah (Psych. Dept) also is consistent with this position. Several papers have been published that either cite Whispering directly or cite Steps to ecology of emergence that cites Whispering. As you probably already know most of the epistemological influence is directly from Gregory Bateson and "Steps to an ecology of mind" (1972) which is cited in Structure of Magic Volume I and most of the original NLP books. Bateson's double-bind theory of schizophrenia (see Bateson 1972, 1979) forms the base of many of the therpeutic pattens in NLP. Don't forget that John Grinder and Richard Bandler lived on the same plot of land as Gregory Bateson, and Grinder became to know Bateson very well, both as a friend and a mentor. More recently, I think Mathison (or Tossey) in the UK was one of the first to do an PhD in Neurolinguistic programming, see an example of their work here that supports that claim that NLP is based on Batesonian Cybernetic epistemology...[8]. As me if you need more references for this info. --Comaze 12:15, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Comaze. Just because Bandler, Grinder and Bateson all lived on the Alba Road commune doesn't entail that NLP contains a serious treatment of Bateson's "cybernetic epistemology" or that Bateson's "cybernetic epistemology" is theoretically sound and philisopsophically mature. Bateson's exprimental epistemology ("cybernetic epistemology") has no currency amongst contemporary epistemologists and it isn't even taught in undergraduate philosophy curricula. It isn't taken seriously as a contribution to epistemology. General Systems Theory -- which is one of its influences -- is dead. Bateson's Double-Bind Theory of Schizophrenia has been thoroughly refuted. NLP is conceptually and philosophically discordant and incoherent, this is what Levelt (1995) has written on. On the one hand NLP (superficially) incorporates a Structuralist orientation and terminology (Transformational Grammar, General Systems Theory, Cybernetics, "pattern", "content", "Overarching Framework", Meta-language etc.) and on the other hand it attempts to incorporate an entirely incompatible Post-Structuralst (Post-Modern) orientation and terminology ("the map is not the territory", "the territory is not even the territory" (Whispering), "nominalization", "reality" mediated by language, eclecticism, intuition as a legitimate method of inquiry, no privileged worldview etc.). NLP is not based on Batesonian Cybernetic Epistemology any more than it is based on Chomskyan Transformational Grammar. Most of the elements that NLP claims as its intellectual antecedents are irreconcilable. NLP theory doesn't work -- this is what Levelt and Drenth tell us. Bandler and Grinder's reference to Chomsky, Bateson, von Bertalanffy, Turing etc is just name dropping, that isn't just my opinion. An indicator that Grinder is not serious (and if he isn't serious at this stage of his life he most likely never will be) about epistemology is the imperialism evident in Whispering. Epistemology is literally thousands of years old, it is one of the most important branches of philosophy and it "belongs" to the community of philosophers (they do it the best and they are its custodians). Yet Grinder -- in true pseudoscientist fashion -- ignores our philosophical heritage. He doesn't use any standard philosophical nomenclature, he describes well-known (amongst philosophers) epistemological theories without bothering to label them as per the philosophy lexicon, and he doesn't justify his ostensibly novel theorising in terms of the existing epistemological literature and how his actvity relates to the existing field of epistemology. At the risk of offending you, my advice to you is to read some undergraduate texts on epistemology and perhaps social theory (if the Structuralist/Post-Structuralist tensions within NLP theory are not apparent to you). flavius 11:50, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Sure VoiceOfAll. Science came down really hard on NLP therapy back in the 80s and there was a mass ditching by original enthusiasts in psychotherapy. We have lots of evidence for it being a fad before the science falsified it. Since then it has been ridiculed further because some people could not ditch it, and it has gained further criticism due to some psychology bodies actually allowing non-degree NLP therapists to join them (and some mass exoduses of real psychologists to bodies who do not like NLP). Since the 90s internet boom and the widespread NLP/Tony Robbins stuff it has become far more a self help interest, and now attained a good deal more criticism for being banal pop psychology. So perhaps we only really need to work on those 2 aspects and it doesnt matter how we organize the rest.

1 Self help
2 Lay therapy
3 the rest

Regards HeadleyDown 01:16, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

HeadleyDown, did you just make up the lay therapy group. I have never heard term used to describe NLP. --Comaze 12:30, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Comaze, Lay therapy is another way of saying dubious or fringe or barefaced therapy. NLP therapy is more officially termed "dubious therapy". I think I am beginning to prefer the official term. HeadleyDown 16:36, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Sure NLP modeling can be applied to therapy but the effectiveness is dependant on the skills of the actual practitioner. Many practitioners will have other degrees and qualifications and use some NLP methods in their approach. Others think of NLP as a way of finding and learning from mentors with a focus on high achievers. An NLP practitioner would encourage a therapist to seek out the most skillful therapist and imitate to the best of her ability. The NLP focus is on the difference between a OK therapist and an excellent therapist -- it is really that simple. --Comaze 00:51, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Its actually simpler than that Comaze. The fact is not many NLPers have other qualifications, and they go into therapy completely unprepared for it (according to the literature). These are lay therapists. Apart from pretending to be a mesmerist and miming their poor unsuspecting client, they have no real ability when it comes to psychotherapy, they make unfounded claims (such as being able to help you liberate energy from your supposedly unlimited resources (such as your previous lives)), and properly qualified therapists don't like to be associated with them. NLPers are not just doing on the job training and copying well trained therapists. They are pretending to be real psychotherapists, but have not been any where near proper training. Note that proper training means attending courses rather than just pretending to know what you are talking about (acting as if). HeadleyDown 04:12, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

HeadleyDown, I agree that there are many these so-called psychotherapists who advertise themselves as having NLP practitioner qualifications without sufficient training or proper qualifications in NLP or for that matter psychotherapy. This problem is exagerated in that NLP or psychotherpist are not a registered terms or regulated properly in some countries. So someone with no training or qualifications could give themselves the title psychotherapist, NLP Master trainer, NLP practitioner... and start up a business offering related services. Some training organisation hand out NLP practitioner certificates after 20 days (or even less) training, without competency evaluation. Ie. they get qualified by paying the money and turing up. There are some professional organisation that are trying to clean up this problem by setting minimum standards and also offer services such as insurance for members. --Comaze 11:29, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Comaze. This begs the question. If NLP is without empirical or theoretical support and merely a form of "psycho shamanism" (as Tye (1994) describes it) then concepts of "NLP qualification", "proper NLP qualifications", "NLP Practitioner", "NLP competency", "NLP professional" are meaningless outside of the NLP granfalloon. Do you have any evidence that there is a difference in therapeutic results between "NLP Master Practotioners" from "good" schools versus those from "bad" schools? There is no such evidence. The NLP granfalloon is overloaded with conjcture and assertion. flavius 12:26, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Yay Headley. Actually, some of this sits under just self help and lay therapy. For example, the business stuff is under self help, as is occult (enneagrams, shamanic visualizations, and other such pseudos)

Lay therapy also includes occult (enneagrams, shamanic visualizations, and other such pseudos) as well as other debunked flimflam pseudosciences; EFT, EMDR, and so on. So on the article it can be represented that way.

These are just applications though.

NLP can be thought of as different. NLP is (according to NLPers) a wild stab in the dark at the structure of subjective experience. Using NLP principles (attitudes), NLP techniques, and other such tea leaf readings.

The criticisms can shine the light on NLP in general, then each application aspect (Self help and occult business pseudoscience, then fringe therapy with occult and mixed with other pseudosciences). bathrooms are really amazing <A HREF="http://www.bathroomtilesideas.net">bathroom tile ideas</A> The stuff about use in police forces and governments is completely irellevant. It is seriously not used by the coppers in my district. They prefer straight talk and truncheons. I don't know how you could apply NLP to: "Oi! You're nicked!". Cheers DaveRight 02:44, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Separation of NLP from Criticisms, reducing redundancy, etc

Oh joy, Christmas is on its way. I have just started removing early critters from the NLP bible and looking at making brief. I noticed that science still gets a great deal less air time and weight than the NLP section. I'm sure that will please the babblers. Whatever, lets see what we can do about condensing things. I removed the NLP for coppers section. It could be reduced to a line and placed somewhere else (perhaps in the outrageous claims section:). Cheers DaveRight 03:06, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes it is beginning to look more organized and encyclopedic. I removed some more criticisms from the upper section, and placed some of those into the criticism section. It can be made a lot more concise with a bit of work.Bookmain 04:32, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Well done chaps. Looks like we'll have it back in shape in no time. Gave it the once-over and nipped out some repeats. Keep up the good work. AliceDeGrey 09:51, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

I've made some content preserving changes to the introduction and overview. Some of the grammar was poor and the expression awkward. Some attributions are required for the the material in the overview, eg. foundational assumptions, brain lateralization. Can the person that originally inserted that copy add some citations? flavius 15:28, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

There is a thread on Whispering discussion about eye movements and brain contralateralisation, [9]. There are some references there. --Comaze 00:23, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes Flavius. The content is worth preserving. When it is foreshortened it tends to be denied by NLP promoters: "they didn't say that!" and they delete. Looks fine to me. HeadleyDown 16:33, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree it is far better when seperated like it is. I don't wish to assume bad faith, but the history of this article shows extreme promotion by NLP people. On top of NLP blowing its own trumpet throughout the literature will make for a very promotional NLP section and there is not much we can do about that apart from point out the obvious bias of fans. NLP fans also seem to consider themselves persuasive, and they think they can reframe the article to suit themselves and do some kind of magic to make everything seem great. Of course the article will simply be balanced out using criticism. I don't think there will be a problem with that though, as long as mediators understand that the pro and con will definitely be quite a contrast. But it is a natural effect of NLP with its intrinsic hype, and the harsh words that science has to say about that (science doesn't like that sort of thing). As long as the article is kept within a reasonable size, and the NLP promoters keep the views open and do not whitewash, I think things will be a lot easier from now. JC

I have reworked the section titled 'Basic Tenets'. These were a mix of tenets and techniques so I renamed it 'Fundamentals' and re-cast the behavioral cues in terms of Dilts' B.A.G.E.L model. I think it reads clearer now. flavius 13:49, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Sure, Flavius. That is clear. I notice Dilt's BAGEL model is also used in literature with Bandler and others. Obviously it is about the most important and recognizable background model, or fundament as you quite clearly call it. It also points out the kind of conceptualizations they use throughout. Regards HeadleyDown 15:26, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Where is the discussion regarding the disputed protions of the 'Overview'. The foundational assumptions appear accurate (I scanned through some of my seminar manuals -- Sikes, James -- and was able to corroborate most of them. Perhaps the problem is that these largely implicit assumptions are not conventionally presented in this format. Admittedly, when the assumptions implicit in NLP are made explicit NLP comes to resemble Dianetics. I suspect that this is the source of any dispute. I can attempt to rework this section, presenting the foundational assumptions in a more NLP idiomatic manner and with citations. Shall I proceed? flavius 03:25, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Some minor fixes:

Left/right brain is often referenced, but not usually treated as "central". NLP tends to consider things central which can make a difference, such as VAK, or language. The physical structure of the brain doesn't usually get considered a central theme.
Removed "however". In this context it implies a POV.
The overview of NLP doesn't represent it clearly. Minor changes to the wording to clarify the significance of these.
Moved round wording in "goals". HOW something is done isnt a goal, so removed that bit. And "re-programming" --> "changing" (reporgramming is a POV term and not used within NLP, it's mainly associated with cults).

FT2 04:36, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

I have reorganized a couple of sections - thus made "overview" a section including subsections for engram, brain lateralization, foundations, etc. I think it makes more sense that way when you read the contents. FT2 07:02, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi FT2. NLP does not receive wide support. Just because it is listed in some associations (alongside primal scream therapy, EFT and other such pseudos) it does not mean wide support. To prove wide support in this case you would probably need to conduct a poll. And the result would be "what's NLP?" or "you must be kidding" etc. Just to keep things equal and easy to handle, it was suggested that we keep a nice free space for NLP promotion, and a place for criticisms. Criticisms does not mean "mixed reviews". It means people do not like these bits about NLP. You already have the associations that support NLP in the promotional sections. If you want to avoid the problems you caused previously, I suggest you start acting cooperatively and just do your thing with writing dubious sections about cognitive awareness etc. HeadleyDown 14:41, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Hey Headley, I guess FT2 still thinks NLP was conceived by Stephen Pinker and Susan Greenfield, with full benediction from George Lakoff:) If all you have is NLP books on your shelf its going to look like a big subject. Last week I asked a PhD psych and clinical therapist what they thought of NLP. They hadn't heard of it:) I told her it was advertised on the BPS and she said "well they'll advertise anything". FT2 seems to be working with a map generated from hype rather than fact. I liked Sharpley's veiled insult to NLP; It would be like psychoanalysis (a pseudoscience) but it failed the test:) Then he calls it a cult and a fad. Its was a demoted pseudoscience in the 80s. Then came the mass dumping, and now its just a joke certificate like "diploma in phrenology", "O'level in Dianetics Auditing" or "City and Guilds in Physiognomy". Cheers DaveRight 02:57, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

I reworked the 'Foundational Assumptions' sub-section. It began "NLP authors tend to emphasize a focus on obtaining results rather than working with theory" and then proceeded to outline the rudiments of NLP theory. It was also contaiminated with elements of technique and objectives. The stuff about the Meta/Milton Model is redundant and in any event it doesn't belong in a subsection that is supposed to describe the foundational assumptions. Also I created a new section about NLP practitioners stated position on theory and put the relevant text (that was in 'Foundational Assumptions' in there. flavius 05:26, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

I've extended the 'Foundational Assumptions' into a set of basic premises that undergird and distinguish NLP. I don't think its complete and the last two don't appear right. GregA had some ideas about NLPs foundational core. GregA, what do you think? flavius 06:56, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Flavius. It looks much better that way. You may expect the NLP whitewashers will change it back though. I'm glad the article has become more manageable. It also makes it more obvious when FT2 and the other promoters run around in their whitewashing panic. Whatever happens though, there is still a lot more clarification for the criticisms section. I have just got through some interesting stuff from Europe criticising NLP. I'll add when I've more time. ATB AliceDeGrey 07:10, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Note: I'm still working on the 'Foundational Assumptions' sub-section. I'll complete the citations and extend the list of premises shortly. Bear with me. All premises will preferably be sourced from NLP primary texts and cited properly. flavius 22:42, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

I'd like to expand the 'Stated Attitude to Theory' sub-section. Dilts et al (1980) devotes a few pages to distinguishing NLP as a 'model' and not a 'theory'. The terms 'model' and 'theory' are used by Ditls et al (1980) in an idiosyncratic manner entirely inconsistent with their usage within the domains from which they originate (namely science and philosophy of science). Their motivations for this idiosyncracy are a matter of conjecture and potentially POV but its existence is a matter of brute fact. I am considering including an authoritative definition of 'theory' and 'model' alongside Dilts et al's because this matter of NLP being purportedly atheoretical and hence somehow beyond the scope of scientific testing or even meta-theoretical analyses recurs in discussions, seminars and texts. Any opinions?

I propose that the references section be one monolithic (sorted) list for the following reasons: it would make redundancy easier to eliminate and it would prevent it in the future, references would be easier to locate and it is conventional practice. flavius 00:33, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes Flavius, there don't seem to be any good reasons for Dilts to make the model/theory distinction. Model is often synonymous with theory, so it is dubious to say NLP does not have a theory/theories. Certainly it seems to be there as an excuse. Of course it doesn't work:) It got well and truly tested. I think it may be easy to relate to "asking how rather than why". Again, this is a great cop out. It basically turns every technique into a meaningless ritual. But of course, normal psychological models are there to explain and predict also (they answer why).

Yes, presently the refs are hard work. A simple alphabetical list will make it easier. Regards HeadleyDown 02:08, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

ere is a list of my recent edits [10]. I've moved the criticism of application to underneath each application to make it easier to read. This section can be cut down alot and the tabloid journalism removed. --Comaze 23:46, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Mind-body split

Hi Flavius. I think one thing to mention would be - mechanism of action . That is something that is left out of NLP. Of course it is just to get people to do what they say. Don't ask why! Some of it has been partially explained though. Dilts does write about left/right eye movement stuff and brain in his encyclopedia. Its still mind myths though. So simplistic! Anyway, both models and theories are supposed to explain mechanisms of action (or there should be literature to do that), but Dilts et al just come up with their false dichotomy because most folk don't know the difference. Actually most folk just hear a lot of jargon and psychobabble and give it a miss altogether. I have to admit though, they fooled me for a while (till I looked up NLP in an encyclopedia "a vaguely defined fringe therapy that proposes 10 minute cures". Cheers DaveRight 03:09, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Grinder (and I've heard Bandler agree) rejects Descartes "original sin -- the mind-body split" (eg. Turtles all the way down, J Grinder & J Delozier 1986 pp.xx,xxi; Whispering, J Grinder & C Bostic St Clair 2002 ch.3; see also, Proposed distinction for NLP articles by Grinder, Bostic St Calir and Robert Dilts) and similarly rejects Cartesian split (Whispering, Grinder J Grinder & C Bostic St Clair 2002 p.222; Steps to ecology of Mind 2005, T Malloy, J Grinder, C Bostic St Clair p.34). --Comaze 06:25, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Comaze. You saved me some work. flavius 09:12, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Comaze. I believe DaveRight's mention of lack of mechanism has nothing to do with mind/body split. The fact is, NLP doesn't satisfactorilly deal with mechanisms of action. Indeed the refusal to seperate factors can be considered a holistic notion. The mind/body split could be included in pseudoscience under mantra of holism, and it could also be mentioned under "new age therapies" because it is common with new age notions. Either way it is a simplistic or banal truism - the body influences the mind and mind influences the body. AliceDeGrey 06:49, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Alice, it's important to document the many (often implicit) assumptions the underlie NLP, even when they patently false or banal. flavius 09:12, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I think you are right Flavius. Certainly whitewash is not a good idea. We already have NPOV recommendations to write anything factual even if it is objectionable. HeadleyDown 12:15, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Criticisms are there to criticize and clarify

Comaze and all the other fanatics, (especially FT2). Adding little bits and pieces of non-criticism to the criticism section (actually they are rather large and leading the article towards the 100kb mark) in order to negate it somehow is completely transparently biased behaviour. You will simply get reverted doing so. Presently, the article is in the process of re-organization (within each respective section) and as such, we could do without all the sneaking around deleting conclusive criticisms and replacing them with brainless rambles from NLP excuse literature. Cited or not, those sort of dodgy edits will be booted off the article by me or anyone else with a brain. Just keep it in line with clarification, rather than deleting criticism, or muddying and clouding issues. I am not just picking on you Comaze (though you have spent months sneaking around like this). This also applies to the other desperately unconvincing NLP fanatics. DaveRight 03:15, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

What definition of criticism are you using? It seems to be different to the typical definition used by wikipedians. Criticism is for critical analysis -- this should be neutral and show all points of view, even if are contradictory to your POV. Your recent reversions are not helpful and seems to expose a bias and selective quoting [11] and [12]. For example, HeadleyDown and DaveRight in unison remove this statement that is intended to clarify the various points of view about NLP use in cults (especially given that cult requires some comparison to orthodoxy). --Comaze 03:22, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

No Comaze. I am using the proper definition of criticisms. You are using the fanatic's version (non criticism and then excuse). What we have here, is NLP (where all the literature is selfpromotional and full of obscurantisms designed to confuse people) and then we have actual criticisms cited by critics. The article is presently in need of adjustment for brevity, so your additional excuses are not helping at all. Considering your rather extreme history with this and related articles you are going to find it extremely hard for your edits to stick. People know your game, and they will simply revert because you have not changed from the multiple deletion per day for months Comaze. Only your promotion scheme has changed. It is extremely funny to watch your transparently zealous activities:) DaveRight 03:31, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

What exactly is your definition of criticisms? It seems to differ from the typical wikipedian. How do you explain the removal of a statement that clarifies this biased POV, "other christian ministers advocate the use of NLP (eg. use of sensory-based language [13]) in church services." Other citations were removed at the same time, without discussion or proper comment. --Comaze 03:50, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Hello Comaze. You are past your 3revert a day limit. Regarding your edits: The Christian ministry edit is pure promotion, and as such it is not criticism. If you want to promote NLP as a religion, do so in the NLP section. Your edit on metamodel/linguistics is unrelated to what Levelt is talking about. So it should not be there. You also deleted Dave's edits with no proper explanation. AliceDeGrey 04:03, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Alice, To my knowledge, I have not exceeded 3RR. You response shows a complete disregard for the citations that I presented with page numbers and references. Please check the references, I'm sure you will find that they are directly related. --Comaze 04:10, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

You are extremely biased, Comaze. I understand that some people can be biased and do neutrally minded editing, but you have just proven that your edits are biased. I looked up the references and you are presenting unrelated information in order to cloud the issues. The article should be concise and clear, and you are going the other way. What's more, Carroll does not even mention the word "universally". Carroll makes a specific statement, and you want to change it to make it mean something else. I do not care if you present 1000 citations with page numbers. Your extreme bias towards promotion is clearly highlighted by your today's devious actions. AliceDeGrey 04:39, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Let's get to the real issue here. You (HeadleyDown, Dave Right, AliceDeGrey) have removed statements exposing a systemic bias between this group of editors. Calling something a cult is pure POV so it needs to be covered from multiple points of view. Normally "cults" requires comparison between existing orthodox. According to wikipedia, scientists resolve this problem by referring to cults as "New Religious Movement" (NRM). The term cult is not well-defined or has multiple conflicting definition depending on who you ask. So if you take the definition of Christian Orthodox or other Orthodox religion then you can quote them. Some Christian ministers use NLP in their services and other apply it in Christian counselling -- these people do not consider NLP techniques to be cult-like. Some strict orthodox organisations may consider using sensory-based language, hypnotic language or other NLP techniques to be cult-like, I don't know -- if this is the case, cite your sources. An NLP modeler may be able to find many language patterns in sermons and christian counselling and maybe even the bible. All these views should be covered. Some proponents of hypnosis describe miracles and such in terms of hypnotic phenomena. You need to be careful when accusing an organisation of having cult characteristics because it depends on who you ask. So, we need to be able to balance the "Cult characteristics" section with a neutral description of all parties concerned. This will require some negotiation. --Comaze 05:10, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Comaze, it is much simpler than you make out. The fact is, you have spent months trying to mess up or delete the criticisms. And you have done so in the most surreptitous ways possible. You are going to have a very hard time trying to persuade people you are doing something beneficial to the article. It is just not happening. The criticisms section is for the criticisms. According to NPOV a criticism can be placed and cited, and that is how it is. You are changing cited statements to suit your own agenda. If you want to balance the cult characteristics that the critics say exist, then do so in the above NLP section (if there is any factual info available). Otherwise, leave the article alone. Bookmain 05:55, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Bookmain (AliceDeGrey/HeadleyDown/DaveRight), Well if you do not want me to edit the criticism section, you better start editing it to present all views fairly. An example of this group's bias can be found here and here (Bookmain/AliceDeGrey/HeadleyDown/DaveRight) is shown to support the views of a Christian opinion (watchman foundation) that states that "NLP is a cult" or "New Age" while not supporting a balancing statement that from a different Christian ministry that advocates the use of NLP techniques in counselling and sermons. Let's stick this to the issues. --Comaze 06:31, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Tidy Up

I have created a new criticism subsection titles 'Atheoretical Pretence' and I renamed the 'Overview' section 'NLP and Theory'. I removed the critical remark to the criticism section. Any feedback appreciated. flavius 06:17, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Hello Flavius Vanillus and all. I am mostly happy to tidy up (I think its time now most of the waring is over). I think the Atheoretical Pretence section is fine and above board as long as it remains in the criticisms section (it is a criticism after all). Keep up the clarity! Camridge 06:25, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm not so sure that the waring is over. Today, I made a couple of simple POV clarifications and was shot down, and then reverted 4 times by the one group of editors. I will respect any cleanups that take place, but the article needs to be cleaned up for verification, and NPOV before any major clean-up work takes place. The --Comaze 06:31, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Comaze, it looks like you are the only warmonger left right now. AliceDeGrey 06:37, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

That is completely unfair and below the belt. I explain why I thought your reversions were unfair and you (HeadleyDown, AliceDeGrey, and group) replied with a mix of personal remarks directed at me, reversions and comments that failed to address direct questions I raised addressing the issues of bias (specifically in representing both views held by Christians about use of NLP in sermons and christian counselling). Some consider it to be new age, or cult-like, some consider it to simply language patterns that can be used to enhance communications. I provided the references. Let me remind you again, NPOV means that all views should be represented, even if they contradict your POV or other POVs. My personal POV is that personal beliefs such as religion should not even enter this discussion, but it is there, so we have to address it in a neutral manner. --Comaze

I only know of a few Christian pastors (Baptist) that say they use NLP in the process of pastoral care or sermonizing and all are associated with Bobby Bodenhamer. Most Baptists regard NLP as akin to witchcraft (that is why Bodenhamer and Hall have penned papers arguing that NLP is not the work of the devil). The mainline churches (Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Protestant and Anglican) regard NLP as New Age and hence unchristian and nonbiblical. I'll see if I can find some references. If a minority of pastors use NLP then that doesn't offset or negate the wide condemnation of NLP by the Christian Church. By all means mention the religious application in the applications section but keep it out of the criticisms. The muliplicity of views can't be expressed in every paragraph. The balance will be achieved over the totality of the article not by tacking on, "But", "However", etc to every critical statement. Although the term "cult" is pejorative it is used and well-defined by cult experts such as Lifton. I have a few papers from the Cultic Studies Journal and (as the name would indicate) the word "cult" is defined and used liberally in the papers. flavius 08:36, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

This does support my argument that NLP can be use by cults and form cult thought reform. I did a quick search on that journal and found a ethics document that requires exit cousellors obtain written permission from clients before using neuro-linguistic programming or hypnosis for use in thought reform [14]. I wonder how they define NLP or hypnosis? --Comaze 02:30, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Flavius, yes the new section looks very clarifying and educational as wikipedia should be. It will need some direct association with actual criticisms made by critics. There are many starting with Singer, and I remember a few articles on the web stating the same kinds of things. I will have a good dig around for brief added critical support. ATB AliceDeGrey 06:37, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

In relation to the list of references. We need some way to distinguish between journal articles, website references, books written by original developers, books written by outsiders. A simple alphabetical listing makes this very difficult to discern. --Comaze 07:12, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Hello Comaze. In these kind of circumstances it is better to keep alphabetical. There have been a lot of arguments and accusations over whether something is a book or an article or both. Seperating into sections leaves the article open to biased headings, and even more needless battles and it makes it very hard to decide which section to add to and to search. I understand you would wish to see more opportunities for bias and disturbance, so I can see why you would suggest such an arrangement. Perhaps I should just ignore you for the sake of keeping the peace. Camridge 07:21, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Comaze. No I think it should be alphabetical. Locating a reference in a multitude of lists is difficult. Also, references are conventionally presented in alphabetic order in one block. flavius 08:36, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Camridge, Flavius, The issue regarding academic/non-academic sources is based on wikipedia policy. The references listed are in alphabetical order is fine. However, there needs to be notes or another way for the reader to discern the reputation of sources. --Comaze 22:42, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

I've removed the subsections titled 'Goals' and 'View on Cognitive Understanding of Problems' (?). These were terribly written, redundant and lacked cohesion. I can add something about the problem insight. The NLP position can be stated in a sentence. I also trimmed down the presuppositions section. I'm still not happy with it. I also removed the reference some obscure British NLP trainers views on the presuppositions. I think Dilts and DeLozier's views on presuppositions are authoritative since they contributed to their formulation. I added a quote to the Extraordinary Claims section regarding the topic of genius. In light of this quote I think the defensive statement that in effect says "oh no, no one said we can make you an Einstein' should be re,oved. I don't like the list of NLP techniques. It's awful. It should be replaced by a succinct description of a few representative techniques. The Milton/Meta model section is also terrible. I'll rewrite it. At the risk of sounding provincial I get the impression that much of the prose that is awful was authored by those for which English is not a first language -- it reads like 'broken English'. Comaze and FT2 is English your first language? flavius 12:39, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Most posts I have to use Babelfish :) Jokes aside, I think the entire document needs to be copyedited with special attention to prose. With so many different editors, it would be nice to keep the same style throughout the entire document. --Comaze 22:42, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

mmmm!

Comaze. I am just wondering what it would look like if you went through and "copyedited" the article. Somehow I think it would need some further adjustments:) I'm not psychic, I just have a powerful intuition about these matters! HeadleyDown 11:46, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks HeadleyDown, I keep strictly in line with Wikipedia:How_to_copy-edit. The other option is to put a cleanup tag on the page to get another editor in to do it for us. --Comaze 13:14, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Winkin

Hello all. I decided to get more active and I added some lit by Yves Winkin, a world class anthropologist from the Sorbonne in France. He seems to be a highly quotable source. Camridge 03:11, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Camridge, how did you establish the reputation of Winkin? Does his reputation hold enough weight to be quoted 9 times without any attempt to balance it with a rebuttal from the proponents view? In this respect I think that your recent edits are biased. --Comaze 03:29, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Comaze, the article is currently pro and critic oriented and that has solved a great many problems associated with multiple deletions/attacks and so on. It has also encouraged a greater variety of editors to contribute now that things have settled down. NLP is extremely self-promotional and thus it is quite acceptable to have world view criticisms. You seem desperate to keep the views to a minimum. You are suggesting edits that go against the multiple view perspective of wikipedia policy. Are you anti NPOV or just anti French? Camridge 05:11, 2 December 2005 (UTC) PS. Winkin actually attended NLP workshops in California under Bandler in order to write this peer reviewed scholarly journal article. Camridge 05:15, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Camridge (with HansAntel) , I am stating directly that your recent edits [15] are biased and violate NPOV. These are staw man without providing proper context or rebuttal from NLP proponents. Can you please modify your contributions to take into account these objections. --Comaze 06:19, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Comaze, I have just been looking through your history over the past few months. You clearly have an agenda to promote NLP and delete all criticisms. This is entirely biased, and I understand you will probably always lobby for removal of fact. Considering you will never change this could make the situation hard to handle. Instead of treating you as a normal unbiased member I feel the best thing to do is not waste any more of my time, so I will simply ignore you. My edits are perfectly within wikipedia recommendations and I don't need you to tell me how to behave. Camridge 07:47, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I object to these edits by Camridge and HansAntel because they contain bias, overgeneralisation, give too much weight to one author, and fail to take into account other points of view (eg. reply or rebuttal). I request that we ask for comment from neutral third party, mediator or arbitration committee. --Comaze 08:21, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Comaze, mediators are generally very neutral. You won't like their judgment at all. You never did before.HeadleyDown 11:36, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

HeadleyDown, You were very quick to dismiss. It would in your best interest to attempt to resolve any content disputes with a neutral third party. --Comaze 22:27, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi All, there appears to be an arbitration page open for this article with space for requests and decisions. Are all involved editors aware of this?

Hello Faxx. Yes I think most people are aware. But nobody really is that bothered. Its mostly for proNLPers to list unreasonable complaints about edits that happened during confilicts. Most neutral editors are just getting on with editing and looking for brevity. The problems have mostly been solved already by dividing the sections more clearly. Regards HeadleyDown 03:48, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Looking at those diffs, I would say that some of these statements do generalize far too hastily. If I think NLP is Z and I find person X with career Y who agrees that NLP is Z, I cannot just say "Y's believe that NLP is Z(citation of Y)" .Voice of All^T|@|ESP 23:49, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Hello VoiceOfAll. The author is well published, but some of the statements are misplaced according to agreement. I can find better places for them in addition to NPOVing. HeadleyDown 03:44, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Hello VoiceOfAll and Comaze. I reviewed some of the edits that Comaze is troubled by, namely, Cults and Winkin. The cults section I have to admit is tenuous. The only notable author cited is Singer. 'Vexen Crabtree' is a 'Punk/Goth' guy with a self-indulgent web site. I'm sure Vexen is a nice chap and he has his fashion worked out (judging by the images on his website) but I don't think his opinion counts for much. Also, the Watchman Expositor site is written from a an ultra orthodox Protestant/Baptist view. Any doctrine that isn't based on a literalist Biblical interpretation is deemed suspect by this group, including the two seminal branches of Christianity (Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism). I have no problem with the cults section being trimmed down to only include Singers view until further (credible) views are sourced on this topic. I also read Camridge's edit based on Winkin and they look good, i.e. well sourced, but perhaps truncated. Expanding Winkin's position such that reasons are provided would eliminate the appearance of 'bad faith'. My concern though is that Comaze would then object to the coverage given to Winkin's view. This -- I think -- would indicate bad faith on Comaze's part. flavius 06:50, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes Flavius, more coverage of Winkin will be useful. I have had a good read of his article and it does offer more insight. The cult section needs some brief clarification also. From my studies I have - Sharpley, Heap, Eisner, Langone, Singer, Winkin, Novopashin, Barrett, Christopher, Helish, Howell, and some others describing NLP as a cult. Perhaps just a simple list as I have just stated will suffice (eg "Sharpley, Heap, Eisner, Langone, Singer, Winkin, Novopashin, Barrett, Christopher, Helish, Howell, describe NLP as a cult) but supplying the appropriate years to the citation. Comaze has already proved he has bad faith - its called NLP:) Regards HeadleyDown 07:15, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

"Sharpley, Heap, Eisner, Langone, Singer, Winkin, Novopashin, Barrett, Christopher, Helish, Howell, describe NLP as a cult" with years added would be fine. flavius 01:40, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I think that the scientific studies of NLP, critics, psycholinguists', neurologists', and psyschologists' opinions of NLP are enough for criticism. Lets not try to include every type of scientist, especially when such a claim does not have enough citations to be well supported.Voice of All^T|@|ESP 09:17, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Hello VoiceOfAll. My last edit was to create a more concise version of what was there, and I believe we can make simpler statements that include even more experts, but resulting in far more concise passages in general whilst keeping explanations clear. Certainly there are other authors to corroborate Winkin's statements and I will provide them soon. I believe the same can be achieved with the above non-critical NLP section, though perhaps I am not the one to do that (without extensive conflicts and reversions etc). Regards HeadleyDown 11:00, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Perls and Dianetics

I don't think this sentence accurately reflects Fritz Perls' involvement with Dianetics:

By the late 1960s, self-help organizations such as EST, Dianetics, and Scientology had become financially successful, receiving attention and promotion from human potential thinkers such as Fritz Perls who during this period, promoted and operated a Dianetics clinic (Clarkson and Mackewn 1993).

I can't find any other source indicating that Perls "promoted and operated a Dianetics clinic" at all, let alone in the late 1960s, and I question whether that statement is a fair representation of Clarkson and Mackewn.

I do not have a copy of that book, but neither the full-text search feature provided by Google (http://print.google.com/print?hl=en&id=dzB8lFoyH8sC) nor the one provided by Amazon (http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0803984537) yield any results when searching on "Dianetics".

Perls did investigate Dianetics from 1949-50. He wrote the introduction to Winter's 1951 "A Doctor's Report on Dianetics". However, by that time, he had already come to conclusions that would seem to preclude him taking Dianetics up again in the last years of his life.

By October, 1950, I had come to the conclusion that I could not agree with all the tenets of dianetics as set forth by the Foundation. I could not, as previously mentioned, support Hubbard's claims regarding the state of "clear." I no longer felt, as I once had, that any intelligent person could (and presumably should) practice dianetics.

(from http://www.xenu.net/archive/fifties/e510000.htm -- note: not a neutral site)

Considering how much critical material on Dianetics and Scientology is published on the Internet, I would expect to find many more references affirming Perls' alleged re-involvement in his later years.

In any case, I would like to suggest that this sentence, in the absence of more solid evidence, be struck from the article or otherwise edited to avoid misrepresenting Perls' investigations into Dianetics. For that matter, I fail to see how that sentence or the following portion of the paragraph that it appears in sheds any light on the nature of NLP.

I would be glad to work on this edit myself, but I'm not sure how -- aside from posting this section to "talk". I am a wikipedia newbie! Thanks. Shunpiker 19:20, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi. Dianetics was actually still in vogue during the 60s (or at least, some therapists (especially gestalt) still considered it a reasonable technique) and the gestalt theory of memory is pretty much identical to that of dianetics. Perls actually ran a dianetics clinic during the 50s and 60s, but he also introduced wierd new age zen ideas of awareness that he had picked up on his travels. Perl's dianetics background sheds a great deal of light on NLP. Firstly, they are both extremely similar in principle and form. They both use command hypnotics, Korzybsky's map territory, engrams, trauma change, belief in unlimited potential, use of metaphor, the use of ritual, they are both psuedoscientific and are often classified together according to many scientists, and the financial success of dianetics/scientology was a powerful motivator for all the more recent LGAT cults of the 70s 80s and 90s such as NLP, Tony Robbins, Landmark Forum, EST and so on. Basically most people who saw the beginning and end of the dianetics trend in psychotherapy tends to see NLP in the same light. A lot of the books and papers criticising NLP or classifying it as a fringe therapy also talks of dianetics in the same sense (pseudoscientific, scientifically unsupported). However, there is some evidence that places dianetics as less ineffective than NLP on the whole (stronger placebo effects with client/auditor). Anyway, the fact that Perls actively promoted and practiced dianetics is reason enough to place the fact in the article background. Regards HeadleyDown 06:06, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi Headley, I understand that you believe that Perls promoted Dianetics and ran a Dianetics clinic, but what I'm looking for is documentation of those allegations.

As mentioned above, the footnote in the article (Clarkson and Mackewn, 1993) appears to be spurious. Furthermore there is documentation that Perls investigated Dianetics in 1949-1950, but publicly concluded that no "intelligent person" could or should practice it -- a rather peculiar form of advocacy, don't you think?

Since Perls was one of the "models" for NLP, he belongs in the article, but painting him as a Dianetics zealot doesn't fit with the facts, at least as I can discern or document them. If you can back up your assertions about Perls and Dianetics, please do so. I would definitely want to know if they were true, and the article would benefit from the substantiation. If those allegations can't be substantiated, however, I sustain that they do not belong.

Thanks, Shunpiker 08:37, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi Shunpiker. Don't take Perl's comments individually. He was quite a contrary chap. Look at "Perls" (I can't remember the author), and most other of his biographies. His support of dianetics is documented there. I will provide more sources in time. He wasn't a zealot as such. He included a lot of other wierd new agey kind of ideas in his methods. Anyway, here is just one link I found just from a simple goodle search "Perls, a staunch supporter of dianetics" http://www.xenu.net/archive/fischer/Fischer_1.html. Regards HeadleyDown 16:32, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi Headley,

Upon further investigation it appears to me that the quote I found from the "A Doctor's Report" -- "I no longer felt, as I once had, that any intelligent person could (and presumably should) practice dianetics." -- comes from J.A. Winter, not from Perls. My mistake. The source I was quoting includes the header "Introduction", but on re-inspection appears to skip over the actual body of the introduction. In any case that quote is attributed to Winter in the Dianetics article.

The Fischer paper calls Perls "a staunch adherent of dianetics", but provides no substantiation for that statement. To the contrary, it proceeds to quote Perls (from his introduction to Winter's book) as criticizing L. Ron Hubbard for the unscientific character of his work -- presumably Dianetics.

Please do find whatever evidence you can to support the link between Perls and Dianetics, but until that evidence is located, should Wikipedia be in the business of repeating the rather serious allegation that Perls advocated and practiced Dianetics? If Wikipedia is going to assert that, shouldn't it be recorded on the pages for Fritz Perls and Dianetics? Currently there is no mention of Dianetics on the Perls page and no mention of Perls on the Dianetics page. It strikes me odd that the NLP article is the only one to make note of this rather significant association.

Yours, Shunpiker 21:21, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Shunpiker, HD was the editor who originally posted this, later EBlack added this. JPLogan added the "and promotion" in this post. It seems that JPLogan was the first to post it here --Comaze 03:08, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Yo Shunpiker. Serious allegation? Sounds like you really don't like Dianetics! Not biased at all are you? You should read what Tom Cruize says about Scientology. Anyway, from what I read, Perls was against Hubbard going for the religion idea in order to promote his ideas. Perls wanted to do clinical studies on his dianetics practice (with Hubbards funding). It didn't happen. Don't take wikipedia as a source. If this article was only run by the likes of Comaze and the other fanatics, there would be no criticism section at all (or it would end up promoting indirectly). Basically, go and do some library searches. The info is everywhere. DaveRight 02:54, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

DaveRight, I have warned you 5 times to avoid personal remarks. It is really not useful to call someone a fanatic. Do you want to get a neutral 3rd opinion on this? --Comaze 03:14, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

It is useful, Comaze. Everybody should know you spent months deleting criticisms several times a day. Fanatic, zealot, censor, these are all words that describe your behaviour perfectly. The small edits you make in between are just a smokescreen. Your agenda is to promote NLP by removing criticisms and by whitewashing NLP by removing any new age or cultlike fact that places NLP as a fringe wierdo charlatan therapy. So warn me again, and I will go into more detail about your cultlike smear campaigns, and your sneaky edits. DaveRight 03:21, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi again Shunpiker. Here are some more links. They are direct and indirect. The gestalt psychology ones (a fringe therapy) show that it was influenced by dianetics anyway. Even without Perl's strong implication, gestalt therapy itself is influenced by dianetics. Remember that most of the psychology background of Bandler and co is gestalt.

http://www.sonoma.edu/users/d/daniels/Gestaltsummary.html

http://www.larabell.org/ladder.html

http://co-cornucopia.org.uk/coco/articles/cocother/cocoth2.html

http://www.pacificnet.net/~cmoore/ghill/esalen2.htm

http://www.bautz.de/bbkl/h/hubbard_l_r.shtml

http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:vtZaYuV7WEcJ:co-cornucopia.org.uk/coco/download/cocothea.pdf+fritz+perls+dianetics&hl=zh-TW

Whatever, dianetics is everywhere in NLP. Not just in theory, but in practice. I'm not suggesting that you join or become an auditor:) but have a delve into auditing and you will see the embryo of NLP.

Here you can see Perls making the same kind of grandiose claims as NLPbrains http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=1165

Whatever, Perls was a dianetics fan, and Bandler and Grinder wanted the same fame, adulation, and finances when they developed NLP - thats how EST developed also. History repeats! DaveRight 03:21, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, once again, Comaze reverts to his normal campaign agenda. Even after requests from mediator to provide such evidence, Comaze removes it. I resored the engram reference as it was indeed notable and from a certified NLPer. AliceDeGrey 03:41, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

AliceDeGrey, Anyone can post to Media13 so it is not verifiable. Even if it was published from a reputable publisher, who says that author is notable? If the source you post was allowed, anyone could write their own article submit it to media13 and use it as a reference. We need to stick to notable, verifiable sources. You know this already! --Comaze 03:51, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Comaze, Media13 actually has a vetting policy quite similar to that of a published paper journal. I suggest you are most definitely the most biased and zealous fanatic on this article. If anyone want's to join your ranks Comaze, they will definitely be labeled in the same way. Camridge 03:57, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Do we have any notable/verifiable sources as per Shunpiker's request? --Comaze 04:20, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi everybody,

Thanks to DaveRight for gathering links about Perls and Dianetics and Comaze for clarifying the history of the Perls-Dianetics discussion in this article.

I agree with DaveRight that there is evidence that Perls was influenced by Dianetics. At least one of the links ("Fritz Perls and Gestalt Therapy") is Perls-friendly and says the same.

But influence is relative, and can't be read as uncritical support, nor can it be taken out of the context of other influences. Freud, Jung and modern dance are also listed among Perls' influences.

We're left still without proof that Perls can accurately be described as a "Dianetics proponent", or that he at any time operated a Dianetics clinic.

I don't want to get drawn into a debate of the merits or demerits or Dianetics, or of Perls for that matter. But yes, to my sensibility (we all have our biases) accusing Perls of promoting Dianetics and running a Dianetics clinic is serious. It would affect my opinion of him. Because of that, I want to verify whether or not those allegations are true.

I appreciate the efforts of editors on either side of the NLP debate to verify those claims.

Thanks, Shunpiker 04:34, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Hello Shunpiker. I think framing some parts of the article may be in order. Certainly, gestalt therapy itself is not maintream at all. Freud and Jung include so much pseudoscience it is sometimes difficult to work out what has support and what doesn't, but the fact remains, NLP has used as many dubious sources as possible to form its rather conveniently saleable sets of notions. Modern dance just shows how fringe Perls was back in the 60s. From what I read about him, he seems to have spent the majority of his time at Esalen institute cavorting around naked, and smoking pot. I think anyone who has read a biography about Perls would come to the conclusion that he was surrounded by crackpots the whole time, and he himself did so many odd things in his life that made him somehow charismatic. The NLP lot could use any part of his life to claim all kinds of renegade magic. That is primarily what NLP is about: Inflated claims, but no delivery (according to scientific testing). They built NLP on a set of myths, and supported it with more popular myths as time went by, simply to create salespitch. Camridge 04:52, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I've added a few dispute tags to mark statments questioned by Shunpiker until we can verify the claims from reputable sources. The tags were removed :( --Comaze 07:06, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Comaze, you seem to be very ready with those dubious tags. I noticed your use of tags to advocate the removal of multiple cited sources and even the removal of alleged sockpuppets. I will remove them on principle. According to your definition of dubious, NLP itself should have a dubious tag. Camridge 05:46, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I still don't understand why you (Camridge) removed the dubious tags. We have not resolved the matter yet. Also, what do you mean by "even the removal of alleged sockpuppets"? --Comaze 07:40, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Hello Comaze, I understand the points you are trying to make, and have clarified the article using the term - new age, and rituals. This makes the article far more consistent and in line with the facts that NLP is sci unsupported, pseudoscientific, connected with the occult, connected with other ritualistic therapies, and helps to explain the placebo aspects of NLP according to science. I will make the adjustments throughout to help clarify this point. This will also help triangulate facts better with Perls-Dianetics pseudoscience associations. Bookmain 06:06, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Bookmain, Shunpiker's asked a direct questions. Do we have any evidence that Perls was a proponent of Dianetics, or if he ran a clinic. A direct quote from Perls with page numbers from a reputable publisher would be proof positive. --Comaze 07:30, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Comaze. You really are working to your promotional agenda in the most transparent way. The solution does not require the pasting of "dubious" on everything you do not like the look of. I can easily rephrase the line in order to solve the problem. Of course you do not want that. You simply wish to mark the fact as dubious, or remove it from the article altogether. Your agenda is blatantly obvious. I will ADD further facts to clarify due to your unreasonable insistence. Camridge 08:07, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Camridge. I still find it very difficult to agree with the recent diffs. Although, I find it alot easier when something is attributed to a source even when I am still not convinced that we have agreement on the accuracy, credibility (see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources) or even objectivity. I am not convinced we have taken into account the range of authoritative sources on the subject (eg. Perls himself, or authoritative books on Gestalt). Also assertions of fact should be objectively connected to authoritative sources. --Comaze 09:37, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Comaze, there are libraries in the world full of the information you claim to seek (but refuse to accept). Again you prove yourself to be here primarily as a censor of criticism. Your track record in that area is clear. Camridge 09:47, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Camridge, I'll accept it as long as it is on-topic, accurate, objective, authoritative and verifiable. And scholarly :) I'll check back in a few days. --Comaze 10:17, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Oi Comaze. If you are looking for on topic, accurate, objective, authoritative etc, then why the hell do you keep deleting the new age label? It is all of those things, and most of all, it is a scholarly label. I think maybe you are just pretending to be neutral:) Or could I possibly be wrong? DaveRight 03:40, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

DaveRight/Camridge - I think your recent edits are biased. Would you like to get a neutral third opinion to settle this? I will need your agreement that whatever the neutral third party says will be binding on all parties. --Comaze 04:19, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi Comaze and DaveRight, and others. I haven't had a chance to be here or catch up yet. I notice NLP is described in the first sentence as a set of "New Age Rituals". The term new age is very broad and in the broadest sense NLP might be seen to fall under the umbrella (along with many other things), certainly as a method for anyone wishing to explore (model) something spiritual - though NLP is not spiritual in and of itself and can be applied to many other fields. Also, NLP has certainly modeled rituals, and behaviours which include rituals. However the description "New Age rituals" is vague and misleading. Could you (Dave or anyone else supporting this claim) tell me in what manner NLP is New Age, and what makes you say NLP is a set of rituals, rather than NLP has modeled some rituals? Thanks GregA 22:45, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

I know of at least one credible source that mentions Perls as an advocate of Dianetics: 'A Piece of Blue Sky: Scientlogy, Dianetics and L. Ron Hubbard Exposed' by Jon Atack. According to Atack, "Fritz Perls, founder of Gestalt therapy, defended Hubbard's early work (though insisting that it needed scientific validation), and briefly received Dianetic counselling." (Ch. 2, [16]) flavius 03:43, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Can someone retrieve the following, it's a prmary source:

PERLS, F. "Introduction." In Winter, J.A. A doctor’s report on dianetics: Theory and therapy.New York: Julian Press,1951. flavius 03:51, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Flavius, In "A Piece of Blue Sky", the only citation to Perls or Gestalt therapy in the bibliography is "PERLS, Fritz et al., Gestalt Therapy, Pelican, London, 1973." To my knowledge Perls does not defend Dianetics in Perls (1973). I also searched "Gestalt Therapy: History, Theory, and Practice"[17] and did not find any matches for dianetics. Can someone retrieve a quote from Perl's introduction (1951). --Comaze 04:54, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Comaze, look at the first page of chapter 2 of "A Piece of Blue Sky". Also, when Winter wrote "A Doctor's Report..." he was at that stage supportive of Dianetics and Perls' introduction I read described as supportive. User:Flavius 05:57, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Comaze. Perl's fascination, promotion, and practice of dianetics is documented in both of these books. Author Clarkson, Petruska, 1947-

Title Fritz Perls / Petruska Clarkson, Jennifer Mackewn. Publisher London : Sage, 1993- and - Naranjo, Claudio. Gestalt therapy : the attitude & practice of an atheoretical experientialism / Claudio Naranjo. Publisher Carmarthen : Crown House Pub., 2000.Camridge 05:23, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi folks,

Thanks to Camridge (that was you, right?) for editing out the most egregious of the unsubstantiated statements about Perls -- that he operated a Dianetics clinic in the late 60s.

As was already mentioned in this discussion, the Clarkson and Mackewn book cannot be a source for any connection between Perls and Dianetics -- since it doesn't even contain the word "Dianetics". Again, both Google and Amazon offer the ability to search the complete text:

Google (http://print.google.com/print?hl=en&id=dzB8lFoyH8sC)
Amazon (http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0803984537)

I am removing the footnote. If you can find any reason to reinstate it besides the fact that it once was part of this article, please speak up.

I am moving the other links so that they do not give the false impression of substantiating the proposition that Perls promoted or practiced Dianetics.

The link to "Hubbard's Ladder" is the source for the following sentence about Hubbard's methodology providing "raw material" for Perls. It belongs with that sentence.

The link to "Co-counselling as Therapy" says that Perls was "influenced by the ideas and practice of Dianetics". This doesn't establish that Perls promoted or practiced Dianetics, but it does indicate that it had his "attention". I'll move the link there.

The link in German probably doesn't belong unless someone is going to quote the relevant passage, translate it, and explain its relevance. As far as I can tell, it says that Perls was audited at some point by Hubbard. Since that assertion doesn't appear in the article, it should probably be removed. For now, I'll group it under "attention" with the previous link.

As for the other material which has been cited in "talk":

Flavius quotes, "A Piece of Blue Sky" where the author says that Perls "defended Hubbard's early work (though insisting that it needed scientific validation), and briefly received Dianetics counseling". This indicates that Perls had interest in Dianetics' beginnings. It doesn't establish a lasting influence, an interest in Dianetics as it evolved or that he practiced Dianetics. It doesn't show that he promoted Dianetics.

However -- it's the most clear citation to come to light yet that shows Perls taking a positive (although not uncritical) and public action in regards to Hubbard's work. Thanks, Flavius. How about instead of paraphrasing this or other unspecified sources, simply citing it directly?

The web-available excerpt from "A Doctor's Report...", on the other hand, is more critical than supportive of Dianetics. Consider Winter's conclusion: "I no longer felt, as I once had, that any intelligent person could (and presumably should) practice dianetics." Or the part quoted by Fischer where Perls accuses Hubbard of mixing "science and fiction" and of "unsubstatiated claims". If parts of that book which do not appear on the web imply something else, by all means cite them with the same precision with which Flavius quoted "A Piece of Blue Sky". The part that we have is, after all, taken from an anti-Scientology site.

I would love to see a citation from Naranjo's book illustrating Perls' relationship to Dianetics.

Thanks for your continuing efforts. Shunpiker 09:03, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Just out of interest, here are some revealing insights about gestalt therapy (rather than theory) and dianetics http://www2.hawaii.edu/~lady/archive/roots-1.html

http://home1.gte.net/wsbainbridge/dl/cultgen.htm

One of Hubbard's closest associates in 1950, Dr. J. A. Winter, acted as a bridge between Scientology and the Gestalt cult (Winter 1951, 1962; Perls et al. 1951). Many psychological exercises in both Gestalt Therapy and Scientology train the patient's attention and awareness in abnormal ways. Both use techniques projecting the patient's consciousness into inanimate objects. Both use Freud's technique of getting patients to recall past traumatic experiences, but both demand extreme emotional involvement and made the patient imagine that the experience is happening now in present time. Through Dr. J. A. Winter and other channels, Scientology and Gestalt borrowed from each other.

http://www.edmaupin.com/somatic/somatic_origins.htm Esalen institute came into play quite a lot with Perl's association with prior pseudosciences. Notice its just up the hill from B and G's uni. This was a big meeting point for Satir, Erickson, BnG and others. Richard Feinman was appalled at the lack of scientific thought in these thinkers when he went to visit. This is more or less the hub of the modern new age.

Considering Perls adhered to dianetics in theory and practice, and gestalt therapy itself has dianetics as a major influence, I see no reason to state Perls as an advocate and promoter within the article, with or without citations. Regards HeadleyDown 10:44, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi again. I think this gives an interesting perspective (food for thought). http://www.religion.qc.ca/Fiches/fiche028.htm

It shows the connections between Perl's concepts and dianetics, EST (landmark forum) and other such pseudoscientific organizations/events.  I think it puts it in to some perspective.  Regards HeadleyDown 10:54, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi all, It's been almost a week since I posted the original request for verifiable citations demonstrating that Perls promoted or practiced Dianetics. That evidence has not been provided.

Headley, I can see that you believe that Dianetics was a "major" influence on Gestalt Therapy, and that Perls practiced and promoted Dianetics. The problem is that neither you nor anyone else has been able to back up those statements with sources.

There are sources that says Dianetics was an influence on Gestalt Therapy, but they list many other influences and do not give Dianetics pre-eminence. To the contrary, the word "Dianetics "doesn't even appear in at least one book on Perls' life and work (Clarkson and Mackewn), nor do the editors of the entries on Fritz Perls and Gestalt Therapy mention it.

There is one source that says that Perls "defended Hubbard's early work (though insisting that it needed scientific validation)". That is as close as anyone has come to sourcing the assertion that Perls "promoted" Dianetics. If you think it's relevant, you could use that quote. But it's not equivalent to say that he promoted Dianetics, or was a "proponent".

No one has been able to come up with any source for the assertion that Perls practiced Dianetics. Someone -- I think it was Camridge, thanks -- at least edited down the statement from its original form, where it said that Perls operated a Dianetics clinic in the late 60s.

I'm going to give this another day. After that, and in the absence of any emerging evidence, I'm going to feel free to remove the statements that Perls promoted or practiced Dianetics.

Yours, Shunpiker 19:57, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Energy

Hi all. I added criticism of energy as promoted in some NLP texts. Physics does not recognize energy as moving or existing in the positive/negative states that are commonly stated in NLP texts. This is a common new age myth and can be further clarified in the article. It may also be related to other pseudosciences such as energy therapies, EMDR, and other such pseudos. I also noticed there is another common misconception in NLP that considers energy as something that exists out of the body in a kind of aura-chi-directable entity. As far as it has been measured, no energy exists past the skin of the body. I think this also needs a mention somewhere. Camridge 08:19, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Epistemology and NLP

I have expanded the subsection 'Atheoretical Pretence'. In view of Grinder's grandiose amateur philosophising and the NLP mantra about theory that extends right back to the early literature I have brought some results from epistemology and philosophy of science to bear on the matter. Bandler and Grinder have been using Fictionlism (a type of Instrumentalism, which is in turn a type of Antirealism) as an evasive tactic since NLPs inception. B&G make explicit appeals to Fictionalism in their liberal quotations from Vaihinger and in there numerous paraphrasings of Fictionalist doctrine. Hence, the philosophical critiques of Fictionalism (and Instrumentalism) are entirely relevant. For those of you with some understanding of epistemology or an interest in the subject this will hopefully be informative. flavius 14:22, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Flavius, Your recent contributions need to take into account other point of views: Neutrality. You also seem to make assertions of fact, rather than attributing the assertion to a source (objectivity). --Comaze 22:27, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Comaze, I disagree. My recent addition does take into account other points of view: Vaihinger is cited. Vaihinger is not only cited by B&G but his name is most often associated with Fictionalism. Vaihinger is considered canonical on the matter of Fictionalism since he's one of the founders of the doctrine. The citations I have provided (eg. Bunge) do present the Fictionalist case. I have looked through all of the early NLP literature and some of the more recent literature and can find no answer to the damning rebuttals that Fictionalism has received. Further, Fictionalism has been consigned to garbage bin of bad ideas. Fictionalism survives only amongst a relatively small group of Economists that subscribe to Milton Friedman's Fictionalist conception of economic research methodology. Within economics Friedman's essay "The Methodology of Positive Economics" has received a savaging. What would comprise a "neutral" presentation of dead epistemological theory that hasn't recovered from the criticisms it has received? Also, I don't make assertions, all of my premises are well-sourced and my conclusion is a re-iteration of what is established -- in substance -- in the 'Pseudocience' section of the artcle. B&G ignored or misunderstood the basic tenets of Fictionalism. Fictionalist's have a strong commitment to empirical testing and/or explanatory power. Friedman -- for example -- proposes the criterion of value of any theory that is obtained from 'As If'ing to be predictive power, i.e. can the theory predict the behavior of one or more variables in relation to another. This is a demanding test of a theoretical formulation. Some Fictionalists justify a theory on the basis of explanatory power or problem resolution capacity where problem resolution is determined using empirical testing in the form of the scientific method. B&G assume all of the speculative freedoms of Fictionalism without also accpeting the responisbilities. B&G generally do not attempt to formulate predictive models, when they do formulate predictive models (eg. eye accessing cues) they do not subject them to rigorous empirical testing, and they are not concerned with explanation. B&G ostensibly claim 'utility' as the sole arbiter of theoretical value yet they are averse to testing their prescriptions to determine whether they are actually meeting their self-imposed criterion. B&G are properly not even Fictionalists since their theorising remains dissociated from reality, the criterion of utility that they initially appeal to is never honoured in that utility ("that it works") is not established using the best means known of hypothesis testing, namely the scientific method. I have actually been kind to B&G, a much stronger -- and neutral -- conclusion is possible. If you contend that I am being biased and unobjective in this instance then you will need to demonstrate that I have misprepresented Fictionalism and B&Gs appeal to it. flavius 00:14, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Comaze, I commenced my involvement with this article with the presumption of good faith by all parties concerned. You are quick to admonish editors for personally oriented behavior yet your behavior reeks of bad faith, your behaviour is intemperate and it can only be addressed at the personal level. You appear to be engaged in what I can only describe as the Wikipedia version of vexatious litigation. You reflexively cry "POV", "biased", "not objective" even after we have arrived at a consensus view that there would be a separate criticisms section. This is out of order and redirects editorial labour away from improving artcile quality to placating your petulant demeanour. I have more than adequately conveyed the NLP position regarding epistemological theory both in the 'Foundational Assumptions' section and in the 'Atheoretical Pretence' subsection. I've quoted directly in most cases. The NLP position on this matter can't be expanded any further because their is nothing further to add. B&G and Dilts take it for granted that Fictionalism serves as a sound basis for method. Grinder -- in Whispering -- does the same thing yet in a covert manner. Grinder and Bostic-St Clair actually smuggle Fictionalism in to their epistemological ruminations, making no explicit mention of it yet relying on it. Grinder and Bostic-St Clair's folly does not end there: in Whispering they demonstrate an ignorance of inferential statistics and its relationship to the scientific method and collapse statistical methods (inferential and descriptive) into descriptive statistics and proceeed to pretend to demonstrate the irrelevance of statistical hypothesis testing by way of challenging the relevance of the descritive statistical concept of the mean (which is actually only one type of measure of central tendency rather than definitive of it, which suggests an ignorance even of elementary descriptive statistics). Given the poverty of such arguments you can't cry foul when no one in the NLP community has bolstered them and they can be refuted simply by juxtaposing factual evidence or fundamental results from established disciplines. Is there a sound and cogent argument for NLPs rejection of probabilistic hypothesis testing that I have overlooked? Is there a sound and cogent argument for Fictionalism (actually bastardised Fictionalism) that answers the criticisms that have discredited Fictionalism within established disciplines from the NLP granfalloon that I have overlooked? No, there are no such arguments, so what then shall I present that will render my recent additions NPOV and objective. Your predicament is that you have imbibed a doctrine that is entirely without foundation, internally inconsistent and speculative -- which is entirely consistent with post-modernist thought and actually considered a virtue amongst post-modernists -- yet you somehow expect the presentation of (non-existant) emprirical evidence and philosophical justification that will somehow balance a doctrine that is essentially antagonistic to empirical testing and justification. Your position is untenable. You are in an epistemological limbo. The only way out that I can see for you -- that will preserve your commitment to NLP and allow you to remain ecelectic and speculative -- is to adopt a strong antirealist position not unlike Robert Anton Wilson, a person familiar to Bandler and many NLPers. All NLP roads eventually lead to antirealism/constructivism/mysticism: Bandler and Robert Anton Wilson, Grinder and Castaneda, Tad James and Huna, Kenrick Cleveland and Santeria,Ross Jeffries and Magick etc. This is not coincidental. flavius 01:36, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Flavius, You present a very strong argument, I need some time to check my sources, review and respond point by point. Firstly, can you comment on Grinder's argument that NLP modeling uses discrete mathematics, "discrete analysis of individual systems" and that this type of mathematics excludes the use of probability. I think that this may be the argument that you have overlooked. --Comaze 03:58, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

No, I havevn't overlooked that, I didn't mention it because it is a plain matter that discrete systems are analysed probabilistically in several fields. Can you give me a reference where Grinder presents that argument so that I can respond to it directly? If Grinder were correct then the branch of electronics engineering/computer systems engineering of computer system performance analysis would not exist. Computer systems are exemplars of discrete systems and yes discrete and finite math is used to analyse, model, verify and describe some of their behaviour but continuous and probabilistic methods are used to analyse, model, verify and describe other aspects of their behavior. Virtual memory system performance and CPU cache performance -- for example -- is determined using probabilistic methods. The probability distribution called the Poisson Distribution lets us answer such questions as 'What is the likelihood that web server X will receive 100 concurrent requests at time T?'. Probabilistic methods are used to determine the probability of contention within a computer system for a resource. Expected time to failure of components and systems is derived from probabilitic methods. Queuing Theory is used analyse computer network performance, this method is probabilistic and continuous. Queuing Theory is also used to predict computer system performance. I can give more examples if you want/need them. NLP modeling doesn't use discrete maths, it merely expresses banalities as formalisms (predicate logic, automata theory, syntax diagrams, set theory) borrowed from discrete maths to present the aura of depth and sophistication. flavius 06:49, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Flavius, I just skimmed Whispering in the Wind and found a few relevant paragraphs relevant to Grinder argument against using statistical probability for certain classes of contexts and possible usefulness in other contexts (eg. for predicting eye movement patterns in groups eg. marketing), see p.78,80,96. I'll look up the rest later tonight. --Comaze 23:37, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Comaze, with respect, I don't think anyone here has overlooked that point. The linguistic and clinical hypnosis view both state that the use of mathematical proof is completely inappropriate for explaining NLP. It does' however emphasize the pseudoscientific basis of VAKOG within NLP. That can be emphasized in the article with brief explanation. So, mathematical proofs can be mentioned within the pseudoscience section, and as further criticism for the pseudoscientific nature of NLP. In fact, this may even allow for further connection with other pseudoscientific subjects such as energy therapy. Camridge 05:43, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

When you say VAKOG are you referring to the 4-tuple presented Structure of Magic (1975)? --Comaze 05:54, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

No Comaze, I am talking more specifically about the inappropriatness of presenting NLP as a mathematically supported subject such as physics. The whole background of NLP is scientifically unsupported, and it has also has proven ineffectiveness (NLP has been falsified quite thoroughly through empirical testing). Hypnotists and others have criticised NLP for trying to look more convincing by talking about 4tuples and other such pseudoscientific sidetracks. Hubbard used to do the same kind of thing with his Dianetics subject. Anything that looks or sounds scientific is easy game for such pretenders. But it does nothing for wikipedia articles and requires clear thinking and good criticism to clarify the fog that it creates. Camridge 06:59, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

PS. I might add that this kind of mathematical "proof" does also put NLP on a par with astrology and numerology, plus other elements of magic such as in Rosicrucian pseudoscience that also makes use of geometrical and mathematical associations of early astronomy. Camridge 05:45, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Removing Comaze's whitewash

Comaze. You have been working against NPOV with a breathtaking impertinence:o

Parapragmatics were mentioned by Singer 1999 in her book Crazy Therapies, and they do exist in the literature.
NLP does use rituals according to many sources and technically speaking in psychology terms, they are rituals.
NLP has spoken about the magical results of supposted magicians from the very beginning.
The NLP phobia treatment is called a cure in the majority of cases and critics also use that term. Your censorship there is pure whitewash.
Your own POV is that there is disagreement about energy. Why do you want to keep writing this in the article? You are as bad as FT2 and his inconsistency fallacy nonsense.
If skeptical debunkers is not POV I don't know what is.
YOU removed a whole paragraph of direct quotes from NLP literature about energy because YOU DON"T LIKE IT. It is completely representitive.
You removed the Sala information about scientists also.
You are seriously in breach of NPOV guidelines and the only thing to do is to revert your comments and reinforce the information with further corroborating evidence. This does not suit your agenda to promote NLP at all, but you have left me with no option whatsoever. I cannot believe you can still be allowed to edit here. Your main purpose is to lobby for the removal of fact, and when that does not work you just snip it off anyway. I suggest you start editing somewhere else. I am so utterly furious with your beastly behaviour I am starting to look like a sunburned and boiled lobster. I am developing a large high bloodpressure vein across my forehead - its big and pulsating and its getting bigger. I will revert all your antiNPOV edits. DaveRight 04:14, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

As a wikipedian I do not care about NLP. I just want it represented accurately. My aim is to keep strictly in line with Wikipedia:Forum_for_Encyclopedic_Standards so we can eventually have this page peer reviewed by fellow wikipedians. --Comaze 04:25, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Now Comaze, you are not being completely honest there are you! I mean, there is something about those months of umpteen criticism deletes a day and even your recent whitewash, that may give the impression you don't really give a toss about wikipeida policy. Or am I just imagining NLP article history and your stated commitment to promoting an exclusively Bandler Grinder viewpoint throughout the article? That commitment is still in evidence today. DaveRight 04:30, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I might be an expert in the subject, having trained in all major schools of NLP, but that does not exclude me from thinking critically and stepping into the role of a wikipedian where I can be neutral. If you feel it is going to get personal, then you may contact me via my talk page or email. --Comaze 06:36, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Comaze, I must remind you that your so called qualifications will only establish your purpose to that of antiNPOV. The evidence is clear from the majority of your edits that you are unwilling to balance and only want to remove clarifying facts. Here is a solution: Admit that NLP is postmodern antiscience and stop trying to narrow the views to that of the most obscurantist. Camridge 06:47, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Chill out!

Fellas, ladies, and children of all ages, please calm down! I don't want to lock this page, but if I'm given no choice, I will, without hesistation. I emplore you all to be CIVIL, and refrain from using personal attacks (that means all of you...). In all honesty, some editors are acting childish, and if need be, an RfC can and will be filed, so please just relax and stay cool. Might a wikibreak help anyone? I promise to keep close watch over this thing. -Mys e kurity^{(have you seen this?)} 04:37, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi Myusekurity. No worries, the only person asking for a locked page is Comaze and thats because nobody allows him to cut facts any more. I noticed that people are being a lot more civil since the page is divided more clearly, and any silliness seems to be more humour than anything else. People have made efforts to cut the size of the page, and when people such as Comaze stop pushing to delete important facts, then they can be reduced (the full quotes will be less necessary, and extra supporting evidence will be unnecessary also). Anyway, the page seems to be in better order with better explanations, and certainly my goal is to get the article to below 50kb fairly soon. Cheers Camridge 04:51, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I think an RfC could be helpful in soliciting the input of people with more diverse interests -- not least of all, those who are disinterested in this topic. Until there is a quorum of editors contributing to the article who are not identified with the either the pro- or anti-NLP positions, I wouldn't expect improvement in the quality of the article or the civility of the discussion around it. Thanks, Shunpiker 05:17, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Shunpiker, have you ever gone to a bookstore in search of a non-fiction book on topic X, deliberately looking for book that states on the back-cover blurb "John Smith has no expertise in X or special interest he just wrote this book to pass some idle hours he had last summer."? If you found such a book and you wanted to know about X why would you read it? Who would publish such a book? In all of the encyclopedias I have (general and specialist) each of the constituent articles on a topic is authored by one or more topic experts. Why would anyone want to read an article written by a dilettante? An encyplopedia that is comprised of the superficial knowledge of dilettanti is useless for reference purposes. Your editorial philosophy is harmful to the credibility of Wikipedia. The damning reviews of Wikipedia in 'The Register' were at least partly made with reference to the thoughtless egalitarianism that you are advocating. Anyone that is disinterested in a topic shouldn't be writing about it or even reviewing articles about that topic. The only people that should alter the content of the article (as opposed to the form) should be either "pro" or "anti" -- they should have a position. Having an opinion is not indicative of knowledge but knowledge leads to the assuming of an opinion. Having an opinion per se is not a vice and not everyone can make a worthwhile (content) contribution to any article. flavius 09:01, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi Flavius, I don't believe I am advocating "thoughtless egalitarianism". I'm just sick of seeing this article controlled by extremists. As long as the article is written by people who want to promote or impugn NLP more than they want to write an encyclopedia, the article will only serve the interests of whichever POV choir predominates in the editorial tug-of-war.

The principle of Wikipedia:No Original Research, at least as I understand it, implies that you don't have to be a content expert to contribute to an article -- just a competent researcher and writer. I quote: "experts do not occupy a privileged position within Wikipedia". That editorial philosophy is controversial, but it is deliberate and longstanding. If "The Register" or anyone else finds it harmful, they are free to either try to influence it, or to find other projects with other philosophies. Yours, Shunpiker 19:17, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

A good test for a neutral editor would be that someone would not be able idenitify from your writing if you are writing for or against a topic. So really, every edit should contain views from all sides. I also want to implement Wikipedia:Footnotes in this article so that other editors can easily check facts. --Comaze 05:58, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Hello Shunpiker. Regarding solutions, I believe all editors here will be seen as either pro or anti in a very short time after joining. NLP is a very muddy subject that can be clarified using scientific thought/evidence, and good clear writing. There will always be the problem of NLPers wanting to promote, because the NLP cult is set up that way: The effort is towards propaganda and whitewash rather than balance or acceptance, and NLP is confusingly claiming to be science, art, technology, psychology and anything else that sells. The pressure from proNLPers towards deletion rather than balance is still in evidence and I don't think that will go away ever. The simplest solution would be for the cult of NLP to accept that it is anti-science and anti-realistic post modernism, and then the criticisms would be properly framed. However, the denial is clear, and the proNLPers pressure to make NLP sound like respectable and widely accepted psychology remains. Comaze is still playing the same game as ever, and just trying to wind people up on their own userpages, making baseless objections to mediators/arbs whilst deleting as much as he can here in the process. Efforts to keep a sense of humour are a must. I don't see any problem with getting outside help, though I think things are actually improving as they are on the whole. I would say simple encouragement towards balance and concise writing will be more appropriate. All the solutions so far have been from editors labeled antiNLP - compromise, organization, provision of facts and extra corroborating facts. I am sure you will get plenty of cooperation from the so-called anti-NLPers as always. Cheers Camridge 06:03, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh change the record Headley you ----------- Krishsingh1066 14:58, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh my KrishSing1066, this just isn't done. Your comments are a direct provocation and clearly designed to get the article locked. Clearly a fanatical way of doing things and I doubt if it will work to any successful extent. I'll do the honours and boot your petty offence off this discussion page. DaveRight 03:17, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

No worries, Dave. Its pretty unclear who the attack was addressed to. Camridge 03:37, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes. This definitely needs to go to RfC. I know nothing of NLP, but I do know there seems to be a great deal of animosity between users. I feel, whatever your beliefs, labling something a "pseudo-science" is not NPOV, and I will remove that. What would be acceptable, is to state that some consider it to be a pseduo-science, and list quotes and such that support that, as well as others that refute the pseudo-science claim, thus making it NPOV. I honestly think this needs to go to RfC, and if this warring/incivility continues, I will not hesitate to protect the page and block users. Those here are doubly reminded that Sockpuppetry and Meatpuppetry are grounds for immediate blocking, and forbidden from voting and discussion. Any sock or meatpuppet caught will be blocked on sight. -Mys e kurity^{(have you seen this?)} 05:10, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Hello Mysekurity, I cannot see any instance of NLP being labeled by editors as pseudoscience. All statements to this effect are attributed to scientists and other authors. There seems to have been a great deal of effort directed to this activity. Although there is also a lot of pressure from proNLPers to remove such thoroughly cited facts. I don't see how RfC can help in this matter. What did you have in mind? Camridge 06:21, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Mysekurity, your commentary is perplexing. Firstly, at this stage the animosity is between Comaze and everyone else, your characterization of the conflict as general and widespread is inaccurate. This recent conflict between KrishSing1066 and HeadleyDown looks contrived. I'm going out on a limb here but I suspect that HeadleyDown and KrishSingh1066 are one and the same person -- the stylistic similarities of prose are too many to be coincidental. Secondly, what you "feel" about the term pseudo-science is entirely irrelevant. Your sujective disposition towards a term is no more relevant or authoritative than anyone elses. The article contains no naked assertions that NLP is a pseudoscience, NLPs pseudoscientific status is communicated with reference to numerous authorities. Also there are no refutations of the arguments and evidence of the experts that NLP is a pseudoscience -- none exists. Unless you are advocating the inclusion of mere assertion to the effect that NLP is not a pseudoscience then you will have to accept the coverage of this matter as balanced and complete. Furthermore, how would you justify the inclusion of mere assertion? flavius 08:38, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Hello again Flavius. How can you say no refutation exists? Some books comment that NLP is more an art than a science which is a refutation (not of pseudoscience, but of science). Some trainers comment that NLP is an epistemology (rather than science) which is a refutation. The methodology of NLP (particularly modeling) clearly does not include the scientific method, but it is a systematic study... so the definition of science comes in here too. There has been much discussion on what NLP is and is not - the key thing here is that there are some scientists who"

perceive NLP to be claiming to be a science, but
they say it's not following the principles of science - hence a pseudoscience.

The related problem is that although some NLPers make extravagent claims, the field as a whole is inconsistent due to no central control. There are pro-science NLPers who don't make extravagent claims, but they are expected to defend against claims other NLPers make. If the above sounds confusing I think it's largely because it is a bit of a muddle... expressing it clearly is a challenge worth doing in the article GregA 23:32, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi GregA. An assertion that NLP is not a pseudoscience does not constitute a refutation. Similarly, the assertion that "NLP is more an art than a science" is not a refutation of anything, it is an assertion, a declaration or decree. The statement that "NLP is an epistemology (rather than a science)" is meaningless and even if it were meaningful it would amount to no more than another assertion. There is no refutation of the criticisms levelled against NLP. I re-read Ch. 3 of Whispering and Grinder's attempt to answer criticisms regarding method and verification are insincere and still-born. Either Grinder doesn't understand the criticisms or chooses not to. A refutation of Grinder's position on method and verification would require a lengthy essay to cover because it is replete with so many fallacies, assertions, suppressed premises, hidden metaphysical baggage, misunderstandings and sophistry. There are no genuine pro-science NLPers -- that is an entirely mythical beast. Grinder, Dilts and Hall have scientific pretensions and they ignore or misunderstand fundamental issues of method that define scientific inquiry. The "muddle" that you describe is the thoroughly post-modern flavor of NLP. NLP has nothing to do with science, inquiry, verification, consistency, evidence and reality and it never will. Post-modernists don't refute arguments or present evidence to the contrary. Instead they declare that reality, truth, and objectivity are fictions and that all "discourses" are equal, that subjectivity is all we have and need. This is the very ethos of NLP, it runs through all of the early NLP texts and even in Whispering. There is no NLP refutation of critique because the very legitimacy of the activity of critique is disputed. NLPers don't think there is any case to answer. Fictionalism stripped of the need for empirical test -- or in Grinder's case redefined such that subjectivity is made equivalent to empirical test -- is the epistemological basis of NLP. This is the license for untrammeled speculation, overvaluation of subjective experience, disregard of intellectual heritage and cult-like insularity. flavius 04:30, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Certainly the conflict is all Comaze, Flavius. He's been groundlessly badgering me on my own page for some time. I agree with the term pseudoscience or pseudoscientific being perfectly neutral. If some people do not like it then perhaps they should read more modern anthropology. Its also used very neutrally there also. I doubt if Krish is Headley though. The name KrishSingh popped up on the complaints section of the last arbitration. The proNLPers were claiming that there was some kind of conspiracy coming from a skeptics newsgroup and KrishSing1066 was the main character bringing it up on that newsgroup. I suspect that a proNLPer has just taken the name for themselves to mess the editors around. I can't see why a skeptic would be offensive to Headley. Headley is a skeptic by and large. And Headley has never asked for an article lock. In fact it looks like an attack from a prior editor here called Lee. But that's just me going out on a limb also:) It is all quite irelevant to the fact that the article has been improving and clarifying issues for the past week or so. ATB Bookmain 10:01, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Bookmain. Check this: http://krishsingh1066.tripod.com/NLP.htm. Slabs of this document were/are to be found in the current article and were contributed by HeadleyDown. Either one is copying from the other or its the same person. The writing style of HeadleyDown in the discussion section is the same as that of Krish Singh in the above essay. My money is on they being the same person. I'm not suggesting that the person that made the remark against HeadleyDown is the real Krish Singh. I'm suggesting that because they are the same person it is unlikely that Headley/Krish would insult himself. flavius 11:09, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi Flavius. Actually I think Headley and Comaze have very similar writing styles, but I don't think they are the same person:) Cheers DaveRight 02:18, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Welcome, the real Krish. Impersonation is a serious offense so I think that Krishsing1066 wikiaccount should be deleted fairly soon. I reckon it was Lee. He is always using that particular attack. How come Headley gets all the really juicy insults? Actually one of the reasons I stick around is because the subject is interesting in social psychology terms, but the cult side seems to be in very real evidence on the discussion pages. Flavius mentioned vexatious litigation (indicating Comaze) and in fact this is exactly what the other cults do. Scientology uses exactly the same kind of strategies in order to warn people off, and get their own way. In fact, Comaze's strategies seem to go a bit deeper, perhaps more into the realms of sociopathic tendency. To be fair, a lot of the other NLP promoters did also. And there are some things about NLP that add some special tweaks to it. For example, the claim that questions have not been answered; this is a common NLP unwritten strategy that comes as a consequence of the unfounded belief in the metamodel. Its supposed to be an attention directer, but it just sets up excuses. Throughout, the proNLPers have asked (actually demanded or else delete) questions and extra source material to back up criticisms. The whole discussion archives are full of the stuff. I cannot remember any time when a neutral editor demanded the same from a proNLPer. But the result is always the same- the claim that the question has not been asked, or the claim that extra sources are not enough. Denial of evidence from NLP literature is another strategy. The mediator asked whether certain things exist in the NLP literature - proNLPers obviously will provide no evidence to show that the books are full of new age concepts, occult practices, and empirically falsified rituals. The books are full of diagrams with goggle eyes, but not one proNLPer provided evidence of recent use of PRS (it is in every book). But they do deny it exists, and they do demand many multiple citations from neutral editors in order to have it on the article. I digress, Comaze (after his reversionfest a month or two ago and his written committment to promote a Bandler Grinder view, and his insistence that the article be full of primary sources only(he claimed Bandler and Grinder only were primary)). Deep breath -- Comaze decides to get formal and begs the mediators to turn up, and has a go on his own version of an article (total promotion). Of course mediators are moderate, so Comaze (and FT2 and the other cult members) hates their decisions. The next thing is to become officious (or at least sound like it). His strategy is to get all scientology and post sockpuppet labels on any non promotional editor's page, and to keep on accusing them of making attacks at him. All the time he makes demanding questions of other editors and these are answered. Comaze denies that questions have been answered and goes on pushing for deletion of facts and so on. He keeps pushing for lines of framing that are completely unreasonable to any other neutral editor. The accusations of attack continue, and he does his best to make it look like neutral editors are all rotten. However, the only actual personal attacks come from proNLPers towards Headley. I think you are probably starting to see a certain pattern here. Anyway, I find it really interesting, though it probably doesn't do much for the article itself. One thing I find about wikipedia itself is that when you set out to be neutral, you can still look like you are posting propaganda. The deeper you go into NLP the more nasties you find. So it is inevitable that you are going to look anti-NLP next to the NLP zealots. But its the zealots that end up showing that they are acting in bad faith, recruiting vandals from newsgroups, acting officously but doing it to simply slur or to provoke attack in order to claim the higher ground, making straight personal attacks, denying commonly accepted facts(dishonesty) and so on. The solution here may be to accept that proNLPers will do this and to simply ignore them most of the time. They take up far too much time to answer their questions (that will be denied anyway) so just keep going with the article instead. They do seem to have dwindled in number due to this (and perhaps because some of them seem to be beginning to understand that you can't successfully promote NLP on wikipedia). Cheers DaveRight 02:16, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Hello Flavius. Actually I am Krish (Krishsingh1066@yahoo.com) not HeadleyDown. The material on my site was given to me by another skeptic and I thought it so good I posted it up. Judging by the advances here I have some changes to make:) Someone else is impersonating me, and it looks like someone anti-HeadleyDown. I've been watching this article for a while though I don't have an account. I think its fairly clear that NLP proponents are trying their damnedest to remove criticism. How do you remain so tolerant? I'd be breaking monitors by now! Sincerely 203.198.23.99 01:35, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Hello Krish. My apologies to you and HeadleyDown. I am not familiar with the political terrain of Wikipedia. My conjecture was based largely on the commonality of text posted on your website and that posted here by HeadleyDown. On the face of it it looked suspicious. I am somewhat befuddled by the many designations of users as impersonators/sockpuppets of HeadleyDown. flavius 03:58, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry about it Flavius. It is confusing, but everyone here is really tolerant, except Comaze who will accuse people of attacking him when in fact they are simply pointing out his uncooperative activities. He has changed from posting sockpuppet labels to posting completely unhelpful accusations on people's pages in order to slow things down or gain sympathy from misguided mediators. Pretty sad really. Camridge 04:35, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Flavius, Anyone can create a tripod site so it is not reliable evidence. We know for sure that whoever posted the message from the fake "krishsingh1066" was trying to distract this discussion. Let's ignore the personal attacks, ~~trolling techniques~~, etc. and focus on improving the notes and citations on the artcle. --Comaze 23:27, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Comaze, point taken. Bookmain is designated a suspected puppet of HeadleyDown. Is the designation made on the basis of mere allegation or has a link been established on the basis of source IP address? flavius 03:58, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi Flavius. Yes Comaze posted the label on my page and I am waiting for him to remove it. I think he has posted at least 9 such labels on other nonpromoter's pages. He has always accused without foundation and he continues to do it as you probably have noticed on your own page. He wants you to look like the miscreant, when all you have done is provide clear explanations - lots of work, and all he does is waste people's time. The best thing to do is ignore him. He tries to act all official but in fact he has committed months of flagrant antiNPOV activities. Most of his focus is on nuisance now though. Just try to shrug it off. Bookmain 05:00, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

A request has been made to the arbitration committee to check IP address of that username. Other evidence will be presented before the committee meets to workshop this matter. See [18] --Comaze 04:19, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

That doesn't answer the question Comaze. You placed the sockpuppet labels as if you are some kind of official. They were placed there purely on the basis of your own desire to see critics banned from wikipedia or to gain some kind of control. Camridge 04:40, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Citations

While researching for my reply to flavius, I added a whole bunch of citations to the page. While I was doing this I noticed that there is a lack of citations from NLP in the criticism section. It seems that there is a general lack of connection of the criticism to specific aspect of NLP. The "Atheoretic" section in criticism is an excellent counter-example to this. This is the sort of quality I'd like to see throughout the entire document. Wherever possible I have used the earliest references to each fact. Please feel free to check them and provide earlier or more reputable/verifiable/authoratative references when you can find them. --Comaze 11:41, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Jolly good show Comaze. Its nice to see you have suddenly stopped deleting facts after all. I wonder how long you can keep this up! DaveRight 03:11, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

I gather that if we improve the references, citations and notes (verifiability) then we can get neutral wikipedian editors to check the facts and weigh in on consensus. Let's all work together to find the highest quality sources available. --Comaze 04:40, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Comaze, if that means you doing your thing of trying to chuck out references on the basis that they do not promote NLP or that they contain evidence that places NLP as a fringe new age pseudopsychological fad, then I think you are on the wrong path. Clearly you seem to think there is something very wrong with the references that have been provided at your own insistance. Currently, the article needs to clarify NLP far more for what it is, and to do it more briefly. I don't see any unverifiable references in the article as it stands. Camridge 06:55, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

I made no such suggestion. Let's keep it balanced. The arbitration committee must be meeting soon, I'm sure their recommendations will assist the article. --Comaze 23:31, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Comaze! You have made many many many many many such suggestions. Just take a look through the archives. You generally delete or object to the words "fringe, new age, pseudo, ritual etc" on sight even though they are used as classifications within psychology manuals, especially in reference to NLP and other such unvalidated pseudosciences. DaveRight 02:28, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

DaveRight, If you feel this is getting personal plesae send me a private message or use my talk page. Just a reminder, you were the one who added "quasi-spiritual new age rituals" to the first sentence of NLP; I reverted it. Hopefully we can sort this out through RfC or current arbitration committee. --Comaze 02:54, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Listen Comaze, there is no way you are going to get away without someone pointing out your uncooperative behaviour. You have demanded so much, but you continue to deny the facts. These are not personal attacks. Truly the only personal attacks are the ones made by the promoters you work with towards nonpromotional editors, and I will repeat what the mediator VoiceOfAll has stated about you; "YOUR BEHAVIOUR IS TEDIOUS AND UNPRODUCTIVE". Camridge 03:29, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Camridge, RELEVANCY CHALLENGE: How is what you just said getting us to our agreed objectives as wikipedians? --Comaze 03:45, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Comaze, look, judging by your history, I believe you are never going to cooperate. So whenever you ask tedious or uncooperative questions I will simply point out what you are doing for the sake of other editors who may be under the false impression that you are trying to do something constructive. Other people are carefully pointing out what you are trying to do, and that is a constructive thing to do, because it will lead to a better understanding of your nuisance. These pointers are not attacks, but they show exactly where the hazards are on this discussion article in order to facilitate constant forward movement. ----- I noticed you have just posted something irelevant on the article about someone in the 70s saying NLP is worthy. That is completely out of date and irrelevant to the opening, so I will remove it. Camridge 04:04, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

"YOUR BEHAVIOUR IS TEDIOUS AND UNPRODUCTIVE". Camridge, how did you know I made that statement? While I did say that, that is like three or four archives ago, your name was not even around then.Voice of All^T|@|ESP 04:06, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi VoiceOFAll. I've been lurking for ages, even before HeadleyDown turned up. I started writing a report on NLP for my Master degree, and got swept up with the discussion. Why? Do you want to post a meatpuppet label on my personal page together with Comaze's many unreasonable objections? Camridge 04:10, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

It is just odd...among other paralles, such as writing style/opinions. If this is an alternate account, then I simply encourage you to stick to the main account; I only use sockpuppet labels for trolls or vandals.Voice of All^T|@|ESP 04:50, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Meatpuppets

There has been great speculation as to whether or not two or three users are alike or the same. While writing styles are very similar, I do not believe we are dealing with sockpuppets, but only meatpuppets (See their respective pages). What we mostly have here are users pushing their POV and getting friends involved, so nothing illegal, just not very nice. I honestly think this could use an RfC, as this page just seems to be serving as a smack-talking battlegroun. -Mys e kurity^{(have you seen this?)} 02:26, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, Mysekurity, there is evidence of this on some NLP newsgroups. For example, NLP-mind (egroups) and Mindlist (egroups) both have had friends working together and have tried to recruit more from their own groups - Greg Alexander (GregA) and Andy Bradbury an NLP author (who also vandalized Headley's page) have clearly been working together. Notice also the only people to vote together are all NLP fanatics (certified and currently practicing with clear vested financial interests in promotion) and they all voted in order to treat the non promotional editors as a single entity or to have them banned. The amount of blanket deletions these proNLPers have made is scary. This was always the danger of having a criticisms section - someone is going to come along and delete the whole thing. But thankfully it is quite easy to resore. Cheers DaveRight 02:35, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I concur. The NLPpromoters are all self admittedly registered or trained NLPers. They all have an agenda to delete facts about NLP. Not just criticisms, but facts about NLP's occult/new aga/pop psychology/pseudoscience characteristics. Considering they are all part of the same small circle of pseudoscientists, I would say they most definitely fit the bill for meatpuppetry. Furthermore, they all ganged up to vote for mediation (though they were completely unco-operative during mediation) and they all ganged up for arbitration (in order to remove non-promoters). If wikipedia is to be consistent in this matter, they should be very wary in the face of such persistent pressure for restriction and censorship from such cults. Bookmain 05:13, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

DaveRight, do you agree that if we got an RfC that you'd agree to adhere to the decision? Let's resolve these content disputes without making it personal. --Comaze 02:42, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Comaze, the only reason you want to bring in people from the outside is because they havn't been fortunate enough to witness the farce of your months of antagonistic activities, slurs, unreasonable demands, blanket deletes after mediation, and so on. Presently, the article is coming along fine. Your only role here seems to be to retard editing activities and generally anoy editors who are good enough to explain things carefully to you, though your only response is to ignore or deny. Your smokescreens and subterfuges to direct attention away from your unreasonable behaviour are simply not working. You want RfC to treat you as a new entity, you want to lock the page to slow things down, you post many objections on other editors pages simply to be objectionable. You don't fool anyone. [...] You will be ignored. DaveRight 03:48, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I definitely see nothing that constitutes any sort of trolling here...not yet at least. Perhaps both sides are rallying/have a few copy accounts, but it is hard to see this as a possible issue on only one side. As Mysekurity said, we must avoid personal attack, this is true even if you think you are right.Voice of All^T|@|ESP 03:54, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes perhaps trolling is inappropriate. But Comaze is certainly living upto his agenda to unreasonably accuse, deny and retard progress. Camridge 04:06, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

New Age Rituals, Quasi-Spiritual

Hello all. NLP uses rituals rather than techniques. Evidence:

Ritual A stylised sequence of activity designed to anchor and elicit a particular state or series of states in the participants, with reference to the leader's beliefs and values. Eg the use of coloured pens, mind mapping and slow music to elicit optimal learning states is a ritual expression of the pattern of learning in all three main representational systems.

here is an excerpt from NLP the new technology of achievement about Robert Dilts

Robert draws them out. He helps them divide their disappointments from their dreams and rekindle what first brought them together. He then assists them in literally separating themselves from old co-dependent patterns and gaining a new sense of wholeness in and for themselves. Finally, he invites them to participate in a healing ritual in which they bring the fullness and you stay there for a long time, perhaps for hours. And that you have your own little rituals (environmental and internal anchors) that can put you back into that state at the snap of a finger. Many 204

There was a good deal of literature posted in the archives on the new age nature of NLP. I cannot be bothered to dig it up just to have Comaze deny it, but it basically said that all the NLP principles are related to the new age concepts, and NLP is marketed under the new age label. NLP IS NEW AGE!

NLP is a quasi-spiritual method as explained by a body of medical practitioners : http://www.canoe.ca/AltmedDictionary/glossary.html

It is completely NPOV acceptable to call NLP new age, ritualistic, and quasi-spiritual. In addition to this, it is totally correct to call it pseudo-scientific with or without citations. The only reason to have citations is to stop overzealous deleters from deleting it. Camridge 04:28, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Camridge's take on NLPs proper classification. NLP isn't a science and it isn't based on science. NLP isn't an art in that it neither produces aesthetic works (eg. sculpture) nor is it a skill based on a mixture of knowledge (assumptions and falsities don't comprise knowledge) and experience (eg. cookery). It isn't a craft (eg. carpentry) because it doesn't involve manual dexterity. It can't be conceived of as a skill because it doesn't work (the evidence tells us this). If someone claimed that he could fly by flapping his arms we wouldn't deem that person as posessing the skill to fly. It can't be classified as a technology because by definition technology is applied science, it is the application of science to the resolution of practical problems. Since NLP is not based on science it can't be a technology. Is it an epistemology? This question implies an unconventional understanding of the word epistemology. Epistemology is a branch of philosophy that is concerned with the scope, limits, nature and basis of human knowledge. Saying "an epistemology" implies that there are a multitude of epistemologies. There are a multitude of epistemological theories (eg. Realism, Constructivism, Instrumentalism, Idealism, Representationalism) but there is only one epistemology, i.e. the branch of philosophy. So NLP can't be "an epistemology" in the same sense that something can't be "an archeology" (when we say "an archeology of Egypt" we are not referring to some special species of Egyptian archeology we are referring to archeological knowledge pertaining to Egypt). Is there an epistemological theory embedded within NLP? Yes, certainly (see my earlier discussion on this) but this is unremarkable. There is an epistemological theory embedded even in everyday experience (eg. the inductive logic we employ when we say "lemons are sour"). Saying "NLP is an epistemology" is a linguistic trick that enables NLPers to smuggle in specific epistemological theory whilst maintaining the pretence that they "don't do theory" and simultaneously avoiding the need for justification of the details of those specific epistemological theories. Within specific sciences and branches of technology the word "model" has a well-defined meaning even though usage of the term may vary between various disciplines (eg. a structural engineers notion of a model is different from a physicists). Outside of these technical contexts the term model is ambiguous. What exctly does it mean to say that "NLP is a model"? NLP is not predictive. NLP is not concerned with explanation. NLP is not a simulation. NLP does not engage in hypothesis testing (such that it yields limited gerneralisations en route to producing laws). All of the standard understandings of "model" have been exhausted. Hence NLP can't be described as a model. By a process of elimination the only domain of human experience that we have left is religiosity. Tye (1994) argues that NLP produces a "psycho shaman effect" (p.4) which is described as a combination of "cognitive dissonance, placebo effect, and therapist charisma" (p.5). Thus the NLP practitioner/therapist is like a shaman. The aspects of religiosity within NLP extend further than this. It is essentially faith based, tenets are validated in the same way as many religions, namely, with reference solely to subjective experience. NLP promotes the notion of unlimited personal possibility and potential: all that separates me from Albert Einstein (a figure often mentioned but usually misunderstood in NLP literature and seminars) is that we have different "strategies" i.e. sequences of sensory based represnetations. NLP also promotes the idea that all behavior is learnt (this notion is incidentally inconsistent with Chomskyan linguistics). Taken together these two premises form a conception of "human nature" -- this too is a facet of religiosity. The ethical system of the quasi-religion is supplied by the notion of ecology. The techniques of NLP -- having being demonstrated to have no real effect -- comprise ritual and ceremony. Deification is distributed between the "all powerfull unconscious" (the source of all power) and the upper echelons of the training industry pyramid (who as shamans know the secrets of the unconscious). The demons of NLP are suggestions, linguistic ambiguities and embedded commands that threaten to enter our unconscious mind and manifest some harmful reality (see [[19]]). NLP supplies the incantations and rituals necessary to repel or exorcise these demons. NLP defines sinful behavior: Meta-Model violations or failure to honour the presuppositions attracts censure. The most dramatic ritual is of course the Fast Phobia Cure, this is NLPs equivalent of Christian charismatic healing or perhaps an exorcism. flavius 17:32, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I think you've overlooked a major assumption in NLP that is based on Transformational grammar: Language is rule-governed (Syntactic Structures Chomsky 1957), Grinder & Bandler (1975) extend this to assert "all human behavior is rule-governed"(p.1 1975a) (Grinder & Bandler 1975a pp.1-37,108; Grinder & Bostic-St Clair 2002 p.71; Dilts & Deloizer 2000 p.1470). According to Grinder (2002) Historically the deep structure / surface structure theory is still significant in the development of NLP (see also [20]) --Comaze 22:26, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

No I haven't overlooked that assumption -- I make no mention of it because it's irrelevant. How does asserting that "all behavior is rule-governed" alter the fact that NLP is theoretically deficient, lacking in empirical support and ineffective (save placebo and nonspecific factors)? Scientology assumes that human behavior is influenced by adhesive "body thetans" that Xenu brought to Earth in a space craft. Does this assumption render it any less quasi-religious? Quite the contrary, a blanket assertion such as "all human behavior is rule-governed" is characteristic of pseudoscientific, religious, and quasi-religious discourse. Specifically regarding Chomsky's TG, NLP is discordant even on this matter. NLP is predicated on the idea that all behavior is learnt, a product of acquired representational codings. This idea is antithetical to Chomskyan linguistics which is innatist [[21]]. Furthermore, Chomsky has long since abandoned the TG he proposed in Syntactic Structures. TG is actually two intellectual epochs removed from his current theorising: TG was abandoned in favor of Universal Grammar (UG), UG was abandoned for his so-called "Minimalist Program" [[22]]. flavius 02:12, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Mathison & Tossey (2003) note that the "there seems to be a relationship between NLP and Vygotsky's learning theory[23]. I think Mathison was the first PhD in Neuro-linguistic programming. To say that "all behaviour is learnt" is misleading and out of context -- some behaviours are governed by genetics. If it is useful in the learning process, an NLP modeler could adopt a belief that "all behaviour is learnt". Flavius you misquoted B&G, it should read "all human behavior is rule-governed"(p.1 1975a). Basically, a complex human behaviour can be grossly reduced to a set of simple rules (hence the 4-tuple, 6-tuple, finite state automata, and the recent work with Discrete Dynamical Systems). More recently, Grinder & Malloy have modeled the NLP/Bateson epistemology in Boolean systems (Kauffman) and use E42 to test and refine it. Prof. Tom Malloy (with Grinder & Bostic) (Psych., University of Utah) has adopted this as part of an overarching framework [24]. --Comaze 23:44, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Comaze, Mathison and Tosey's brief paper are minor, speculative, non-empirical, and simply an overdefensive reply to someone elses criticisms (criticisms born out of NLP's ineffectiveness). Just another burdensome can of worms for you to open for the article. Your bias has been noted. JPLogan 03:01, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

JPLogan, From memory Mathison and Tosey won an award for best conference paper with that [paper. --Comaze 02:48, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Yoohoo Comaze. Conference competitions are neither here nor there. I read Tosey and they didn't even vaguely tackle the problem that only a minority of learners are pragmatic learners. It is a paper that tries to position NLP theoretically. It opposes many many other papers that put the theory somewhere other than Bateson epist. Most of the articles on our article put NLP as theoretical junk - pseudoscience in theory, principle and so on. Craft (2001) also is in opposition to Tosey. Your Tosey paper is fringe. DaveRight 03:20, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

We can probably include Craft(2001) in the article. I think that Tosey is significant given the number of citations and he is "Director of research project `Neuro-linguistic Programming: Theory and Applications for Teachers and Learners' at University of Surrey." [25] Do you have a reference for your criticism of this paper? --Comaze 03:32, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Comaze. I have both Craft (2001) and Tosey & Mathison (2003). None of the authors -- Craft included -- are significant. Craft (2001) raises some signficant issues -- as JPLogan and DaveRight have already remarked -- which go unanswered by Tosey & Mathison (2003). Tosey & Mathison (2003) devote most of their article to selling NLP. In the process of so-doing they demonstrate the post-modern basis of NLP. Tosey & Mathison (2003) propose -- in thoroughly post-modern fashion that internal choherence is not necessary for a theory and then proceed to characterize Craft (2001) as a "modernist" as if were a term of abuse: "However, does a theory need to be internally consistent in order to be valid? This seems a modernist more than a post-modern view." (p.376) This is amusing because it appeals to the dominance of post-modernism in many North American university humanities and social science departments. We are -- afterall -- all supposed to be post-modernists now. Tosey & Mathison agree with Craft (2001) that NLP is Social Constructivist in broad theoretical identity. In case the consequences of this aren't obvious to you Tosey & Mathison (2003) positions NLP as antirealist -- Social Constructivism is a species of antirealism. Tosey & Mathison grope in the dark trying to specify the type of antirealism that NLP is based upon, they use the same quote that from Frogs that I used in 'Atheoretical Pretences'. They allude to a form of instrumentalism in vague terms and don't manage to establish the link between the informal description of fictionalism delivered in the seminar that Frogs transcribes and B&Gs explicit references to Vaihinger in Magic I. The irony of this is that they chastise Craft for not referencing the primary works. Craft's critique could have been stronger even as a purely theoretically oriented essay. Tosey & Mathison's response is largely vacuous as is most post-modernist discourse. The inclusion of Tosey & Mathison (2003) in the article will have the unintended (for you) consequence of substantiating the characterisation of NLP is post-modern, anti-realist, social constructivist tripe. An irony which escaped Tosey and Mathison is that on the one hand they lament the lack of interest from academe in researching NLP yet they make no attempt to answer the mass of expert criticism levelled against NLP nor even do they acknowledge a need on the part of the NLP community to answer these criticisms. The matter of empirical validation remains off the NLP agena. Surrealy, Tosey & Mathison opine, "Academe appears relatively untouched by NLP. There has been a modicum of research interest from experimental psychology, consisting mainly of studies that examined NLP’s ‘eye movement’ model (e.g. Baddeley and Predebon, 1991; Buckner et al., 1987; Dorn et al., 1983; Farmer et al., 1985;Poffel and Cross, 1985; Wertheimet al., 1986). These studies, many of which are summarized by Bolstad (1997), found no basis for acceptance of the model. It seems unlikely that a handful of unfavourable experimental studies accounts for this lack of academic interest." Correct, it isn't "a handful of unfavourable experimental studies" that have produced this disinterest from the academy. It's the piles of expert criticism and empirical results in journals and books that demonstrate NLPs ineffectivenss and theoretical unsoundness and the absence of any demonstration of the effectiveness of NLP or theoretical superiority by NLP promoters that has produced this disinterest. Besides being ill-informed about the research on NLP, Tosey & Mathison attempt to shift the burden of proof for NLP upon the academy. However, when the academy does engage in research into NLP, unfavourable findings and conclusions are ignored or dismissed by NLP proponents (they cite Bolstad's selective summary of NLP research at http://www.stant-1.demon.co.uk/artcl007.htm as providing a summary of pertinent research on the matter, need I comment). Tosey & Mathison (2003) is more NLP junk research, include it at your own peril. flavius 10:29, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

The assumption that all behavior is learned is stated explicitly in Dilts et al (1980) which I have cited. Consider, "This information [sensory information] is then transformed through innternal processing strategies that each individual has learned...Both macrobehavior and microbehavior are, of course, programmed through our neurological systems" (p4. italics added). Also, "Individuals change their behavior through the establishment of personal reference experiences and cognitive maps" [26]. This position precludes any biological and genetic influences on behaviour. Further, the notion that some behaviors have genetic origins is anthithetical to the personal empowerment ethos that NLP is infused with. NLP presumes that all human behavior is learned and that it is rule governed -- the two are not mutually exclusive.flavius 03:42, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Comaze, I've indulged you by taking another look at Malloy's website (since you mentioned it again). My aesthetic response to the site is that it's ugly, gauche and camp. My intellectual response is to ask what is the question that Malloy is attempting to answer? What is the question a set of Java applets and Flash Animations, quotations and tiled pictures (including time/date stamp presumably from Malloy's digital camera) answers, and who asked the question? Isn't this just gauche post-modern art masquerading as intellectual discourse? flavius 12:27, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, Flavius, I appreciate your questions and checking that site. As far as I am aware Malloy is a well-repected Professor at University of Utah, Psychology Department. What is important on that site is that Prof. T Malloy outlines his overarching framework for the study of perception and human knowledge at the University of Utah. Recently published papers are linked with catations, and a demonstration of E42 Java tools. Malloy and his colleagues are using E42 to test and refine Batesonian epistemololgy. Recently published papers (2003-2005) cite Whispering in the Wind (NLP) as part of the overarching framework, together with Bateson (Cybernetic epistemology) and Kaufmann (Boolean Systems). Can we include a short paraphrase of Malloy's POV in the article? --Comaze 02:48, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't seen anything of relevance or even value on Malloy's site. My questions are genuine. What is the relevance of the sparse content on Malloy's site? More broadly, what is its significance and meaning? I am unable to locate a thesis and an argument. It reminds me of the pseudoscientific post-modernist writings of Jacques Lacan and Luce Irigaray. Malloy isn't much published in any reputable journals. I don't think a "well-respected" person -- of any vocation -- would associate with Bandit or Grifter ;-) flavius

New Issues

This page has evolved quite a bit. What things would people still like to see fixed?Voice of All^T|@|ESP 05:19, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

VoiceOfAll. Your edits to the section "Atheorethical Pretence" amounted to the removal of the explanation of why NLP is a speculative concern and the retention only of the conclusion. Clearly, you did not understand the material you removed or its significance as a criciism. Your edits didn't improve the subsection -- they degraded it so I reinstated my original copy retaining only your elimination of the adjectice "vicious". flavius 07:55, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

VoiceOfAll. I have edited the section which you previously butchered such that it is shorter yet it retains its content, cohesion and intelligebility. flavius 23:04, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks VoiceOfAll. I am quite happy to make clearer, more concise and more organized. Camridge 05:22, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I put that we...

connect the criticism to specific aspects of NLP (eg. move the criticism of NLP Applications to a subheadline under each application).
add {{fact}} to the assertions that would be enhanced with citations
adopt standard notation style of that used in NLP (and linguistics) to enhance current citations / references.
all agree to meet the Wikipedia:Forum for Encyclopedic Standards and work towards a Wikipedia:WikiProject Fact and Reference Check or work towards feature article nomination.
Replace all occurances of "NLP proponents" or promoters with a proper attribution to specific person or group.
Get an RfC on engrams. I am still not convinced that this is part of NLP. I happy to put this to the side for the moment.
Paraphrase Craft (2001) position and reply.
Discuss the inclusion of "Neurolinguistic programming as an adjunct to other psychotherapeutic/hypnotherapeutic interventions." [27]
Add citations from science and academic sources for the theory, epistemology, and NLP applications.
Add a section on NLP epistemology
Restore intellectual antecedants section
fact and reference check
~~restore comprimse about engram, diffs, or even better reduce engram to one or two sentences.~~
~~Vote on a section called, "Neuro in Neuro-linguistic programming" to replace "Engram", get neutral editors in to weigh in on consensus~~
Paraphrase "Putting neuro back in NLP" Bolstad 2003 and Malloy et al 2005) and other majority views on this topic
Restore a neutral description of common applications and merge with criticism of applications
Remove "The National Council Against Health Fraud (Loma 2001) classify NLP is a "dubious therapy"." This is actually just a summary of David Barrett's article. NCAHF does not have any official position on this matter.
Add counter-examples and qualification of to Cult characteristsics (meta model violations).
Restore quotes from Grinder about "uncritical important of energy" in discussion of language and thinking
Restore definition of collateral energy
Add differences between major schools of NLP
Add universities that current are hold courses or topics in Neuro-linguistic programming
Add counter-examples to argument that NLP is New Age or a has some cult characteristics. eg. Meta model is designed to get sensory based evidence which cuts out alot of the New age, marketing claims,etc.
Frame exagerated claims with problem with marketing
Restore applications of NLP, and merge with criticism of applications
Provide a summary of popular books written about NLP and applications
Rewrite the description of NLP modeling
Add a section call "Personality typing" proviude a short summary of enneagrams, meta programs, MBTI, and also show that Grinder does not consider this typing to be part of NLP
Rewrite the entire introduction section. The definition of NLP is current not accurate.
Add framing, backtrack, outcome, etc.
Merge Bagel section with eye accessing cues section, and connect it with the criticism
Restore core NLP techniques rapport and swish, and other references or citations (Andreas, etc.) removed by HeadleyDown, see diffs
Remove engram image -- gives engram (a minority view) too much emphasis in the article
restore examples of meta and milton model.
There is still 8 repeats of Dianetics and 4 repeats of Scientology --Comaze

Actually there could also be more coverage of new age/occult aspects of NLP. Those themes are present throughout NLP literature. So far all we have had is deletions and denials from promoters, despite their presence throughout literature and within the very presuppositions of NLP. It would clarify things immensely especially as NLP is moving more towards those aspects as mainstream therapy shuns it all the more. Camridge 07:31, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I've moved the criticism of NLP applications to the corresponding application. The next thing I'd like to do is create a section call Ethics or Ecology and move the "unethical use" to a subsection under that. PS. the change was marked as minor, but I don't know if it was minor. Please let me know if there are any objections to this. --Comaze 00:03, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Hello Comaze. It may be a good idea to move the distinct elements of NLP into similar distinct articles and to only provide links to the new pages in the main article, as it was done for example in the german article on this topic | Neurolinguistische_Programmierung. This way the critics regarding effectivity or scientific foundation could be associated to the corresponding elements ( e.G. a study on eye accesing cues to the corresponding article ) while shortening the main article and providing space for a more detailed explanation at the same time. Blauregen 12:23, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm concerned about the character of the recent spate of edits. The NPOV policy in connection with psuedoscience states that, "If we're going to represent the sum total of human knowledge, then we must concede that we will be describing views repugnant to us without asserting that they are false. Things are not, however, as bad as that sounds. The task before us is not to describe disputes as though, for example, pseudoscience were on a par with science; rather, the task is to represent the majority (scientific) view as the majority view and the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) view as the minority view; and, moreover, to explain how scientists have received pseudoscientific theories. This is all in the purview of the task of describing a dispute fairly." The article is losing this balance as the majority (scientific) view is being diluted with the minority view. There is no substantial division of opinion amongst linguists, neurologists, social psychologists, cognitive psychologists, clinical psychologists, psychiatrists, neurologists and philosophers. The majority view within each of these professions is that NLP is pseudoscientific, quasi-religious, cultic, ineffective, without empirical evidence, fraudulent, quackery, obscurantist, theoretically and methodologically flawed, obscurantist and akin to shamanism. This view is not being reflected in the overall balance of the article. The opening description of NLP should reflect the majority (scientific) view -- it doesn't. It should be edited to read "NLP is an agglomeration of disparate principles, techniques and speculations promoted as a means of studying subjective experience, modifying behavior and codifying and reproducing human 'excellence'. NLP is New Age and quasi-religious, incorporating a faith in unlimited human potential, a commitment to empowerment, an antirealist epistemology and a revolutionary pretence". Or words to that effect and of course appropriately cited. This would reflect the majority view. flavius 08:50, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

flavius, I strongly disagree with your interpretation of NPOV. Would you like to get a neutral third opinion on this matter of policy? --Comaze 12:46, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree Flavius. The ONLY reason minority is given more weight in this case at the moment is in order to appease the biased NLP promoters to reduce conflict. Though it feels nonsensical to a large degree it has worked, and now the only conflict is that of Comaze, and it is so insignificant and unsubstantial that it is being ignored to a large extent (though Comaze is trying hard to stir his conflict up look like a war). Science will get far more weight in time, and of course now that is the direction of movement. To reduce further conflict from the cultists/devotees it should be done in an incremental way (in my opinion). This is in order to ignore the large amount of unreasonable objections, but also to catch any reasonable questions from mediators and sensible comments from the passing helpful editors who seem to have been helping tidy up after the last war. The current movement towards clarity, science, and reason is encouraging, and I am sure we can remove/clarify the fog created by NLPers in good time. Cheers DaveRight 03:34, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

As I have said science takes precedence. We do have to make that are criticism is scientific and that we not just putting in as much as we can. Good wording, compound sentences, and abridgement should. I believe that Cambridge and I have trimmed quite a bit of fat lately, so things seem to be going in the tight direction for now. I will though the article again.Voice of All^T|@|ESP 03:46, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Comaze, I don't think we need any arbitration on this matter. The NPOV position re pseudoscience is clear. I propose that we change the opening paragraph to read, "NLP is an agglomeration of disparate principles, techniques and speculations promoted as a means of studying subjective experience, modifying behavior and codifying and reproducing human 'excellence'. NLP is New Age and quasi-religious, incorporating a faith in unlimited human potential, a commitment to empowerment, an antirealist epistemology and a revolutionary pretence". This succinctly states the majority/science view which is supposed to take precedence. Science does after all undergird Western civilisation. No science. No Wikipedia. It would be ultimately incongruous to denigrate science -- by promoting New Age -- on a medium made possible by science. Don't you agree? flavius

Yus Flafius. Other dictionary definitions include; NLP is a vaguely defined fringe therapy that promotes 10 minute phobia cures; a quasi-spiritual change treatment that deals with past lives; a pseudoscientific self help development in the same mould as dianetics and est. Whenever definitions use 'the study of structure of....' the always say NLP CLAIMS to be. Because the pretence to being a "study" is an outrageous claim, as is the claim to being "THE" study, and of "the STRUCTURE of subjective experience". Whatever structure exists in subjective experience, NLPers have completely missed it to the point that they have never studied it. Your definition above is perfectly clarifying and it most definitely is the scientific explanation of things. The article will get there, especially when clearer explanation is presented in the article. Cheers DaveRight 02:47, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Yay VoA. It is indeed a good thing, and there is much rejoicing in this coincidentally merry time of year. I have noticed there is a great deal more explaining to do in science terms, and judging by the summarizing power of editors here, I am sure it can all be done within reasonable file size. Cheers DaveRight 03:52, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Comaze, your request for RfC on engrams and other such facts is consistent with your complete lack of good faith that you have exhibited throughout the editing and discussion. You have already removed references that support such facts. To request for RfC now, on such matters is simply part of your strategy to remove fact that promotes bias towards NLP, as is clear from your agenda. Camridge 07:27, 12 December 2005 (UTC)