Jump to content

Talk:Neuro-linguistic programming/Archive 16

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10←Archive 14Archive 15Archive 16Archive 17Archive 18→Archive 20

My Recent changes

I too need to apologize for going directly for some changes in the introduction. From my perspective it was too slanted towards applications of NLP whereas I have heard both originators state that modeling is the core and that although there seems to be an abundance of applications (admittedly many of debatable quality), relatively few improvements have been made to the core modeling. If I can find some time I will do a more thorough review and provide further references. Panterom (talk) 15:22, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I made lots of changes without consultation. I just felt the intro was very turgid and too busy. I know very little about the subjects, but I just wanted page to be more understandable to people like me. I was bold in my editing —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.76.229.54 (talk) 23:31, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Its great to get some fresh eyes on the page. Can you please take a look at it again. Its a difficult subject to introduce because there are so many competing views. I hope it is clearer now. ----Action potential t c 07:39, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
"NLP has often been promoted as an art and science of effective communication and 'the study of the structure of subjective experience'. Others have tended to define NLP as a methodology for effective communication or modeling excellence as it was originally created." -- to me those two sentences mean the same thing. It's like saying "some say milk comes from cows, others say that milk comes from female bovines." How about saying that NLP is modeling human excellence by studying the structure of the subjective experience of people who perform excellently. I would add that the tools and techniques of NLP are not itself NLP, but they were discovered as the result of doing NLP modeling on excellent communicators, therapists, etc. If you're not familiar with a subject, why are you editing it? Trying to understand something in terms of what you already know = not learning anything new about what it really is. It's like telling people that the internet is a series of tubes because the lay person might understand better - but in fact the internet is not a series of tubes. --Sublime01 (talk) 22:58, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
You bring up an important point - the difference between NLP modeling and the results of the modeling process - the various applications of NLP. That certainly could be clearer. I was trying to keep close to the published sources. ----Action potential t c 03:55, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
The term NLP is often used interchangeably to mean both the modeling methodology and the techniques that have been modeled, which makes it confusing. I think the whole article could benefit by making this point very clear in the intro paragraph.--Sublime01 (talk) 06:28, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
I found a video of John Grinder, co-creator of NLP giving a definition in which near the end he states the difference between the core NLP process (modeling) and the product of that modeling (application). Can a youtube video be used as a citation? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hJzO5x6ko6w&feature=related--Sublime01 (talk) 07:22, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I added a section pertaining to CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY, which uses NLP to "educate" its followers. Regardless of their intent, this ought not be hidden and they have 2x removed any notice of it here on the NLP listing. [1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mdntcallr (talk • contribs) 17:58, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

NLP and linguistics

should we add back the quotes psycholinguist Willem Levelt (1996) states "NLP is not informed about linguistics literature, it is based on vague insights that were out of date long ago, their linguistics concepts are not properly construed or are mere fabrications, and conclusions are based upon the wrong premises."... "NLP theory and practice has nothing to do with neuroscientific insights or linguistics, nor with informatics or theories of programming".[20][28] Cognitive neuroscience researcher Michael C Corballis (1999) agrees and says that "NLP is a thoroughly fake title, designed to give the impression of scientific respectability."[29] ? as the article stands now, i don't think it's very clear that NLP is not really linguistics, and i think some quotes such as the aforementioned would serve to show this. Theserialcomma (talk) 10:48, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

If citations stand up they should go back in, suggest you reinstate. --Snowded TALK 11:06, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
the original source for the Levelt quote is still in the actual article, but with the quote removed and summarized rather poorly. Currently it states "Psycholinguist Willem Levelt (in the Dutch skeptical magazine Skepter) acknowledges that the main point of NLP was pragmatic, but doubts the basis in neurology, linguistics and computer programming implied." As it's written now, it doesn't appear to read like it was written by a native English speaker, nor does it really do Levelt's criticism justice. The original Levelt quote appears to come from: "Growing anti-intellectualism in Europe; a menace to science". ALLEA Annual Report http://www.allea.org/pdf/59.pdf (page 59), so that is how it should be cited in the article. As for the Corballis quote, I'll have to track down the source for that Theserialcomma (talk) 11:27, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
I think the cited quote is itself an inaccurate assessment of NLP. It was co-created by a university linguistics professor, and the Meta-Model of NLP (a tool used in modeling) is very heavily based in linguistics. Again its a confusion between the NLP modeling process, and the techniques that have been modeled. Many of the techniques that have been modeled are not based in linguistics, they're based on how excellent achievers behave. The term NLP is often used incorrectly to mean the techniques that have been modeled. I assume this is what Willem Levelt is referring to. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sublime01 (talk • contribs) 20:22, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
This is the Wikipedia, the citation says what it says it can not be interpreted in the way you suggest. It makes a statement about the claims of NLP and as such is notable. --Snowded TALK 20:32, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Include it in the criticism section.--Sublime01 (talk) 21:08, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Disagree, the intention of an article is to inform, tucking away all criticism to the end creates a misleading impression. The claims for origin in NLP are central to its popular proposition and cannot be left unchallenged in the main text. --Snowded TALK 21:11, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Intention of an article is to inform about what the subject of the article is, not to inform about what someone else's 3rd party assessment of what the subject is or is not. People coming to read this article want to learn about what NLP is and its very confusing to read when criticisms are used as the basis of the article (NLP practitioners say NLP is this, but the scientific community disagrees and says NLP is that). Very confusing to the reader. Historically much of the subtext of this article has been "is NLP valid or is it nonsense?" without ever getting to understand first what is NLP? You can briefly state the controversy upfront in the intro, but keep the criticisms to their own section, please.--Sublime01 (talk) 03:32, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
and given that NLP makes substantial claims as to its scientific basis, the status of those claims is a part of learning what NLP is. --Snowded TALK 07:35, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
Sort of agreeing with Sublime that the introduction should say what the subject really really is. Starting with what its founders claimed or thought it was, I'm struggling a bit with that. I think Structure of Magic was the first book in 1975. What does the book say NLP is? What claims did they make for it? Did they present NLP as a theory about the human mind, human behaviour or what? I'm reluctant to buy a copy of the book, for obvious reasons, but perhaps someone here knows? Peter Damian (talk) 08:31, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
If you are planning some drastic changes Peter happy to wait and see what turns out. Just provided we don't have an implication of a scientific basis which is not backed up by reputable citations, and that an criticism is not stuck away in some corner. --Snowded TALK 10:02, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
Great work on the article so far, Peter Damian! I have a copy of Structure of Magic. It doesnt mention neurolinguistic programming anywhere in the book, as the term had not yet been invented. Here are some direct quotes from the book to help answer your question: "This book is designed to give you an explicit set of tools which will help you to become a more effective therapist." "Our desire in this book is not to question the magical quality of our experience of these therapeutic wizards[Perls, Satir], but rather to show that this magic which they perform - like other complex human activities such as painting, composing music, or placing a man on the moon - has structure and is, therefore, learnable, given the appropriate resources. Neither is it our intention to claim that reading a book can insure that you will have these dynamic qualities. We especially do not wish to make the claim that we have discovered the "right" or most powerful approach to psychotherapy. We desire only to present you with a specific set of tools that seem to us to be implicit in the actions of these therapists, so that you may begin or continue the never-ending process to improve, enrich, and enlarge the skills you offer as a people helper. Since this set of tools is not based upon some pre-existing psychological theory or therapeutic approach, we would like to present the simple overview of the human processes out of which we have created these tools. We call this process 'modeling'." The majority of the book goes on to include transcripts of therapy sessions in Q&A format, with linguistic analyses of each response in the margins. The analyses are based on Chomskian Transformational Grammar, which is no longer held to be valid. Many of the tools presented in this book are no longer practiced, in the manner presented, by NLP practitioners as they are no longer held to be valid, however many of the core concepts and goals presented in this book still form the basis of NLP today.--Sublime01 (talk) 22:45, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Knol article on NLP

There is an article new to the Knol which to my mind is well-referenced and, er, more objective than this one. Peter Damian (talk) 17:52, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

The problem with a Knol is that it is only subject to review by people the author determines qualified, and has the majority voting determination of value. Give me wikipedia anytime. Not to say that cited material in a Knol cannot be used however. --Snowded TALK 20:34, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Still waiting to see how the Knol concept turns out. If you Knol (verb corresponding to 'Google') NLP, you get a lot of clearly biased material. I dislike how there can be many articles corresponding to the same subject, with no obvious mechanism for determining authenticity or value or whatever. On balance, the idea of having just one article as here, and with fixed links like in a real encyclopedia, is preferable. So, tentative agreement with you, for the moment. Peter Damian (talk) 08:28, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
There is a clear commercial motive re search results here by the way, and some evidence of Google not playing 100% by the book on what comes first ...--Snowded TALK 10:02, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Introduction

Adopting the approach which was reasonably successful in developing a neat and concise introduction to the Philosophy article.

An introduction should summarise the three or four most important things we would say about the subject. What are these, in the case of NLP?

  • The article should say when and with whom it began (in the 70's with Bandler and Grindler)
  • It should say what it began as. My understanding of it (not having read Structure of Magic (1975) or Frogs into Princes, 1979) is that it is primarily a way of improving a person's skills by copying ('modelling') the behaviour of another person who has that skill. Are there any other key ideas that are fundamental to NLP?
  • The article should cover the subsequent development of NLP (which, the sources suggest, is principally not as an academic movement or discipline, but as a sort of brand or accreditation - interestingly there is very little in the article about the NLP industry itself. How many practitioners are there? What is the estimated dollar value of the brand - that sort of thing)
  • It should mention the dispute about whether NLP is a pseudoscience or not. It should avoid if possible the approach of other pseudoscience articles which is to veer between polarised viewpoints, without any discernible thread. It should mention the fact that many scientists view it as pseudoscience (with representative sources, which we have) in a dispassionate way, and leave it at that.

As for the rest of the article, the order of sections should follow the order of ideas presented in the introduction (which the current article largely does, although the style could do with considerable polishing). How does that sound? Peter Damian (talk) 08:07, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Just popping in to see how the Philosophy introduction looks, and miraculously it has survived in almost exactly the agreed form. Peter Damian (talk) 08:08, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
We all made it work there (Philosophy) and I like the above --Snowded TALK 10:02, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi. I've made a start on the body of the article next door - hope not too controversial. I've merged a lot of duplicated material, trying not to remove anything that is not clearly superfluous. I have removed some blatantly promotional or unsourced stuff, but tried by and large not to do anything too controversial. I've also used the method of stating facts in a way that will allow either conclusion, rather than blatantly say something is pseudoscience (e.g. I just say at the end of the history section that NLP is a lucrative industry and leave the reader to make up their own mind). Looking at the separate article on NLP history there is a huge amount of overlap. I suggest this be deleted, but this should be left for the workshop that FT2 is organising, as it may be contentious. Best Peter Damian (talk) 10:14, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Uses section

This section states "In contrast to mainstream psychotherapy, NLP does not concentrate on diagnosis, treatment and assessment of mental and behavioral disorders. Instead, it focuses on helping clients to overcome their own self-perceived, or subjective, problems." Do these two sentences not contradict one another?

That is to say that mainstream psychotherapy often represents the psychopathology model of therapy, whereas NLP represents a more holistic or humanistic model of therapy. (granted some try to use NLP techniques in a less than humanistic/holistic manner).--Sublime01 (talk) 23:23, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
NLP also has some similarities with Positive psychology in that it does not focus on psychopathology (like psychology) but what positive practical things people can do to enrich their lives, relationships and communication with others. on setting alternative positive outcomes that satisfy the positive intention of any unwanted behaviors/symptoms. ----Action potential t c 10:45, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
What is a 'holistic' or 'humanistic' model please? Peter Damian (talk) 06:50, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
CBT and the more behavioral approaches to psychotherapy could be criticized as a cookbook approach to change. That is, CBT beleivs there is a best practice if someone presents with some pathology. NLP is similar to humanistic or holistic approaches in that it treats each person as an individual. The practitioner of NLP makes no assumption by what is meant when someone presents with "depression", "anxiety" or "depression". Rather, the practitioner is interested in how the individual organises their own states, breathing, physiology and mental strategies and what the individual wants instead. If the person has limiting beliefs then the practitioner might use reframing to challenge them to help them establish some positive and generative outcomes. This is probably why NLP has been difficult to test in the traditional counseling framework. It does accept into the psychopathological model typical of psychology (e.g. depression/anxiety/psychosis...). I'm exaggerating a little to make a point but that is the gist and highlights the different between traditional counseling and NLP. ----Action potential t c 09:55, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
thank you - I shall probably have further questions. Please note there is a workshop being organised by FT2 to address the more 'difficult' issues presented by dealing with the NLP-related articles. I imagine all entitled to 'attend'. Meanwhile any further information welcome. Peter Damian (talk) 10:49, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

The 'popular culture' section says that genuine NLP rejects the more spectacular and overstated claims of NLP. Is that true? Paul Mckenna's site says "I'd personally like to welcome you to my online store: Do you want to lose weight? Do you want to become rich? Do you want to become more confident? Do you want to improve your life?" This may possibly be an example of pseudo-NLP masquerading as real NLP, but then there is an endorsement on the same site by Bandler: "There is a difference between learning about NLP and learning to do NLP. When I got together with Paul McKenna back in 1994, I decided that one of the most important benefits that we could bring to people who are interested to teach them how to do NLP as I originally intended it to be used - to create more love and freedom for every human being on the planet". (Richard Bandler). The history of NLP suggests that the founders were involved in it as a profitable business from the very beginning. Peter Damian (talk) 19:58, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I think the overstated claims are more along the lines of learn to have psychic abilities, create hypnotic slaves to do your bidding, breast and penis enlargement, recover memories from past lives, etc. Or perhaps the claims have to do with how quickly it can be achieved, or that it can be done without any effort. I would certainly not think that getting rich, becoming confident and improving your life in general are overstated claims.--Sublime01 (talk) 00:04, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
So learning and using NLP will allow me to get rich? Can you tell me more about how I can do this, please? Peter Damian (talk)
Is it relevant to the article? For your indulgence, I suppose by using the tools of NLP to model the skills, behaviors, beliefs, attitudes, etc. of someone who already is able to get rich consistently and then applying it, testing for feedback along the way, eliminate all the non-necessary variables, teach it to others and make sure they can do it too. Now you have a successful model. I believe some rich people have already been modeled (McKenna modeled Richard Branson).--Sublime01 (talk) 07:58, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
It's relevant to the article what claims NLP makes. The main premise of NLP seems to be that by copying the outward actions of skilled people, you can effectively transfer the skills of that person to yourself. For example, the great and successful philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein, who had apparently very distinctive personality traits and behaviour. If we had access (by film, pictures, recording, descriptions of how he acted), we could in effect become philosophers as great as Wittgenstein (or approaching his greatness). Is that the fundamental assumption behind NLP? Peter Damian (talk) 08:32, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Hypothetically, suppose Wittgenstein was still alive, What specifically would you like to model from Wittgenstein? Wittgenstein would be extremely complex person to model and you'd need to break it down into manageable chunks. Is there something in particular you'd like to model? This is the first stage of the modeling process, defining an outcome and evidence. That is, what you want to acquire and what would be your evidence for having acquired it? The best exposure to the model is via direct experience. That is, hang out with Wittgenstein for a few months so you can get enough exposure to him engaging in the behavior you want to acquire. High quality film would be second best, followed by high quality audio followed by text written by him. The second stage involves actually going out and practicing. If you don't reach criteria in a certain time you might need to get more exposure to the model. You might have to redefine your outcome. Where NLP modeling differs from typical western ideas of learning is that it first involves the unconscious uptake stage for several months or until you can replicate the original target skill. The test is that you can do what the original model can do in around the same time and get similar responses from people as the original model. Unconscious uptake is analogous to how baby acquires a language as argued by Chomsky -- with no conscious effort. ----Action potential t c 10:16, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
I would like to 'model' (if that is the right word) Wittgenstein's genius: the qualities that made him one of the great philosophers of the twentieth century. I would like to write a book like Tractatus Logico Philosophicus. Peter Damian (talk) 10:52, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
PS - this example is particularly relevant because Wittgenstein's behaviour and mannerisms were the most imitated of any philosophers. When I entered university in the 1970's there were still philosophers around who would mimic W's gestures, mannerisms, style of speech and so on. This began in the years before W's death in the 1950's, and he himself complained about this, feeling he had spawned a school of imitators who had captured the 'form' of his work, but not the content or substance. Peter Damian (talk) 10:55, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
I Agree with Action Potential, but copying the outward actions is only the tip of the iceberg. NLP really is geared towards modeling the mental strategies, beliefs, and attitudes, maybe even the person's sense of identity and self-concept. For example, Walt Disney has a strategy called Dreamer, Realist, Critic where he steps into the Dreamer role and thinks up every crazy idea imaginable, then he steps into the Realist role and decides whats technically feasible to do, then he steps into the Critic role and decides what he likes and dislikes. This is a mental strategy, and it would not be discernible by outward behavior alone. Usually people are unconscious/unaware of the mental strategies they use, so the only way to get at them is by asking very detailed and specific questions about how they think in different situations including if they think in pictures, sounds, feelings, or what sequence of thoughts they put together to form their inner strategies. Another example, Einstein imagined himself riding on a photon of light and wondered what would happen if he shined a flashlight forward where would the light go? That's how he came up with the theory of relativity. Unfortunately, if Wittgenstein hadn't elucidated about how he thought in his writing, you may never get to build an accurate model of his creative processes.--Sublime01 (talk) 22:34, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
But if you had developed your sensory acuity in all of senses and pattern detection skills then you might be able to get information about Wittgenstein's state shifts and internal process. ----Action potential t c 08:23, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Thank you by the way for the notes on Structure of Magic you provided above, I only just noticed. There is a concern here about what NLP actually is. I am very keen (if you follow my previous discussions on other articles) that there is a description or definition or characterisation of the subject in the introduction, and that the rest of the article adheres rigidly to this definition. If you are saying (as above) that many of the methods or tools in NLP are no longer used, or no longer characterise NLP, then the article should reflect this. Which of the methods described in the article are obsolete, in your view? Peter Damian (talk) 08:41, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
I don't think any of the methods described in this article are obsolete(not sure). NLP still uses insights gained from the socratic style questioning of the meta-model, but its no longer used in the way it was presented in Structure of Magic because the questioning tended to just go on endless loop without ever getting anywhere. However, the general idea of using socratic questioning to gain specificity about a problem, challenge cognitive distortions, and set specific outcomes is still used and is still called the 'Meta-Model'. Point is, it's been updated since its presentation in Structure of Magic.--Sublime01 (talk) 22:15, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
This might get difficult. Six step reframing, for example, is considered the breakthrough pattern in new code NLP. Whereas submodalities and swish appears to be the focus of Bandler's school. But its never clear cut. To avoid problems I think we could just cover the methods and techniques that are in the academic publications (indexed or cited in psycinfo or pubmed) and perhaps the books of the co-founders. There are too many variations if we go any further than that. Sublime01 might have other views. ----Action potential t c 10:29, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Could you provide a definitive list of academic publications that reference and give clear descriptions of what NLP is, please. Peter Damian (talk) 10:50, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
This is the closest I've found to a definitive list of academic articles on NLP. There is also a vendor-neutral introduction to NLP which would be valuable in defining NLP in a neutral way. ----Action potential t c 13:11, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Thank you Peter Damian (talk) 14:36, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
[edit] [edit] I have taken a look at these and immediately you have the problem I have encountered elsewhere, of making a judgment about the reliability of the journals. Wikipedia does not give any hard and fast rules about which journals can be regarded as authoritative, and which not. There are some I would regard with suspicion, as being somewhat lower down the 'food chain' of academic research, eg Canadian Journal of Marketing Research, Emergency Librarian, Foresight - the journal of future studies, strategic thinking and policy. Also Journal of Counseling psychology is referenced 12 times, and there are 9 references to management science journals (which I tend to regard with suspicion also). I'll refer this problem elsewhere, if that's OK. Also, I recognise a couple of studies (e.g. Sharpley's and Heap's) which are downright hostile to NLP. Do you have a sense of which studies in your list are 'pro' and which are not? Thanks. Peter Damian (talk) 14:48, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
My uni library has some online tools that lets you analyse relevance and importance of articles and journals. The number of citations and references is one factor it uses. Google scholar has something similar. You can put "NLP" into Google scholar and it was return the most cited books / articles it has indexed. This helps discard some of the less important papers. Most people would not bother citing a junk paper. Otherwise, literature reviews are useful in deciding what is acceptable or not. Say if book or paper is published by a less important journal but it the article is cited in a reputable journal then it may be acceptable to cite in this article. According to Google Scholar "Frogs into princes" has the most citations in academic works of any NLP book. This helps us confirm that Frogs is an important book in NLP. The same logic could be applied to articles and journals. ----Action potential t c 07:45, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
[edit] The Tosey & Mathison paper referenced gives a useful review of the academic work to date. I will try and incorporate it into the 'uses' and 'criticism' section. Peter Damian (talk) 15:54, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Transformational grammar

Comaze, you have changed the sentence about Grinder's ideas on transformational grammar being 'superseded' to one that now looks somewhat disconnected, and doesn't use the word 'supersede'. Why did you do this? There was an important idea being communicated by the use of 'supersede'. Could you explain why, please? Peter Damian (talk) 17:28, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I just think saying TG was "incorporated" into the Chomsky's later theories of syntax is less-POV. Saying TG was "superseded" seems to undermine its importance. Superseded seems to imply that it was abandoned, rather than revised. Its a subtle variation which I'm not too concerned about. ----Action potential t c 08:09, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks I am doing some research on this and will get back. Peter Damian (talk) 18:18, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
[edit] The sentence in question made it sound like TG was no longer relevant. While TG has been renamed and updated, perhaps superseded, in Chomsky's more recent generative grammars, it is still considered relevant to linguistics (and NLP). At the time when NLP was founded, linguistics was split. On one side you had the generativists and the other side you had the semanticists. In the same way that TG / generative grammar freed the linguists from dealing in content, the meta model frees the practitioner so that he/she can respond to the syntax/form of the speaker's utterances rather than getting overloaded in the content. Look forward to hearing what you find in your research. I made a change to correct this. I put superseded back in. ----Action potential t c 07:59, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


In the Bandler and Grinder studies, a close scrutiny of the work of Virginia Satir, Milton Erickson, and others (Davis & Davis, 1982) from a linguistics and language metaphor (e.g., transformational grammar) led to a new qualitative research method connected with the transformational grammar tradition, but different, and to a different therapy model which embraced some of the Satir-Erickson style of clinical practice, but added some interesting meta-communicative distinctions. The research method was presented as a formal notational system in The Structure of Magic II: A Book about Communication & Change (Grinder & Bandler, 1976, pp. 164-193), but was never fully realized as a distinct research approach, partly due to Bandler's and Grinder's emphasis on their therapy model. [...]

I have done some reading around the subject (I last studied linguistics in 1986). Textbooks of TG published before 1980 present what is essentially the Chomsky's Standard Theory. Presumably Grinder's ideas are based on this? In the 1970's it was demonstrated that standard TG was so enormously powerful that it could, in principle, describe anything which could be described at all - potentially catastrophic, since the whole point of a theory of grammar is to tell us what is possible in languages and what is not possible.

Chomsky responded to all this in the early 1970s by introducing a number of changes to his framework known as the Extended Standard Theory, later revised to the Revised Extended Standard Theory, or REST. In 1981 Chomsky published Lectures on Government and Binding which swept away much of the apparatus of the earlier transformational theories in favour of a dramatically different approach (Government-and Binding Theory). Because of this discontinuity the name 'transformational grammar' is not usually applied to the later successors of TG.

Thus, is it fair to say that the linguistic work that NLP was based on has largely been superseded?

Also, what actually is the connection between NLP and TG, and in which of the early NLP works is this laid out? Thanks Peter Damian (talk) 18:59, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Some of it is laid out in Structure of Magic. Here's an excerpt for clarity:

"To say that our communication, our language, is a system is to say that it has a structure, that there is some set of rules which identify which sequences of words will make sense, will represent a model of our experience. In other words, our behavior when creating a representation or when communicating is rule-governed behavior. Even though we are not normally aware of the structure in the process of representation and communication, that structure, the structure of language, can be understood in terms of regular patterns.

Fortunately, there is a group of academicians who have made the discovery and explicit statement of these patterns the subject of their discipline - transformational grammar. In fact, transformational grammarians have developed the most complete and sophisticated explicit model of human, rule-governed behavior. The notion of human, rule-governed behavior is the key to understanding the way in which we as humans use our language."

...[Then there's a short excerpt from Slobin, Psycholinguistics, Scott, Foreman & Co., 1971, p.55 which I have not included here]...

"The linguist's objective is to develop a grammar - a set of rules - which states what the well-formed patterns for any particular language are. This discipline is based on the brilliant work of Noam Chomsky who initially developed a methodology and set of formal models for natural language. *footnote(We provide an appendix, which presents the transformational model more thoroughly, and a selective, annotated bibliography for those who wish to further examine the transformational model of language.) As a result of the work of Chomsky and other transformationalists, it has been possible to develop a formal model for describing the regular patterns in the way we communicate our model of our experience. We use language to represent and communicate our experience - language is a model of our world. What transformational grammarians have done is to develop a formal model of our language, a model of our model of our world, or, simply, a Meta-model."

I would be interested to know exactly why and how TG has been superseded and what if any specific impact that has on NLP and the Meta-model.--Sublime01 (talk) 22:26, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm far from an expert but I did take some linguistics, cognitive science and artificial intelligence classes last session. I'm also taking cognition/perception and psychological research methods this session. It seems that majority of what NLP imported from transformational is still taught in linguistics today - mainly syntax. My uni's linguistics department is very much in line with Chomsky. Few linguists will openly acknowledge that NLP is the most commercially successful enterprise to come from transformational-generative grammar (or perhaps linguistics in general). Deep structure/surface structure is still an important distinction and it has parallels with elements of Chomsky's performance/linguistic competence distinction which is part of the minimalist program. Interestingly, Chomsky is now encouraging convergence of linguistics, brain science and biology[1]. There are some other minor differences. The main texts about transformational grammar cited by Grinder & Bandler in 1975 follow (from selected bibliography.

  • Chomsky, N. (1957) Syntactic structures
  • Chomsky, N. (1965) Aspects and the theory of syntax
  • Chomsky, N. (1968) Language and mind
  • Langacker, R. Language and its structure
  • Grinder & Elgin (1972) A Guide to Transformational Grammar

Syntactic structures is probably the most important of those texts but it is a very dense book. Bandler and Grinder note that Chomsky's "Language and mind" is much simpler to read ----Action potential t c 14:31, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


Deep strucutures

It may or may be worth noting, but Chomsky's ideas of deep structures has been disproved in Neuro-science by the work of Deacon (The Symbolic Species) and others. Its simply not how the human brain works (although it can explain some aspects~). This is an additional science based challenge to anything (like NLP) being dependent on it. I can also imagine that any academic linguist would resist acknowledging NLP as while it may be commercially successful it is popular in all the worst sense of that word. --Snowded TALK 16:44, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

What I am struggling with is how anything in NLP is connected with anything in Chomsky's work at all, on the basis of the quotations given. Peter Damian (talk) 17:29, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Snowded, Deacon's symbol system argument against the importance of universal grammar disputed by linguists. For Chomsky's interdisciplinary framework see:[5]. Chomsky encourages an interdisciplinary approach to study of the mind and language. In relation to NLP, there's a whole chapter in Grinder/Bostic (2005) "Whispering in the Wind" on the influence of Chomsky's generative grammar within NLP from Grinder's perspective. ----Action potential t c 01:29, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Peter, practically the connection between TG and NLP is via the meta-model. It is laid out quite specifically in "Structure of Magic" ----Action potential t c 01:35, 21 August 2008 (UTC) Still working on it - need another day. ----Action potential t c 06:22, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

On the connection of NLP with Chomsky

Thanks for the quotes AP but they are vague enough that I don't see any connection. What I am really looking for is source material that says NLP says X and Chomsky said Y in such a way that the connection between X and Y is crystal clear and immediately apparent to the average Wikipedia reader (or to myself). At the moment the X and Y don't seem to have any logical connection. Which specific bits of TG are connected to which specific bits of NLP? If we can't find anything, we will just have to put something suitably vague like 'NLP claims to be based on the work of ...' or similar. What we have right now won't do at all. Peter Damian (talk) 17:33, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

For example:

  • "Close scrutiny of the work of Virginia Satir, Milton Erickson, and others (Davis & Davis, 1982) from a linguistics and language metaphor (e.g., transformational grammar) led to a new qualitative research method connected with the transformational grammar tradition, but different, and to a different therapy model which embraced some of the Satir-Erickson style of clinical practice, but added some interesting meta-communicative distinctions" - This is vague to the point of meaningless.
  • "The metamodel uses language to help clients broaden their perception of reality, which in turn can increase their options for finding resources and solutions (Bandler & Grinder, 1975). Transformational grammar and general semantics provide the foundation for the metamodel. " - This does not explain the exact nature of how NLP is 'founded' in TG.
  • "Transformational grammar, as it is used in the context of NLP, is a system for describing the means whereby experience is transformed from raw sensory data, through biologically and culturally imposed constraints, into the highly personal models of the world reflected in individual linguistic patterns." - I don't see any connection between this claim and what TG says. What does TG have to say about experience being transformed from raw sensory data? Peter Damian (talk) 17:36, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

By "raw sensory data", the author means "direct experience" or what Chomsky calls "intuition". See the introduction to Syntactic structures where Chomsky describes the difference between grammatical and non-grammatical judgments. This is central to linguistics. There are the two assumptions we're looking at:

  • Journal: Cybernetics and human knowing (p.6 2005): As a start, our epistemological approach has two fundamental assumptions (Bostic-St. Clair & Grinder, 2001). Both of these assumptions are explicit in Chomsky's transformational grammar.
  1. "paradigmatic centrality of human judgment based on direct experience (what Chomsky calls intuition)."
  2. "human behavior is systematic in the sense of being rule-based; moreover, in the linguistic paradigm, it is assumed that native speakers have internalized the grammatical rules of their native language so that their intuitive judgments are based on these rules." - Malloy, Grinder, Bostic St Clair (2005) "Steps to an ecology of emergence." Cybernetics and human knowing ----Action potential t c 01:10, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry but this is a long way away from 'Chomsky says that X' and 'NLP says that Y' in such a way that there is a clear and evident and relevant connection between the X and the Y. We have

  • (X) native speakers internalise the grammatical rules of their language.
  • (Y) the metamodel uses language to help clients broaden their perception of reality

Can you show me the clear evident logical connection between the two ideas? That's all you have to do. And please don't refer me to any NLP literature. That's for you. The burden of proof is for you to produce reliable sources to back up claims that can eventually go into the article. Thanks Peter Damian (talk) 17:48, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I think the confusion here is that the Meta-model is not the same as TG. Neither would it be accurate to say that the Meta-model and TG have nothing to do with each other. The truth is somewhere in between. The Meta-model borrows grammar definitions and concepts from TG, but only as much as it is helpful to aid in the process of pattern recognition in the linguistic structures of how the modeled therapists use their language. For example Erickson frequently and intentionally used semantically ill-formed sentences, but in order to even make that distinction you would have to refer back to the concept from TG. It should be restated that NLP is not based on any previous theoretical framework, and that includes TG.--Sublime01 (talk) 23:19, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Peter and Sublime make good points. There's a gap in the logic. It will help if we can lay out the claims and premises clearly. I'll attempt this. I'll be in the library today so I'll do some research. [edit] Some of the references I've looked at today, including some critical papers, say that NLP was influenced by TG and some say that the B&G's main contribution to the field of psychotherapy was via their presentation of TG. Unfortunately, they often gloss over the details. I'm meeting with a research adviser today, hope this will help. ----Action potential t c 06:41, 22 August 2008 (UTC) [edit] Update: I've found a few reliable references that attempt to flesh out the influences and historical context surrounding NLP. This includes influence of Carl Rogers and Chomsky's transformational grammar, and Bandler/Grinder's response to behaviorism's empirical program. I'm meeting with the research assistant again on Monday. I'll attempt to summarize the main points and premises then post here for your feedback. ----Action potential t c 02:29, 23 August 2008 (UTC) Update: I'll be able to post my summary on Monday evening. Sorry for the delay. I have a mid-semester exam tomorrow. ----Action potential t c 14:24, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Chomsky believed that there would be considerable similarities between languages' deep structures, and that these structures would reveal properties, common to all languages, which were concealed by their surface structures. Grinder and Bandler used Chomsky's theory of transformational grammar, in particular they applied the distinction of "deep structures" and "surface structures" as present in the client-therapist communication. They argued that the deep structures represent the core meaning of a sentence and the surface structures to be the syntactic form of the client-therapist sentences.
  • Bradley & Biederman (1985), for example, claim the importation of transformational grammar to psychotherapy was Bandler and Grinder's most important contribution to the field of psychotherapy.
  • They also claim that Bandler and Grinder work has considered parallels with Husserl philosophy, some of Wundt's ideas and Carl Rogers' phenomenology (Mathison & Tosey 2008; Bradley & Biederman 1983)
  • Bandler and Grinder present phase structure trees and linguistic analysis of client-therapist interaction in "Structure of Magic Vol 1&2 (1975) as well as Patterns 1 & 2 (~1976)
  • Reference: Bradley, E., Biedermann, Heinz-Joachim (1985): "Bandler and Grinder's neurolinguistic programming: Its historical context and contribution." Psychotherapy: Theory, Research, Practice, Training 22(1) pp.59-62
  • ----Action potential t c 03:51, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

What does Neuro Linguistic Programming stand for?

Right now the intro says: It is claimed by the originators that it draws from aspects of neurology ("neuro-"), linguistics and computer science ("programming"). There is no citation for this.

Here's a direct quote from NLP Volume 1:

"Neuro" (derived from the Greek neuron for nerve) stands for the fundamental tenet that all behavior is the result of neurological processes. "Linguistic" (derived from the Latin lingua for language) indicates that neural processes are represented, ordered, and sequenced into models and strategies through language and communication systems. "Programming" refers to the process of organizing the components of a system (sensory representation in this case) to achieve specific outcomes.

— Dilts, Grinder, Delozier, and Bandler, 1980.

How about we use this as the citation and change the statement to reflect what is said here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sublime01 (talk • contribs) 23:28, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Something like that was disputed in the past. I think the critics would want it followed by something like "critics dispute the basis of the title." By the way, thanks for posting that quote. Please take another look at the introduction and the first paragraph. I'm trying to show that there are multiple perspectives within NLP. Please review what I've done to the lead. ----Action potential t c 03:11, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Recent Changes to opening

These go too far, you dumbing down references to legitimate and citable criticisms of NLP. Specifically paragraphs beginning "The reception of NLP has been highly controversial...", "Tension exists between several divergent groups within NLP ..." and "NLP has enjoyed little support within the psychological profession following research reviewed in the Journal of Counseling Psychology in the early 1980s.[2] This led some skeptics and psychologists to dismiss NLP as a pseudoscientific or New Age .." Some of the insertions and additional material make sense but given the whole scale changes I have reverted.—Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

No problems. It was a work in progress. I was trying put the research in perspective. I'm currently researching the different perspectives in psychology: psychodymanic, socio-cognitive/behaviorist, humanistic and biological-evolutionary for a assessment essay. This seems to help better understand the criticism of NLP from the various psychological perspectives. I'll think about it some more and come back to it. ----Action potential t c 05:21, 3 October 2008 (UTC) Can you please take a look at the latest version. It still needs some work. ----Action potential t c 10:31, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Lots of changes at once make it difficult to follow! However I have left most, but put back in one cited paragraph that I think is key and balanced up things a bit by reinserting controversial (a cite could be added here with ease). I need to read in more depth but that is a start --Snowded TALK 13:52, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
I've really tried to capture the different points of view and "write for the enemy" by putting the best arguments of critics forward. Sorry for the mass of edits, I'm on mid-semester break and am working on a psych. assignment. I had a bit of time to work on this article. Can I suggest, rather than looking at individual edits, look at the lead as it currently stands. Some of the statements you inserted were not taken out in the first place. The lead really needs to make sense as a whole. It is not there yet but it is a little closer. What are your thoughts? ----Action potential t c 23:44, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Fair point, I went through them and will take you word on the one reference removed. I put a reference in for controversial up front. --Snowded TALK 06:17, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for taking my word on that. I still really don't think we can have "controversial" at the front. Can you please give your reason for this referring to peer-reviewed sources and the relevant wikipedia policies? The reference inserted was to the Skeptic's dictionary but this is not peer-reviewed or reliable. This is a web site based on a book of the same time. It is written by one author who is extremely skeptical of topics that are concerned for empirical research and experimentation in the laboratory. The author, Carrol, argues that the basic assumptions of NLP are not backed by empirical research. Carrol's argument is similar for questionable science of psychoanalysis which has not been concerned for empirical research but relied mostly on clinical observation. In comparison, brief psychotherapy approaches such as behavior therapy and cognitive therapy have shown much more concern for empirical validation. The Arbcom said that opinions must be ascribed to a source. It seems that whether or not NLP is controversial is a matter of opinion which is best left for the reader to decide. They introduce the topic in a neutral way, presenting the major points of view and controversies and let the reader decide for themselves. I'll go back and read the wikipedia policies about controversial topics, WP:lead and NPOV. ----Action potential t c 22:27, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
I think the introductory paragraph has to establish that NLP is controversial. Now it can do that by stated as such, or some of the cited quotes indicated the lack of evidence for it etc. can be higher up. It seemed to me that the latest set of edits were moving that material further down and there needed to be something to alerted a reader to the fact that the claims (as outlined in the lede) are contested. Happy to look at other ways of doing that. We need peer reviewed material but I think you are bing a bit unfair to the Skpetic's dictionary. Firstly it counts as a citation, secondly I think its fairly reliable and it does reference sources. --Snowded TALK 14:31, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
I think we should be arguing here about wikipedia policies NPOV and WP:Lead and quoting these policies to support our arguments. In my view the opening paragraph can introduce and define the topic broadly from a neutral point of view. The third paragraph can contain a summary of criticism and controversy. There is no need to state explicitly that a topic is controversial in the first sentence because it is implied int he third paragraph. I would accept a short sentence in the opening paragraph that summarized the criticism and controversy. ----Action potential t c 23:35, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
I think a single word with citation is less intrusive to be honest, but I see you have chose to take action anyway. What it may be necessary to do if move one of the critical paragraphs from later into the opening paragraph unless you think a short sentence can be produced with is not OR or a synthesis. I won't revert for the moment, better to discuss here first --Snowded TALK 05:07, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm beginning to see your point about having "controversial" where you had it (someone else removed it). If you still want this can we get a third opinion - I'm too close to it. I'd prefer a one-sentence synthesis of the criticism somewhere in the opening paragraph. As I understand the WP:Lead policy, the lead needs to be a self-contained summary of the article. The opening paragraph could be thought of as an synthesis introduction of the lead. The entire lead could be considered a synthesis of the important points in the article. The lead should be easily understood by an educated person (non-NLP/psychology expert) without having to read the rest of the article. There are some important recurring themes in the criticism and controversies that must to be covered. Other points can be covered in more depth in the body of the article. ----Action potential t c 12:32, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

proposed merge of Worldview and working model of neuro-linguistic programming

I do not see how that article can be defended as a separate article from the main article on NLP--except to the extent that it contains extensive quotations and impressionistic lists that don't belong anywhere in Wikipedia. I'm proposing a merge. Just as Principles of NLP was merged to the present article, so should this one. A good deal of the content is duplicative. DGG (talk) 21:00, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

A paper alleging unethical application of NLP techniques by Barack Obama

I ran across a pdf – "Obama's Use of Hidden Hypnosis techniques in His Speeches" which I suspect may be of interest in connection with Wikipedia's coverage of NLP. I'll let others be the judge of that though. __meco (talk) 21:25, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Wow, interesting find. I knew I recognized some language patterns in Obama's speeches. However, you could make the same argument for JFK's going to the moon speech. That's where many of NLP's hypnotic language patterns come from, by looking through influential speeches of the past and picking apart the language (Jesus included). At least that's what Robert Dilts says is where he got his 'sleight of mouth' patterns from. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sublime01 (talk • contribs) 07:33, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
I've glanced over it, and it seems to be a mixed bag. Some real valid and accurate points, but also some big stretches and some inaccurate use of NLP and hypnosis terminology. My assessment is that it's a bit too paranoid and conspiratorial to be taken seriously. It would be interesting to see some expert analysis of this paper.--Sublime01 (talk) 21:55, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
I have just reveted DGG's removal of this section per BLP concerns because I think that is stretching the BLP provisions simply too far. We must be allowed to discuss on this talk page – not in the article, and not in the Obama article – whether this is for real, and by so doing allow expert users to assess the merits of the allegations and if possible find corroborating references to this. __meco (talk) 07:25, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
this has got nothing to do with the content of this article, unless the intention to to make a reference in which case you would need a much more reliable source. The talk page of an article is not the place for this. Given that NLP begs steals and borrows from multiple sources its not unlikely that anyone with rhetorical ability could be adjudged to use NLP techniques even if they were in complete ignorance of the approach. --Snowded TALK 09:22, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Pro and Anti-NLP POV

There has been concern by some people that there has been undue weight on the pro side and that to be balanced statements like "claimed" need to be included. This article should be about the facts of what people in the field of NLP say that NLP is. Whether what these people say is true or not doesn't matter for the article. Please read Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. To state an opinion is POV, but to state that a person has stated an opinion would be NPOV, because it is a fact that that person has stated that opinion. So if I were to say "NLP correctly asserts that the map is not the territory" that would be a pro-NLP POV, and if I said "NLP claims that the map is not the territory" that would be an anti-NLP POV. The correct NPOV way to say it is that "One of the principles of NLP is the map is not the territory." is a fact and does not constitute an endorsement in any way. The facts of what NLP critics have said should also be included in the article, but let the facts speak for themselves. Inserting statements like "NLP claims that..." asserts an opinion where there shouldn't be one. As far as I can tell there isn't anywhere in the article where it says "NLP is correct in the assertion that..." or anything similar, unless someone wants to read through again and search for specific examples.--Sublime01 (talk) 22:48, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you read WP:NPOV again and have a look at some of the debates around articles like Intelligent Design which will give you a wider context for this. At the moment the article seems fairly balanced - do you have specific examples which would illustrate your concern? --Snowded TALK 22:57, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Wow the ID debate looks pretty complex. Definitely a good reference for helping to shape this article. The particular gripe I have is that the article now says "on the assumption that those behaviours were responsible for their results." That's not entirely accurate, but I understand why you wanted to say it that way, to frame it as a 'claim'. In one instance their methodology included interviewing hundreds of people about their behaviors and mental processes when they got over a phobia, and then what made it into the phobia model were only those behaviors universally consistent among the majority of interviewees - idiosyncrasies were removed. Then they tested by teaching the model to people, and if a person could get the same or similar results as the person or people it was modeled from, then it was said to be successful. It was not simply based on assumption. I suppose therein lies the claim - are these models actually as successful as they say they are? If there are any studies confirming or refuting the efficacy of something such as, say, the phobia cure, then I suppose that could be referenced or included. One other thing, let's get our tenses straight - that same sentence has past and present tenses mixed. There are people who still practice NLP, and they still seek to observe naturally self-taught expertise.--Sublime01 (talk) 03:39, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
ID debate is fun - especially if you track back to Arbcom decisions. On the phobia case you would have to reference that case in a refereed journal and there are lots of reasons why you might appear to get success (not least of which confirmation bias etc) that would explain the conclusions. I'm happy with any description which does not imply that the NLP approach is objective science (unless it is supported by science). For full disclosure I think it is very clearly a pseudo-science with quasi religious overtones in some of its manifestations. However the article is not a place for that, it needs to be objective (respecting NLP claims) which maintaining balance and not endorsing. --Snowded TALK 12:05, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
I suppose you could say that NLP is technically a pseudoscience, in that it uses terminology that sounds scientific. In the psychoanalysis article (also technically a pseudoscience), the pseudoscience debate is presented at the end of the article, and it is not mentioned in the intro. In the hypnotherapy article, the consensus seems to be that it is scientific. NLP practitioners make frequent use of hypnotherapy. Family systems therapy and Gestalt therapy have no mention of scientific validity. To my knowledge NLP does not claim to be scientific - that seems to be a label brought on by people trying to debunk or vilify NLP. NLP is described as "the study of subjective experience" - subjective as in NOT objective reality. Where do you get "quasi-religious" from? From Religion "A religion is a set of tenets and practices, often centered upon specific supernatural and moral claims about reality, the cosmos, and human nature, and often codified as prayer, ritual, or religious law." NLP is a set of tenets and practices found to be useful only within the context of communication and therapy, and asserts that these tenets are not in any way "correct" or "the truth". There are also some ritual practices, as in patterns of behavior and habit, not with any religious or spiritual context. That's as far as I can see that the similarity goes. My personal bias is towards providing accurate undistorted information about the subject, including criticisms and contradictory findings, as it may serve to further improve the field of NLP. Framing the entire field as "unscientific" or as "quasi-religious" seems more like malevolence to me.--Sublime01 (talk) 00:24, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
You might note that I have made not attempt to include some of the above opinions in the article - its not the place for it until supporting material is published. So we share the same bias in respect of WIkipedia. A lot of management methods (LO, Spiral Dynamics as well as NLP) seem to develop cult like properties. You can see the behaviour in people who come off the three week course and there are aspects of indoctrinate evident in their behaviour. We (the company I worked for) had real problems with some groups. Having studied religious cults you could see the similarities. So if you want think cult not religion if it makes it easier. However as I say its balance. I'm not going to impose that view as it would be a POV, others support NLP it would be wrong for them to assert pro comments. We need a NPOV and that was my point above - at the moment it seems balanced. --Snowded TALK 09:55, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
As I see it the meta model helps people challenge the flakey beliefs that accompany indoctrinated culture by challenging the waffle of managers, the babble of politicians and the psychobabble of HR. "How do you know that?", "Am I to assume X", "what X specifically?", ... Evidence-based questions are found in the NLP meta model and courses in critical thinking and reasoning. ----Action potential t c 03:47, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Next steps toward Good Article status - input

I want to discuss where the article current is and what is required to bring it up to good article standards. Which sections are good? Which sections need to be improved? How can it be improved overall? ----Action potential t c 02:45, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

  • How do you want to handle the popular media section? I was reading like PR material. I've converted it to a list of well-known practitioners. It is just a start. What should the criteria be for entry in the list? ----Action potential t c 06:19, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
There seems to be alot of repetition of ideas throughout the article. The study about matching representational systems is mentioned a few times, so is the idea that NLP is concerned with "what works" rather than "truth." It's a difficult subject to put into concise words. Perhaps some of these repetitive ideas can find their rightful place in the article. Also, the entire worldview section is nice but the language seems a bit sloppy and poorly worded. The content itself is good. Maybe we can trim the fluff a bit and just let the meat stand on its own, maybe say the main points in a more concise way without flourishes and over explaining.--Sublime01 (talk) 08:02, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Ok, let's try to remove some of the repetition and clean up the world view section. I'd like the see some references inserted to support the various points of view there. I think you're issue with repetition (e.g. "do what works" repeated) would be resolved if we developed the paragraphs and sections more. This would involve elaborating premesis, assumptions, evidence and conclusions of the main perspectives and criticism of NLP. At the moment much of the article is an unconnected patchwork. I cannot do anything for a few weeks until after my exams. ----Action potential t c 12:15, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
I'd like to see improvements in the lead paragraph. It defines the parent category of NLP, but it is not so clear on what sets it apart from other techniques in the same grouping. How would one point out NLP in a crowd? The last sentence of the paragraph is also unclear; isn't the philosophy worldview and approach of all new concepts defined in early publishings on the subject? To improve that, the paragraph should explain how the contribution of older texts differ from that of newer ones...or just remove the sentence altogether. -Verdatum (talk) 17:53, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
I added that Frogs was from seminar transcripts and Structure I&II was about linguistics and therapy. Based on sales on Amazon, the most popular titles seem to be introductions to NLP, e.g. "Introducing NLP" by O'Connor and Seymore. There are thousands of other books about NLP, often they are just application to other fields such as sport, sales, therapy, dating/relationships ... ----Action potential t c 23:08, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

What is the criteria for inclusion of links to associations? Most of the listed associations are not government recognised. Many of them are affiliated with individual trainers and training providers. It is getting hairy. ----Action potential t c 06:28, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

  • I tried to clean up the list (see diff). Often the associations are affiliated with training providers so we need to be careful here. It's be nice to have an objective inclusion criteria so we can avoid arguments in the future. Let me know if I removed anything that must be there (and provide evidence to support its inclusion). ----Action potential t c 01:23, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

NLP3

Is there anything to be said about NLP3 that could be included into the article? __meco (talk) 10:21, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

This is the first I've heard of it. Have you seen it mentioned in any reputable and reliable sources? ----Action potential t c 10:53, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Its around and about in different forms. Some play the ancience wisdom card, others line to enneagrams and hypnosis. It may be worth inluding, although if so it becomes further evidence of pseudo-science/cult like aspects. --Snowded TALK 05:44, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Queries

1. The overview section currently says of the founders of NLP, Bandler, Grinder, and Bateson: "The authors stated, in contravention of the professional wisdom of that time, that the internal human experience demonstrated itself in people's behaviors, and could be worked with directly given an appropriate mindset ..."

Are we saying that, before NLP, the professional wisdom was that people's mental lives were not reflected in their behavior, or that mental states could not be worked with directly, or what? SlimVirgin talk|contribs 01:20, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

NLP was created at a time when psychology and psychotherapy was dominated by two camps, psychoanalysis and behaviorism. Psychoanalysis focused on resolving with unconscious conflict arising from childhood experiences. Behaviorists argued that mental events were not open to public scrutiny, could not be verified and, therefore, should not be part of proper psychological investigation. In contrast to psychoanalysis, rather than getting caught up in the clients' content and personal history, Bandler and Grinder used the created an approach to changed that responded to the client's ill-formed language patterns to set positive goals and achieve outcomes. In contrast to behaviorism, Bandler and Grinder worked directly with the clients' reported representations, what they see, feel, hear, taste and smell in their subjective experience. ----Action potential t c 13:38, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Cognitive psychology started to become more established in the 1960s, and Beck started his whole movement at that time and with it an emphasis on mental states so it does seem to be a little excessive to set Bandler et al up as being the forerunners of something that already existed.--Vannin (talk) 19:22, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

2. I'm having difficulty fully understanding this sentence in the lead: "The originators emphasized modeling of excellence as the core methodology, that is, the observational and information gathering methods they developed to define and produce the models of exceptional communicators." The sources don't seem to say that, but there are no page numbers or quotes offered in the footnotes, so maybe I'm missing something (footnotes 6-9). Can anyone help to decipher it? SlimVirgin talk|contribs 08:58, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

The sources do not say that exactly but they do support the statement that Bandler and Grinder "emphasized modeling of excellence as the core methodology". For example, in 2004, Druckman who was the director of the USNRC committee that investigated NLP and other human performance enhancing technologies of the time said in retrospect that NLP the committee was impressed by NLP as an method for modeling excellence. It should be noted that he also said that there was not much empirical basis for NLP's extraordinary claims of efficacy. You'll find similar support in the other articles. How can you add page numbers to the inline citations when they are used multiple times? ----Action potential t c 13:38, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Changes

I have made some changes, restoring the article to something more like its previous state. I have moved up the history section, and removed a long rambling section which is eccentrically written. There remains the problem of the introduction but intend to deal with that in the near future. Can these changes be discussed here first, thanks. Peter Damian (talk) 07:10, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Nice to see you back Peter. I agree with you on the rambling section which included some nonsense claims (like the link to complex adaptive systems theory although you might get push back on not discussing it here first! --Snowded TALK 07:55, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
Nice to be back. Well it's not actually because one has to deal with articles like this, but, whatever. My policy is that if no one comes to claim a chunk like that, then that's the end of the matter. If someone does claim it, then one can always deal with it piece by piece. Peter Damian (talk) 09:25, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Notice of proposed change

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

suggestion: remove the adjectives. I suppose when you propose a replacement, you are intending only the first section of 3 paragraphs, which I think a good idea. Your draft for the remaining section is too argumentative. I agree with the argument, but that does not make it NPOV DGG (talk) 04:05, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. To clarify, I intend all three paragraphs of the section entitled 'Draft introduction'. Does that clarify? The rest is just notes to myself, and work in progress. Peter Damian (talk) 20:02, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
On the 'scepticism' section, this is still in draft, but the idea is to begin with an argument made by Heap. Since Heap is a leading authority and a 'reliable source' on NLP, it could be included. The argument is a strong one. If the extraordinary and apparently extravagant claims about NLP are true, this would be a significant and remarkable fact, deserving of extensive and detailed experimental enquiry. In fact there has been none. Note I have also located a beautiful quote from Bandler. He says, tellingly "Academics sometimes challenge me for something they call 'evidence.' They want to know the theory behind what I do; they want me to explain it, preferably with the appropriate research references. I've even had people ask for the correct citations for things that I've made up. The way I see it, it's not my job to prove, or even understand, everything about the workings of the mind. I'm not too interested in why something should work. I only want to know how, so I can help people affect and influence whatever they want to change." This chimes with remarks made by Heap that the extravagant claims made by the proponents are not supported by any experimental evidence. Peter Damian (talk) 20:08, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
I agree that Heap is an important source. Psychotherapy and hypnotherapy was Heap's main interest so this is not unexpected that your proposed introduction puts too much emphasis on NLP as an approach to psychotherapy. NLP is also a system for interpersonal and business communication and change that is not covered in your proposed introduction. See, for example, Ashley Dowlen's discussion of the meta model for use in business management [6] ----Action potential t c 07:18, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
That journal is only available for purchase and from its abstract appears hostile to other than a limited use of NLP. Overall I think Peter's is a much better lede, can you suggest amendments to incorporate your point above? --Snowded TALK 10:58, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Snowded, The lead must be a stand alone summary of the entire article. Peter's suggestion takes a somewhat skeptical view. Framing the co-founders as "promoters" rather than developers or co-creators is a little too skeptical. Also, I think the lead would benefit from having a clear distinction between NLP epistemology, NLP modeling and its various applications as suggested by Grinder in Whispering in the wind. NLP is framed by Peter as a as an approach psychotherapy ("psychological therapy") which is just one application. ----Action potential t c 13:13, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
My encounters with NLP have been in the areas of organisational change and communication. I am not sure I would dignify it with the word epistemology as it does not seem to have a coherence theory of knowledge in anything I have read. I think I agree with you on the use of "developers" and "creators", however overall I think Peter has been fairly balanced. Peter, what's your take on this? I think it does need expansion into the management science domain. --Snowded TALK 13:26, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
I agree there should be more about NLP as a 'model' for communication, and also about its applications in management training. 'Twas merely a draft. Note I didn't call the founders 'promoters', I called them 'founders'. I said they initially 'promoted' it, but that is fair, because if you look at the early literature it clearly was promotion. Bandler says as much in his own summary. Question: was Bandler actually the first to use the term 'Neurolinguistic programmingt', and if so what is the source? Peter Damian (talk) 18:54, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Peter, Perhaps you can replace the term "promoted" in the first sentence with "defined" or "aimed" and make the necessary adjustments. e.g. "Neuro-linguistic programming (NLP) was originally promoteddefined by its founders as..." ----Action potential t c 20:41, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
That wouldn't make sense because you don't define something as a therapy. You might 'present' it or 'introduce' it. But given they did promote it, I don't see why the word is wrong. I'm using it in a perfectly neutral sense and mean to imply no value judgment by use of it. How about 'presented'? Peter Damian (talk) 20:50, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Speaking as an ignorant reader seeing the article for the first time, I have one minor problem with the rhetoric of your proposed new intro, Peter. It begins abruptly, in fact it reads like it mislaid its first sentence or two. Might there be some way of starting with a more large and general sentence—however brief—taking as it were a view from orbit ("NLP is..." whatever it can be said to be), and then to zoom in on the chronological narrative with which you now start? Otherwise, I admire the paragraph structure: 1) originally, 2) later, 3) present-day perspective. Very nice. It's just the very start I think wants to be more spacious. Hope I'm making myself clear. Bishonen | talk 22:35, 30 December 2008 (UTC).
I think I agree with Bishonen that it needs to start with an orbital statement about what "NLP is" -- that addresses my concerns about having "promoted" in the first sentence. To reply to Peter, in NLP, the term presented is most strongly associated with demonstrating a technique at a workshop or seminar, or perhaps a book. One might say that Bandler and Grinder defined their approach to learning (modeling), communication and change in the Structure of Magic Series (1975), Patterns I & II and NLP volume 1 (1980) but they presented their approach and various techniques at workshops and seminars which were later transcribed, edited and published by Steve Andreas in Frogs into Princes (1979). ----Action potential t c 23:26, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Redraft of introduction

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

The name 'Neuro Linguistic Programming'

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

According to the OED, draft revision September, 2003, neurolinguistic was first used in 1935 by M. M. Kendig. Neurolinguistic programming was coined in 1976 in R. Bandler et al, Changing with families. Unfortunately, copypasting from the online OED gets rid of all its formatting, but below are the definitions and examples. I hope it's reasonably apparent which is which.
Neurolinguistic, adj: Concerned with the relationship between language and the structure and function of the brain; of or relating to neurolinguistics.
1935 M. M. KENDIG (title) Application of a method for scientific control of the neuro-linguistic and neuro-semantic mechanisms in the learning process. 1961 Stud. in Linguistics 15 70 Neurolinguistic work has certainly been carried out under other names, by people who work with aphasia, by neurosurgeons and neurologists, [etc.]. 1970 J. LAVER in J. Lyons New Horizons in Linguistics iii. 61 The healthy adult brain is not itself accessible to neurolinguistic experiment. 1995 Afr. Amer. Rev. 29 698 Cognitive and neurolinguistic science indicates that musicians listen to music differently than do non-musicians.
SPECIAL USES
Neurolinguistic programming n. a model of interpersonal communication chiefly concerned with the relationship between successful patterns of behaviour and the subjective experiences (esp. patterns of thought) underlying them; a system of alternative therapy based on this which seeks to educate people in self-awareness and effective communication, and to change their patterns of mental and emotional behaviour.
1976 R. BANDLER et al. Changing with Families 186 [Bibliography.] Grinder, J.; Bandler, R.; and Cameron, L. *Neuro-Linguistic Programming, Volume I. Cupertino, Calif.: Meta Publications. 1977 J. GRINDLER et al. Patterns of Hypnotic Techniques II. I. 108 This is an extensive area containing many interesting patterns some of which will be contained in a forthcoming publication (Neuro-Linguistic Programming I). 1990 Kindred Spirit Summer 21 (advt.) Neuro-linguistic programming (NLP) is an exciting, challenging set of communication tools which will allow you to be how you are when you are at your most effective. 2001 Working from Home Mar. 29/1 Peter is well qualified to offer advice and training in a range of subjects from marketing and selling to neuro-linguistic programming.
Bishonen | talk 15:47, 31 December 2008 (UTC).
Thanks,wow why didn't I think of looking in the OED. I'll put that in. Peter Damian (talk) 16:38, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
[edit] I have modified the proposed introduction accordingly. That's excellentPeter Damian (talk) 16:52, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Psych. research

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

NLP and science

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

We really need to work on the section currently labelled "NLP and science". Also the article linked from that section. We need to make sure we included all views, not just the negative arguments of skeptics. We need to look at WP:SYN and make sure that we're not in violation of that. If you're still working on it then I'll hold off for a few days. Its not a summary of the research on NLP but a summary of skeptics argument. Can someone suggest some balanced sources that we can use to organise that section? ----Action potential t c 07:10, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Peter, Who claimed that the representational systems, submodalities, etc were merely scientific sounding? Was it Beyerstein? Many of the statements in that section are not scientific statement but opinions of individual researchers. We need to be careful to separate scientific statements that are based on evidence and those that are merely opinions. ----Action potential t c 09:14, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Merging Peter Damian's version done

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

  • The term 'neurolinguistic', to qualify the relation between language and the structure and function of the brain, originated in 1935[3], the term 'neurolinguistic programming' was coined by Richard Bandler in 1976, reflecting his belief that humans are the only machines that can program themselves.[4]

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

  • I made a number of changes to Peter's version of the introduction. Hope it helps. I hope it does not seem to promotional. Any promotion needs to be toned down. Also any skepticism needs to be identified and toned down too. ----Action potential t c 08:28, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
I think its improved. I reversed two that seemed to me were swinging the balance to far in the other way. The definition section remains open. --Snowded TALK 08:40, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Skepticism should not be toned down. Skepticism is simply the application of the scientific method. By all means correct the citations in my revert. On "It is unclear if Bandler and Grinder use Neuro-linguistic in the same way as Kendig" since the whole point of a term like 'neurolinguistic' is to provide a purportedly scientific basis for NLP, it is clear it is intended in the same sense, and anyone will understand it in that sense. NLP is the paradigm of a pseudoscience, and its title is one of the reasons. Peter Damian (talk) 09:52, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
What is your source to link Kendig's usage to Bandler and Grinder's usage? Is the connect via Korzybski's work? Kendig had some connection with Koryzbski. It could be considered violation of WP:NOR (original synthesis) to include that citation unless you can find this link made in a reliable source. ----Action potential t c 12:29, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Reverted

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

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

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

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

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

Peter I reverted the definition but could not counter the claim the the one you put in was not correct/out of context. Have you the material to hand? Its the definition which is the main thing the other edits were not major (other than the two I reverted). --Snowded TALK 10:03, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
I think the problem was supposed to be (1) that 'neurolinguistic' was used in a different sense by originators of NLP. My reply to that is above. The other (2) was not about the definition, but about who originated the term 'NLP'. I have no argument about that. If anyone can provide a more accurate citation, let's include it. (3) On the claim that NLP did not originate as a form of psychotherapy, that is entirely absurd, and even the citation provided by Action Potential proves that. They claimed it was a 'different' approach to psychotherapy. Peter Damian (talk) 10:14, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Here are the problems with the citations that I corrected and were lost in Peter's reversion.
  1. p.II of Frogs into Princes is the forward written by Steve Andreas taken out of context - please read the preceding paragraph and end of p.I. Steve's examples and view was incorrectly attributed to Bandler and Grinder.
  2. p.6 of Structure of Magic was misrepresented
  3. Bandler was identified as the author of "Changing with Families" when Bandler, Grinder and Satir were the authors. Do you have any reliable evidence that Bandler coined the title of NLP?
  4. There was also an issue about using some transcribed client demonstrations as references for extravagant claims
----Action potential t c 10:16, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Right. That's not me talking, in most of my post. From "Neurolinguistic, adj" down to "from marketing and selling to neuro-linguistic programming" is a direct quote from the OED ( though without any formatting; I couldn't face inserting a lot of bolding and stuff). So, the OED doesn't say anything about who among the authors of Changing with Families coined the term. It only says it comes on p. 186. I'm sorry my copy isn't entirely easy to read. I'd advise anybody who has access to the online OED to look at it there instead. Bishonen | talk 12:22, 2 January 2009 (UTC).
  • Disputed text: The term 'neurolinguistic', to qualify the relation between language and the structure and function of the brain, originated in 1935[5], the term 'neurolinguistic programming' was coined by Richard Bandler in 1976[6], reflecting his belief that humans are the only machines that can program themselves.[7]
  • Reason for dispute: The quoted text from Bandler's book is a metaphor and is not acceptable as a source. The sources are also questioned: The page cited in 'Changing with Families' (p.186) has not been verified. It is preferable to use a definition and origin of Neuro-linguistic programming that is more widely accepted. It is generally agreed that NLP was coined by Bandler and Grinder.
  • Relevant polcies: WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, WP:R
  • Proposed alternate text: paraphrase definition from "Dr Paul Tosey & Dr Jane Mathison (2006), "The title, coined by Bandler and Grinder, is understood to denote that a person is a whole mind-body system, with systematic, patterned connections between neurological processes (`neuro’), language (`linguistic') and learned behavioural strategies (`programming’) (Dilts et al 1980 p.2)" or use paraphrase of definition written by Dilts et al (1980). ----Action potential t c 13:05, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
I did indeed misread the OED quote. I think the alternative sentence above is fine. Peter Damian (talk) 16:31, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
[edit] I have added the replacement derivation, verbatim except for removing 'patterned' - not clear what is intended to add to 'systematic'. I have removed a few of the qualifying phrases added by Bish, otherwise it begins to sound awkward and Wikipedia-ish (sorry!). I would like to include the Bandler 'programming' quote in the footnote, however, as it is clear he was not being metaphorical, but very literal. On using Bandler as an RS, I agree he cannot be used as RS support the truth of anything he says. But he is a reliable source for what he actually said, as enclosed in quotation marks. Peter Damian (talk) 16:43, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Ok, I copied that text from Mathison and Tosey and intended to paraphrase it before putting it in the article. I've tried my best to paraphrase it while keeping the meaning. We cannot copy stuff verbatim from other articles unless we use quotation marks and page numbers. I've made a few changes today on top of that. I hope it helps. Most were minor changes but you might object to replacing "scientific community" with "psychological research literature". Scientific community implies consensus when we do not have one. See Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words e.g. "Scientific community". The adjective "mainstream" might also be a problem. There are other examples of weasel words in your introduction that I tried to fix. You need to avoid phrases such as "It is claimed that..." etc without ascribing the view to a source. Heap is not authoritative given that was not published in a high impact journal and has not had that many citations to date. Heap does give a good overview of the research as at late 1988 but that was twenty years ago. We should have a look at Mathison and Tosey's critical summary of research which can bring this up to date. ----Action potential t c 04:18, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

hang on

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I agree with your reversals Peter, but AL is not edit warring. He is making changes in good faith, some of which are good some represent an attempt to shine a better light onto NLP. So far no reversal battles and discussion on the talk page. --Snowded TALK 10:36, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
He has a long history of edit-warring back to at least 2006 on this article [7]. He has a business promoting NLP and has a provable connection with the Collingwoods, who run 'Inspiritive'. I have very little time to devote to this - I have already delayed work on a publication that I was trying to get ready during the holiday period. This guy on the other hand has plenty of leisure time to bring the article back to its usual promotional state. Well, let's see. I would like to bring an RFC now, personally. There is enough evidence of this person's involvement in NLP promotion for nearly 3 years on this article. Enough is enough. Peter Damian (talk) 11:13, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
I was judging the behaviour that I have seen Peter. If there is a provable connection to an NLP promotional business then that should be exhibited. --Snowded TALK 11:22, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Yes I understand that. Unfortunately one person tried exposing this connection before and was blocked as a result. We all need to be very careful Peter Damian (talk) 11:30, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
The last thing we want is anyone having an excuse to ban you again Peter! AP can I ask if you do have a connection? Obviously you don't have to answer this but it would make life easier all round. I freely confess (and by web site is linked to my user page) that I am disturbed by and hostile to NLP in practice (my experience here is management science) and realise that I need to be careful in consequence to maintain a NPOV. Its good to know where people are coming from. --Snowded TALK 11:38, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
On Comaze/ActionPotential and the need for care, this and this refer. I have no connection with NLP whatsoever. My interest in this article was prompted by a study of the conflict of interest in the Wikipedia administration itself, and of conflicts of interest in Wikipedia generally. My own specialism, as you know, is in philosophy of language (PhD and publications), and in medieval philosophy and logic (publications). A recent conference paper of mine on traditional logic linked to here. Peter Damian (talk) 11:44, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
I am willing to confirm to a third party that I am currently studying combined program in cognitive science (psychology, computer science, and linguistics) at university. I do not wish my personal name or other details disclosed on wikipedia and ask you to message me privately if you need to know that information. I can confirm that I have trained extensively in NLP. I do not wish to promote it here. I wish to adhere to WP:NPOV. Let's get back to working on the article. ----Action potential t c 13:57, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Noted --Snowded TALK 17:03, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Noted, and I will not disclose your name here (even though you have linked to your website from your user page). But your website still advertises your connection with NLP, and contains advertisements for NLP training, and your company offers 'human enhancement' programs. Can you confirm whether or not you still have business interests in NLP or not? Peter Damian (talk) 19:11, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Specifically, the site says "XYZ is an expert consulting firm based in Sydney , Australia and specialising in high quality applications of NLP that significantly improve human and business performance". Can you explain why this is not a blatant conflict of interest? On your claim that you do not wish to promote it here, you are doing exactly that as we speak, by deleting or reverting carefully written and sourced material representing scientific consensus. Could you stop any further alterations to this article unless discussed here first. Thanks. Peter Damian (talk) 19:55, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for respecting my privacy. The website you quote is old and that business that traded as Comaze no longer exists. I can confirm that. I have studied NLP with various providers mostly before I started university. I am a full time student and currently training to become a registered psychologist. I am taking a second major in cognitive science, linguistics and computer science (AI). I accept that NLP, especially the hyped up versions, exhibit characteristics of pseudoscience and new age BS. But its not all that bad and there are different perspectives that must be represented under NPOV. ----Action potential t c 00:02, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

NPOV tag

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

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

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

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

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

You have obviously put some effort into this for which thanks. I had a quick glance at the research page referenced and was not greatly impressed. Mirroring of language for example has multiple issues in trial, and also multiple explanations it does not validate NLP. There is also a generic POV danger with the issue of providing context. I am seeing that on another article at the moment where any critical comment is being "qualified" with context. To Illustrate criticisms by the left and right to Ayn Rand are not allowed to stand without saying things like Buckley didn't like Rand because she criticised his catholicism, Chompsky is described as a left wing activist and attempts to properly designate him as a philosopher/scientist are deleted. Now I don't think you are going that far but it is an issue. You end up with every comment having some explanatory phrase added to it which results in lots of OR and weasel words. The phrase "X claims Y" is really not necessary where the title of the section is correct. --Snowded TALK 08:16, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Incidentally I don't see anything in the above list which validates a NPOV tag on a section titled "Criticisms". Please explain as there the context is really very clear --Snowded TALK 08:18, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
I tend to agree with you that the list of studies is far from complete. But it give examples of some of the studies and some which were at least tentitively supportive. I strongly disagree with your interpretation of weasel words policy. Please review it. I'll give a specific example of when it is necessary to qualify an assertion -- when it is an opinion. In the introduction to the current article, it says "[NLP] continues to make no impact on mainstream academic psychology, and only limited impact on mainstream psychotherapy and counselling". This is a blatant violation of wikipedia policy. First it asserts an opinion as fact. I checked Heap's paper from 1988, actually says "informal soundings amongst academic psychologists revealed an almost total absence of awareness of NLP". Heap is using personal experience as evidence. This is not a scientific evidence and is therefore mere opinion. He did not conduct a survey or whatever. He was simply using his personal judgment which is fallible. It must be presented as opinion and nothing more. Second this information is twenty years old and written in present-continuous tense. If we are to paraphrase Heap about the awareness of NLP in 1988 it must be clear we're talking about that timeframe. The current statement implies that we're talking about the present state of affairs which may or may not be true. There are similar examples in the "NLP and science" section that need similar treatment. This is directly related to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policy: "Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves." ----Action potential t c 09:05, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
But it is also true that the reason for 1988 etc. is that NLP has not sustained itself in the face of any serious study. I am afraid that I don't agree with you about "tentative support". Cognitive Science has radically changed over the last decade and NLP at best was a crude approximation to aspects of science at the time along with some aspects of Gestalt therapy etc. The section on criticism is very clearly a section on criticism and does not require qualification. In effect NLP has survived in management because it appears to offer a prescriptive mechanism. Its one of a series of "cults" which while they may have some "Hawthorne effect" success from time to time are not based on coherent and sustainable theory. Now OK that is all my opinion! That said is an explanation of some of the issues you raise above. --Snowded TALK 09:39, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
There has been no serious study of whether the earth is flat since 1493. Perhaps this should be reviewed? And of course we cannot claim in Wikipedia that earth is not flat, only that a study in 1493 came to this conclusion. Peter Damian (talk) 10:24, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
This is my proposed change to the introduction which I outlined above: [8]. Perhaps we can ask for a comment at the NPOV noticeboard? ----Action potential t c 10:41, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

NPOV tag - point by point reply

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

Is the new Heap article generally available Peter? --Snowded TALK 10:13, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
It's not. It's in a journal called 'Skeptical Intelligencer' - this will of course immediately lead to accusations of 'promoting sceptical views'. I will ask Michael whether it is stocked by university libraries. Peter Damian (talk) 10:15, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, would like a look at it and I'm on the editorial boards of a few journals if that is any help. --Snowded TALK 10:28, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
I will also ask Michael if I can email copies of the paper. Peter Damian (talk) 10:31, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
I'd appreciate it if, with permission, you could email that to me too. How can I forward you the papers from Tosey? ----Action potential t c 10:44, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for replying to each of my points. I do appreciate that. I'd prefer to get a third opinions on some of those points especially concerning whether passing comments and how the views of hard-line skeptics are to be characterized. By hard-line skeptics I'm referring to those that insist on experimental evidence for approaches in psychotherapy. There are competing perspectives in psychology on this matter. I used the examples of Carl Rogers client centered approach and psychodynamics which NLP has some commonality with. i.e. importance of subjective experience of the individual and importance of the unconscious mind in generating positive outcomes. NLP also shared the goal-oriented approach which is common with cognitive behavioural therapies. ----Action potential t c 12:02, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

RfC on ascribing an opinion to a reliable source

I have opened a request on the arbcom noticeboard about when to ascribe sources. I used Heap in the introduction as well as Devilly as examples which have been reverted several times now. [9] ----Action potential t c 11:19, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

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

Update

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

Thanks Peter. To satisfy NPOV there are a few more adjustments needed. The section should briefly summarize the criticism (Beck & Beck, Einspruch and Forman, Grinder & Carmen Bostic 2001) that the research studies reviewed by Sharpley and relied upon by Heap in his meta-analysis were unreliable ("including inaccurate understanding of NLP’s claims and invalid procedures due to (for example) the inadequate training of interviewers, who therefore may not have been competent at the NLP techniques being tested.") and that the evidence is insufficient to dismiss NLP. The limitations of studies in the laboratory in the 1980s and 1980s should also be mentioned (only tested eye accessing cue model and PRS). Tosey & Mathison state that "Given these concerns, we suggest that the existing body of empirical research cannot support definitive conclusions about NLP. It seems clear that there is no substantive support for NLP in this body of empirical research, yet it also seems insufficient to dismiss NLP." In the conclusion it would be nice to mention that some practitioners acknowledge the need for systematic investigation. ----Action potential t c 00:14, 6 January 2009 (UTC) update: I've added a sentence about the problems with the construct validity of studies in the laboratory carried out in 1980s which were reviewed by Sharpley and the results of which were subject to meta-analysis by Heap. ----Action potential t c 05:24, 6 January 2009 (UTC) I've added the full quote from Druckman (2004). It could be shortened but I want to be careful not to leave out any of the important bits. Before my change it was not clear that the committee made two conclusions. ----Action potential t c 10:12, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. I made three changes to grammar and style. I do not agree with the changes entirely (the chronology of the Beck study in 1984 'contesting' the two later studies of Heap and Sharpley is odd, for a start) but perhaps we leave this for now, given the considerable changes over recent weeks. I have sent you both the 2008 Heap and the Newbrook. I have a few questions for Newbrook which I am separately emailing to him. Thanks for the help and collegiate approach to this difficult article. Peter Damian (talk) 19:22, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
I received the recent papers by Heap and Newbrook, thank you. I've read them quickly but need a few days. I'll no doubt have some questions for both authors. ----Action potential t c 04:04, 7 January 2009 (UTC) I really need some more time to study these papers more closely. It might be good to come back to it in a few days with fresh eyes. best regards ----Action potential t c 13:59, 13 January 2009 (UTC) I've read both papers. I am going to do some careful research before making any changes to the article. I want to check some of their arguments and evidence first. ----Action potential t c 12:28, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Pseudoscience?

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

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

I would support the addition, but it will need discussion. --Snowded TALK 17:07, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
The opening section could certain be tighter. I tried to fix one part. However, the entire opening section could be seen as setting up a straw man argument as it presents some weak definitions tighter definitions are available. We need to carefully look at the most reputable sources. ----Action potential t c 18:04, 30 January 2009 (UTC) I made a number of changes to the introduction to make it more specific. I carefully paraphrased the definition from OED. Bandler and Grinder claimed to present NLP as a model or system rather than a theory. The other changes were based on checking cited sources. ----Action potential t c 00:29, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

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

-- RichardT

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


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

moved disputed text

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

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

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

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

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

Updated figures:

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

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

How many changes have been made?

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

Not too much I think if you check them out. We had an enthusiast who kept inserting OR until they were banned and AP helped out in dealing with that. --Snowded TALK 20:48, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
I really did not think it would be that controversial. I thought you would retained them and edited them if you thought they were controversial. Anyway. I'll specified each change below. ----Action potential t c 00:27, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Proposed changes (Action potential)

Modeling rather theorizing

  • From: "Proponents of NLP often deny that it is based on theory."
  • To: "The founders of NLP claimed[8] that NLP was not based on pre-existing psychological theory or psychotherapeutic approach, rather it was based on direct observation and imitation of 'what works' in practice, what they termed modeling"
  • Reason for change: Just fleshes out the stance of the proponents. Trying to make it clear exactly what B&G claimed. This is supported by secondary sources.

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

Don't agree. Please refer to WP:FLAT, in particular section 10.7. Proponents of flat earth theory will often try to get round scientific objections to flat-earthism by claiming e.g. that it is not based on 'existing' research, or that 'it works' or something like that. Admittedly the sentence you are trying to replace contains the same implicit argument but it has the virtue of being short. Either (i) leave it as it is (ii) put in an objection to the 'it works' argument (for in fact it doesn't work) or (iii) delete it. Peter Damian (talk) 09:20, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
I would be prepared to consider a form of words that expanded the current sentence, to include arguing that it was based on observation and imitation of what works in practice, a technique they called "modelling" but not replacing it. (-- unsigned - Snowded)
That would be acceptable to me. The link Peter gave was to an essay, not a policy, which recommends WP:RS. WP:FRINGE says its ok to use primary sources to confirm what proponents believed or claimed if discussed in secondary sources. The best source I have for this is the second conclusion the NRC which states that the committee were impressed by the modeling methodology that BG used to create the NLP technique (this is already quoted in the article). In regards to Peter's request for an objection to "what works argument" -- the sentence would be followed this: "There is little or no theoretical or empirical evidence to support its often extravagant claims". ----Action potential t c 10:36, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Claims in seminars

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

  • To: "In seminars they presented demonstrations and anecdotes..."
  • Reason: This made NLP sound too much like psychology. All of those claims were made at seminars and in demonstrations with people and in stories.

Reason: Clear distinction between statements of claims and claims made in seminars.

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

Object for same reasons as Snowded. If NLP claims this, it claims this. Peter Damian (talk) 09:21, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Claims in seminars are claims, and NLP based a lot on its public performances. I see no reason for change. --Snowded TALK 09:41, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
I must admit change was poorly proposed. Can we just drop this one? ----Action potential t c 09:24, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

In the context of seminars

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

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

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

If it is reported by a third party source then its OK. --Snowded TALK 09:43, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Point taken. Let's just close this to reduce the number of open issues. ----Action potential t c 11:45, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

More detail original presentation

  • From: "NLP was originally promoted by its founders, Bandler and Grinder, in the 1970s as an extraordinarily effective and rapid form of psychological therapy"
  • To: "NLP was originally presented by its founders, Bandler and Grinder, as a set of patterns that seemed to be implicit in the action of three effective therapists and communicators they observed, gestalt therapist Fritz Perls, family therapist Virginia Satir and medical hypnosis pioneer psychiatrist Milton H. Erickson."
  • Reason: This is generally regarded as the source of NLP. It can be source for any number of primary and secondary sources. should be uncontroversial.
  • Source: existing source.

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

Here we go again. The 'extraordinarily effective' snake-oil claim of NLP is what really characterises it is the pseudoscientific junk that it is (sorry). That really tells the reader what NLP really is. The wishy-washy bullshit you want to replace it with is just, well, wishy-washy bullshit. How you can possibly claim it is uncontroversial is quite beyond me. Peter Damian (talk) 09:29, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
If there is a third party reference to the "three effective therapists" then that could be a useful addition, but it doesn't justify dumbing down the actual claims. --Snowded TALK 09:45, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps rather than replace the existing "extraordinarily effective" sentence, the proposed alternative could be added either above (my preference to preserve the flow) or below. ----Action potential t c 10:02, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Use quote to show what they believed

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

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

Source: existing source, just added actual quote.

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

Yes but the quote doesn't capture all the nuance of what it replaces, plus contains a sizeable chunk of BS, "sharing the resources of all those who are involved". Peter Damian (talk) 09:22, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
You could put the references and motivations in a footnote --Snowded TALK 09:46, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
I cut the BS portion that Peter pointed to. I think we could find a better quote outlining their intentions but this is ok for people who have no knowledge of NLP or its applications. ----Action potential t c 03:42, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

supposed theoretical or denote?

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

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

It is simpler but also less negative-sounding, so reject. Peter Damian (talk) 09:25, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
We're aiming for neutral, not "negative-sounding" so I've reinstated this change. The legitimacy of the title is covered in the 'NLP and science' section. I've also added the "and that can be organised to achieve specific goals in life" which is explicitly supported by the existing references. ----Action potential t c 03:31, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Update: The current sentence is ("They coined the title to denote a supposed theoretical connection between neurological processes ('neuro'), language ('linguistic') and behavioral patterns that have been learned through experience ('programming') and that can be organised to achieve specific goals in life"). This seems better but I always thought the definition was meant to be an operational definition rather than a theoretical or conceptual one. I'll have to check the sources again. ----Action potential t c 09:42, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

'Theory or model' in first sentence

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

  • To: Neuro-linguistic programming' (NLP) is a theory or model of language, communication and thought together with an associated therapeutic method
  • Reason: NLP was not first presented as a model. This is different than a theory. Also made it mode specific. Importantly NLP was presented as a model for creating personal change. Combined Newbrook's definition with OED and NLM.
  • Alternative: We could use "theory or model" as a comprimise.
  • Source: National Library of Medicine definition of Neurolinguistic programming ("A set of models of how communication impacts and is impacted by subjective experience. Techniques are generated from these models by sequencing of various aspects of the models in order to change someone's internal representations. Neurolinguistic programming is concerned with the patterns or programming created by the interactions among the brain, language, and the body, that produce both effective and ineffective behavior."[10]).

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

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

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

  • To: "which aims to train or teach people to be more self-aware, to improve communication and to model and change their patterns of thought, emotion and behavior"
  • Source: Oxford English Dictionary definition of Neurolinguistic programming "n. a model of interpersonal communication chiefly concerned with the relationship between successful patterns of behaviour and the subjective experiences (esp. patterns of thought) underlying them; a system of alternative therapy based on this which seeks to educate people in self-awareness and effective communication, and to change their patterns of mental and emotional behaviour."Oxford English Dictionary neurolinguistic, adj. (n.d.). . Retrieved January 23, 2009, from [11])

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

On the second point I'm open to some form of synthesis here but the claim to "improve" is critical. --Snowded TALK 09:52, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
The OED and NLM specifically describes NLP as a model. I have provided sources which are more reputable than the reference you provided. The onus of proof is now on you. Perhaps a comprimise would be to use "model or theory" ----Action potential t c 01:25, 12 February 2009 (UTC) I have inserted the entire definition from OED into the first paragraph which replaces the definition offered by Heap/Newbrook. The OED is a much stronger source in terms of verifiability, reputability and reliability. ----Action potential t c 02:21, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Criticism (first point)

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

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

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

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


Proposed change to 1970s section

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Science

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

NLP and Science

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

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

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

Well - not YET proposing anything, beyond a general wish to improve the science section. The summary below was me attempting to work out what was already being said - in order to say the same thing more clearly (remove repetition). The 3 pieces of commentary are an idea of the context of the stuff already given that would need citing (and is probably already cited in other areas of this article as being about NLP rather than a response to science). The intent being to put it together into a more coherent whole. The current proposal, I guess, is to make sure that this kind of direction I'm going is agreeable to all sides now rather than later, so if it's not I can avoid wasting my time. Greg (talk) 06:13, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Well the CBT case is an interesting one. In effect the research method allowed something to claim success and is in dispute within the profession in the UK (this is in part linked to the government attempt to mandate it, create :happiness centres" and the like. So allowing people to self assess (to take one example) if something worked for them is hardly scientific. I would be interested to know what this "new" research is (and you acknowledge problems). Maybe adding some fact statements relating to that would be useful. I like the approach by the way, making statements seeking consensus its a refreshing change in the Wikipedia. --Snowded (talk) 07:45, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
I think it's interesting that research into psychotherapies generally has suffered the problem that the research controls (required by clinical psychologists) were argued to remove the intended therapeutic effects (by the therapists, including counselling psychologists). Looking purely at the outcomes, and treating the modalities as "black boxes" and (for example) assigning one group to an "NLP" box and another to "Narrative therapy", another to "Drug therapies", "placebo group" etc ignores the specific interventions used and more generally permits the question "did groups respond differently, and in what way?". Unfortunately an NLP practitioner might be using PRS and Metamodeling - so any effective change can't be locked down to either intervention and a bad intervention can continue to exist (in any therapy).
Now, it's not our job to spell all this out, but at the same time it's part of the story. Have you got any links on the UK disputes, I'd like to have a read.
All that said... I took a quick look at NLP and Science (which I should have done earlier) and List of studies on Neuro-linguistic programming - I figure I'd best be working in the NLP and Science before here - I'll move the discussion there unless there's a good reason not to.. BTW - the studies I remember reading a few years ago don't appear listed here and I'm not sure why, I'll have to have an explore. The NLPer in me was pleased to see some non-PRS research but the psychologist-eyes wanted more controls. Greg (talk) 13:33, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

NLP and science

Main article: NLP and science

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

  • Claims to being a science: Corballis (1999) argues that "NLP is a thoroughly fake title, designed to give the impression of scientific respectability".[9] Its very name is a pretense to a legitimate discipline like neuroscience, neurolinguistics, and psychology. It has a large collection of scientific sounding terms, like eye accessing cues, metamodeling, micromodeling, metaprogramming, neurological levels, presuppositions, primary representational systems, modalities and submodalities.
  • NLPs major premises & methods should have extensive scientific research to support them: Heap (1988) argued that to arrive at such important generalisations about the human mind and behaviour would certainly require prolonged, systematic, and meticulous investigation of human subjects using robust procedures for observing, recording, and analysing the phenomena under investigation. "There is just no other way of doing this". Yet the founders of NLP never revealed any such research or investigation, and there is no evidence of its existence.[10] Indeed, Bandler himself claimed it was not his job to prove any of his claims about the workings of the human mind, "The truth is, when we know how something is done, it becomes easy to change" (ibid).[11] Tosey and Mathison say that "the pragmatic and often anti-theoretical stance by the founders has left a legacy of little engagement between practitioner and academic communities"[12][13]
  • Early scientific research against NLP (sensory representations): The majority of empirical research was carried out by psychologists in the 1980s and 1990s and consisted of laboratory experimentation testing Bandler and Grinder's hypothesis[14] that a person's preferred sensory mode of thinking can be revealed by observing eye movement cues and sensory predicates in language use.[12] A research review conducted by Christopher Sharpley in 1984[15], followed by another review in 1987 in response to criticism by Einspruch and Forman[16], concluded that there was little evidence for its usefulness as an effective counseling tool. Reviewing the literature in 1988, Michael Heap also concluded that objective and fair investigations had shown no support for NLP claims about 'preferred representational systems',[10]. A research committee[17] in 1988 working for United States National Research Council led by Daniel Druckman came to two conclusions - firstly that they "found little if any" evidence to support NLP’s assumptions or to indicate that it is effective as a strategy for social influence. It assumes that by tracking another’s eye movements and language, an NLP trainer can shape the person’s thoughts, feelings, and opinions (Dilts, 1983[18]). There is no scientific support for these assumptions."[19]. The conclusions of Heap and Sharpley have been contested[20][16][21] on the grounds that the studies demonstrated an incomplete understanding of the claims of NLP and that the interviewers involved in the many of the studies had inadequate training/competence in NLP.[12]
  • Interest in researching NLP reduces: These studies marked a decline in research interest in NLP generally, and particularly in matching sensory predicates and its use in counsellor-client relationship in counseling psychology.[22] Beyerstein (1995) argued that NLP was based on outmoded scientific theories, and that its 'explanation' of the relationship between cognitive style and brain function was no more than crude analogy.[23] [24]
  • NLP's Representational systems are not taught or recognised by Psychology (1988): In 1988, Heap remarked[10] that if the assertions made by proponents of NLP about representational systems and their behavioural manifestations are correct, then its founders had made remarkable discoveries about the human mind and brain, which would have important implications for human psychology, particularly cognitive science and neuropsychology. Yet there was no mention of them in learned textbooks or journals devoted to these disciplines. Neither was this material taught in psychology courses at the pre-degree and degree level. When Heap spoke to academic colleagues who spent much time researching and teaching in these fields, they showed little awareness, if any, of NLP.[10]
  • NLP as pseudoscience: Devilly and many researchers stated: NLP's claims for scientific respectability are fake, and it is really a pseudoscience, since it not based on the scientific method. There is little or no evidence or research to support its often extravagant claims. The pre-1990 reviews of controlled studies shed such a poor light on the practice, and those promoting the intervention made such extreme and changeable claims that researchers began to question the wisdom of researching the area further.[25]

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

  • Early comment on modeling: The second conclusion in 1988 for the United States National Research Council was that they[17] "were impressed with the modeling approach used to develop the technique. The technique was developed from careful observations of the way three master psychotherapists conducted their sessions, emphasizing imitation of verbal and nonverbal behaviors... This then led the committee to take up the topic of expert modeling in the second phase of its work."[19]
  • Scientific criticism of lack of theory: A question often asked of NLP is that of whether it has a theory - Proponents of NLP often deny that it is based on theory. As noted above, authors in the field emphasise pragmatism, and have seldom shown interest in articulating NLP as a theory. Because NLP has always aimed to model `what works’, one can find evidence within its practices of an eclectic approach that draws from (among other things) cognitive-behavioural approaches, Gestalt therapy, hypnotherapy, family therapy, and brief therapy. For more extensive discussion of NLP’s theory in relation learning see Tosey and Mathison ( 2003; 2008)."[12].</ref>
  • NLP's analogies of how the mind works: According to Beyerstein (1995) "though it claims neuroscience in its pedigree, NLP's outmoded view of the relationship between cognitive style and brain function ultimately boils down to crude analogies."[23]
  • The Problem with Pseudosciences: Beyerstein classes NLP as a pseudoscience & neuromythology. In reference to these he states "In the long run perhaps the heaviest cost extracted by neuromythologists is the one common to all pseudosciences—deterioration in the already low levels of scientific literacy and critical thinking in society.".[23]

Basic conclusion:

  • Tosey and Mathison [12]add that "The literature in academic journals is minimal; in the field of HRD see (Georges 1996), (Ashok & Santhakumar 2002), (Thompson, Courtney, & Dickson 2002). There has been virtually no published investigation into how NLP is used in practice. The empirical research consists largely of laboratory-based studies from the 1980s and 1990s, which investigated two particular notions from within NLP, the `eye movement’ model (Bandler & Grinder 1979), and the notion of the `primary representational system’, according to which individuals have a preferred sensory mode of internal imagery indicated by their linguistic predicates (Grinder & Bandler 1976)." - Tosey and Mathison 2007</ref>.

Key problems in the scientific summary

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

References

This should be the last section, if not then move it down.

  1. ^ http://www.rickross.com/reference/general/general756.html
  2. ^ Cite error: The named reference Sharpley 1987 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  3. ^ M. M. Kendig (title) 'Application of a method for scientific control of the neuro-linguistic and neuro-semantic mechanisms in the learning process'
  4. ^ 1976 R. Bandler et al. Changing with Families 1976, Grinder, J.; Bandler, R.; and Cameron, L. *Neuro-Linguistic Programming, Volume I. Cupertino, Calif.: Meta Publications, see alSO Richard Bandler's Guide to Trance-formation Health Communications 2008
  5. ^ M. M. Kendig (title) 'Application of a method for scientific control of the neuro-linguistic and neuro-semantic mechanisms in the learning process'
  6. ^ Source OED, citing 1976 R. Bandler et al. Changing with Families 1976, Grinder, J.; Bandler, R.; and Cameron, L. *Neuro-Linguistic Programming, Volume I. Cupertino, Calif.: Meta Publications
  7. ^ "When I started using the term 'programming,' people became really angry. They said things like, 'You're saying we're like machines. We're human beings, not robots. Actually, what I was saying was just the opposite. We're the only machine that can program itself. We are 'meta-programmable.' We can set deliberately designed, automated programs that work by themselves to take care of boring, mundane tasks, thus freeing up our minds to do other, more interesting and creative, things." Richard Bandler's Guide to Trance-formation Health Communications 2008
  8. ^ Cite error: The named reference Bandler & Grinder 1975a was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  9. ^ Corballis, MC., "Are we in our right minds?" In Sala, S., (ed.) (1999), Mind Myths: Exploring Popular Assumptions About the Mind and Brain Publisher: Wiley, John & Sons. ISBN 0-471-98303-9 (pp. 25-41) see page p.41
  10. ^ a b c d Cite error: The named reference Heap 1988 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  11. ^ Bandler 2008
  12. ^ a b c d Tosey P. & Mathison, J., "Fabulous Creatures Of HRD: A Critical Natural History Of Neuro-Linguistic Programming ", University of Surrey Paper presented at the 8th International Conference on Human Resource Development Research & Practice across Europe, Oxford Brookes Business School, 26th – 28th June 2007
  13. ^ Cite error: The named reference Tosey and Mathison 2007 note was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  14. ^ Cite error: The named reference Bandler & Grinder 1979 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  15. ^ Cite error: The named reference Sharpley 1984 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  16. ^ a b Einspruch, E. L., & Forman, B. D. (1985). "Observations Concerning Research Literature on Neuro-Linguistic Programming". Journal of Counseling Psychology, 32(4), 589-596. doi:10.1037/0022-0167.32.4.589
  17. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference Druckman & Swets 1988 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  18. ^ Dilts, Robert (1983) Roots of Neuro-Linguistic Programming, Meta Publications, Capitola, CA, ISBN 0916990125
  19. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference Druckman 2004 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  20. ^ Cite error: The named reference Grinder & Bostic St Clair 2001 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  21. ^ Beck, C.E., & Beck E.A., "Test of the Eye-Movement Hypothesis of Neurolinguistic Programming: A Rebuttal of Conclusions" Perceptual and Motor Skills, 1984, Vol. 58, p 175-176 doi:10.2466/PMS.58.1.175-176
  22. ^ Gelso and Fassinger (1990) "Counseling Psychology: Theory and Research on Interventions" Annual Review of Psychology doi:10.1146/annurev.ps.41.020190.002035
  23. ^ a b c Beyerstein, B. 'Distinguishing Science from Pseudoscience', Centre for Professional and Curriculum Development, Dept. Psychology, Simon Fraser University.
  24. ^ See also Efran and Lukens (1990), claiming that "original interest in NLP turned to disillusionment after the research and now it is rarely even mentioned in psychotherapy"(p.122) -- Efran, J S. Lukens M.D. (1990) Language, structure, and change: frameworks of meaning in psychotherapy, Published by W.W. Norton, New York. ISBN 0393701034
  25. ^ Cite error: The named reference Devilly 2005 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

Comments

  • "Some NLP trainers and authors refer to NLP as a science or technology, yet there is little recent supporting research and much early research on "NLP" which found the premises lacking." What does the last bit of the sentence mean, i.e. what does 'premisses lacking' mean? Peter Damian (talk) 15:31, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
  • The current NLP and science section opens "At the time it was introduced, NLP was heralded as a breakthrough in therapy, and advertisements for training workshops, videos and books began to appear in trade magazines. The workshops provided certification. However, controlled studies shed such a poor light on the practice, and those promoting the intervention made such extreme and changeable claims that researchers began to question the wisdom of researching the area further.". That seems to sum up (for me) the main facts about NLP and science. If you think it doesnt, what facts should be added? What should be taken away? The most important facts about NLP (I think) are that if you Google the term, you get lots of advertisements for workshops. You can find many websites with extravagant claims. Yet (second main fact) none of these claims seem to be supported by scientific evidence or research. Peter Damian (talk) 15:34, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
  • I agree that the bulk of the empirical research that tested some NLP models and assumptions does not support NLP. The counter-argument is that the empirical research to date is insufficient to dismiss it. The testing methodology was not adequate. If you look beyond the studies that tested specific NLP techniques, there seems to be existing theory and empirical evidence from neuroscience, psycholinguistics and cognitive linguistics that would support NLP theory and practice. For example, it is difficult to argue that anchoring is not a form of classical conditioning. Secondly, non-verbal rapport (matching and mirroring) is supported by a number of empirical evidence (see the work on non-verbal rapport by Sharpley following his review of NLP which is partially consistent with NLP model of rapport, e.g. [13], see also : Sharpley, C. F., Halat, J., Rabinowicz, T., Weiland, B., & Stafford, J. (2001). Standard posture, postural mirroring and client-perceived rapport Counselling Psychology Quarterly Vol 14(4) Dec 2001, 267-280. doi:10.1080/09515070110088843). Submodalities have found their way into psychology (under a different name). Furthermore, recent priming and lexical decision empirical work in psycholinguistics appear to support the Milton model in terms of ambiguity, isomorphic metaphor, etc. Much of NLP has found its way into psychology and has been tested in that context. Unfortunately, it is extremely difficult to make inferences about NLP from psychology, linguistics or neuroscience because they do not share the same epistemology. It would be a big job to translate it across. ----Action potential discuss contribs 07:09, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

NLP and science

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

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

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

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

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

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

Norcross et al.

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

Secret CIA program

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

Rewind technique

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

Prevalence/popularity/demographics of NLP

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

  • "It is estimated that over a million people have to date done some training in NLP."[14]
  • In a review of the coaching industry in Australia, 13% of respondents reported that they had been trained in NLP. -- Spence, GB., Cavanagh, MJ., & Grant, AM., Duty of care in an unregulated industry: Initial findings on the diversity and practices of Australian coaches International Coaching Psychology Review 1, 71-85.
  • NLP "has achieved widespread popularity as a method for communication and personal development, and is a recognized mode of psychotherapy in the UK. It is also being applied widely, if often informally, in UK education. To date, however, the academic community has shown little interest."
  • "While it is claimed that NLP has a use in almost any area of human activity which involves communication and concern with high performance, in business it has proved very popular as a means to improve and enhance communication, to build rapport and set goals for dealing with 'difficult people. Initially NLP was very popular with sales staff and acquired a reputation for helping them close deals. Similarity, it has been used with information technology trainers and subsequently spread among HRD profession and line and project managers as a useful instrument in the repertoire of influencing skills. It has been particularly popular with large organizations engaged in culture and value change."(p.127) Diana Winstanley & Jean Woodall (2000) Ethical issues in contemporary human resource management. Palgrave Macmillan.
  • Carter, T. (2001) Despite its detraction, NLP gains popularity. ABA Journal 87(9), 63.

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

I would support figures on number trained if they can be objectively verified and there is some balance with number practicing. The problem is getting balance here, I can find similar quotes to those above for virtually all management fads. Many people are serial adopters, being trained in each new idea in turn. A lot of NLP people have ended up in SPiral Dynamics and the whole Integral nonsense for example. --Snowded TALK 02:30, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Unfortunately there does not seem to be much in the way of objectively verified statistics on its prevalence. In the absence of this data to what extent can we rely on published expert opinion? ----Action potential discuss contribs 14:07, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Depends a bit on the expert - a general phrase in a management book is dubious ... --Snowded TALK 14:20, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
This quote from Kremmer is still quite general but I think the Scientific American is somewhat reliable. In the absence of objective figures I think we need to accept this at face value as long as it is balanced. Kremmer (2005) says that 'NLP has become very popular among management and performance consultants, including "mental coaches" who advise everyone from business executives to athletes on skills ranging from public speaking to visualizing victory during competition.'Scientific American: Psychotherapy Lite by Kremmer I cannot find any specific numbers to back it up (except for that survey of the coaching industry in Australia by A. Grant). I don't know of any reliable sources reporting that NLP has decreased in popularity. ----Action potential discuss contribs 00:18, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
IT could be used, and balanced with this from the same article: Some practitioners are accused of overestimating both the effects and the utility of these exercises. Purveyors who have a superficial outlook tout NLP as a panacea for all kinds of problems. NLP's respected proponents are more selective, of course, but even they have little scientific explanation for why the techniques supposedly work. In contrast to long-standing, proved approaches, such as behavioral or talk therapy, just a few isolated peer-reviewed studies have explored NLP's effectiveness, and these have found evidence only of very limited effects.--Snowded TALK 05:24, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
That quote would be ok too. Actually that article is quite good because it is both accessible and informative. It'd be great to have some verified numbers though. ----Action potential discuss contribs 08:14, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

recent revision to "NLP and Science" section

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

"Claim"

Re [15]:

The article currently opens in the following way:

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

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

Agree its problematic, especially with any pseudo-science. There has been a general problem with the article in that claims have been presented as facts. If you look at the current lede its not wildly accurate anyway. If we said that NLP was a popular movement based on a model, of something similar it would be better. --Snowded TALK 22:45, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
That sounds fine to me, and I've had a go at it here. Cosmic Latte (talk) 22:56, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
I reverted the opening sentence which described NLP as a popular movement in psychotherapy. The second part of the OED definition implies that there are at least two views. Psychotherapy is just one application of NLP. Overuse of 'claim' can be avoided if we include the various points of view. Its not easy because psychologists evaluating NLP have incorrectly characterized NLP as a "form of psychotherapy" and evaluated it within the framework of traditional counseling. Psychotherapy is just one application of the system or approach to learning, communication and change. I'm glad to see some discussion and work on the article. ----Action potential discuss contribs 00:21, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
I'm afraid that adding that NLP is a movement within psychotherapy is opinion. I'm not denying that it is sometimes described as a approach or adjunct to psychotherapy but it is more often described as a communication approach. ----Action potential discuss contribs 22:52, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
The article as a whole covers the wider use of NLP as a management approach (where to be honest it is far better known than in psychotherapy). I am happy to remove "claim", but the lede needs to reflect the whole article not just repeat one definition albeit from the OED. --Snowded TALK 06:02, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

recent changes

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

I don't have time to go through all those changes this morning, but will do so this evening. Given the prior history of this article in which you have made changes sympathetic to an approach in which you have had or have a commercial interest I was tempted to simply revert and ask you to follow good practice on controversial articles discussing your changes here first. However a quick glance says you have not substantially changed content, just moved things around so I have left it for the moment. I have however changed the lede per above comments. Last night I applied WP:BRD returning the article to its state before the recent changes to allow discussion to take place. You have chosen to revert that now three times. In the spirit of compromise I have made an amendment to ensure the lede summarises the article as a whole. --Snowded TALK 06:12, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
I understand if you want to revert to previous version, I was perhaps a little too bold in the changes I made today. I should have discussed it in more depth here first and attempted to reach some sort of consensus. My aim was to remove the unnecessary detail and move some content into more appropriate subheadings. The history section was unwieldy and a more sustained discussion can be put under the subheadings that I proposed. Can you please look more closely at the article as I left it to get a better idea of what I was aiming for? I hope that we can avoid the revert and work towards improving the article together. ----Action potential discuss contribs 11:45, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Neuro-linguistic_programming/Archive_16&oldid=1136251810"