Talk:Neuro-linguistic programming/Archive 27

Archive 20

←

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

Semi-protected edit request on 17 October 2018

Can you change the following text: "There is no scientific evidence supporting the claims made by NLP advocates and it has been discredited as a pseudoscience by experts" TO "There is some scientific evidence supporting the claims made by NLP advocates, (see: http://www.nlp.de/cgi-bin/research/nlp-rdb.cgi) and expert psychologists are ambivalent in their assessment of NLP as they are of many modalities"

My reasons for asking for this is I am a professional chartered psychologist who has been practicing in the UK and using NLP for 25 years. I have written my own academic text on NLP: (The theory and practice of NLP coaching, 2013, (Sage) and numerous academic articles which can be viewed by going to the above web link. Wake et al (2013) have also produced a responsible academic text demonstrating the evidence base for NLP in the context of psychotherapy. Wake, L., Gray, R. M and Bourke, F. S. (2013). The Clinical Effectiveness of Neuro-linguistic Programming. A critical appraisal. Ed. London and New York: Routledge. NLP has in fact produced both RCT's and Meta-analysis, which can be accessed at the above web link and it is simply not true to say there is no scientific evidence supporting the claims made by NLP advocates, there are. Also it is not true that NLP has been discredited by experts. Some psychologists have written in an unfavourable way concerning NLP, but NLP has not been discredited scientifically. Little evidence for, is very different from evidence against. Thank you and kind regards. Dr Bruce Grimley Brucegrimley (talk) 20:25, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

I am not persuaded. -Roxy, in the middle. wooF 20:32, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

OK, I understand. But here are 2 RCT's related to NLP. Surely even 2 are enough to suggest the wording "No scientific evidence" is wrong. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/272743688_Raising_maths_attainment_through_enhanced_pedagogy_and_communication_Results_from_a_'teacher-level'_randomised_controlled_trial_An_NLP_related_study

http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0091217417703285?journalCode=ijpb

Thank you.Brucegrimley (talk) 21:05, 17 October 2018 (UTC)--Brucegrimley (talk) 21:05, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

We've been through this before and we've been through the third party sources that have evaluated it, rather than reports by practitioners. -----Snowded ^TALK 22:14, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

    I know this will probably get deleted because I don't sign in but whatever. Source 10 (the social work handbook) seems to be primarily based on source 11 (not a good look). Source 11 (Sharpley, 1987, p. 103-107) summarises other studies (which themselves tend to have mixed or inconclusive results) attempting to disprove PRS. Now I don't have any stake in this and personally I don't think very highly of the whole PRS categorisation thing (in case anyone is unfamiliar this involves categorising people as 'visual' 'auditory' or 'kinesthetic') but this is not NLP in it's entirety. Sharpley's - well it's not really a meta analysis - is poorly written; indeed the fact that so many of the studies criticising NLP involve self-reporting is poor scholarship in on the part of the authors summarised. The pseudoscience claim needs to be backed up by much better evidence or changed. Finally, simply writing 'experts' as the origin of the claim is a transparent appeal to authority - by the way Sharpley was employed by the faculty of Education at Monash at the time - not exactly an expert.
     Now I'm not out to defend NLP, it is simply that this article does itself a disservice by labeling NLP pseudoscience on the strength of what is essentially one piece of very mediocre evidence. I'm just a guy who got vaguely interested in hypnotism after hearing Derren Brown on Sam Harris' podcast (I'm not really a fan though I can't stand the cult that seems to have sprung up around him) and ended up here. If this isn't changed or better supported then you will just get more people like me arriving on this page and thinking "Huh? This looks like a hit-piece" - because right now that's what it looks like. 144.48.37.100 (talk) 10:01, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made.  Spintendo  21:24, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Neutral point of view

Wikipedia's standard for articles is a neutral point of view. The author, unfortunately, establishes a bias against neuro-linguistic programming from the second sentence. Of all the photos available of Bandler, the most unflattering was chosen. I am not a proponent of NLP, I am just beginning my research of the subject. However, I suggest that the article be deleted until someone without clear bias can appropriately address the topic. Kestreljc (talk) 13:12, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Article has multiple authors and uses referenced material If you have candidates for better phots propose them -----Snowded ^TALK 13:26, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

You have no idea at all about NPOV. The article is perfectly fine, and will most certainly not be deleted. ReadWP:NPOV to learn about our approach to neutrality and the mainstream scientific approach. Roxy, the dog. wooF 13:32, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation pointless

Disambiguation "Not to be confused with Erhard Seminars Training (EST)." Why is this even here? There are no connections between the subject matters other than two (different) three letter abbreviations. Neither topic has shared roots documented anywhere on Wikipedia beyond links with the 'Human Potential Movement'. Not to be confused with British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) would be equally inappropriate despite both topics being concerned with communication. Please consider removing this disambiguation as it serves no useful purpose.92.19.38.175 (talk) 08:08, 17 April 2019 (UTC) steve

done -----Snowded ^TALK 08:38, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation pointless

Disambiguation "Not to be confused with Erhard Seminars Training (EST)." Why is this even here? There are no connections between the subject matters other than two (different) three letter abbreviations. Neither topic has shared roots documented anywhere on Wikipedia beyond links with the 'Human Potential Movement'. Not to be confused with British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) would be equally inappropriate despite both topics being concerned with communication. Please consider removing this disambiguation as it serves no useful purpose.92.19.38.175 (talk) 08:08, 17 April 2019 (UTC) steve

done -----Snowded ^TALK 08:38, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 April 2019

Citation number 5 is supposed to provide a source for the statement that NLP can treat near-sightedness, but does no such thjng. Instead, it references a creator of NLP who is discussing how he used HYPNOTHERAPY - NOT neuro-linguistic programming- to treat nearsightedness. NLP therapy and hypnotherapy are not the same practice. 69.146.189.251 (talk) 18:09, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. DannyS712 (talk) 02:38, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Citation needed for describing NLP as pseudoscience?

Just pointing out that a citation for describing something as a pseudoscience is a little odd.

By definition, a pseudoscience has no proof.

Anyone else care to comment? Ambitus (talk) 13:29, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

By definition, pseudoscience masquerades as science, making unfalsifiable claims not supported by repeatable research whose validity is recognized by cognizant workers in closely related fields. For Wikipedia to characterize something as pseudoscience, reliable sources need to be shown. Such sources are cited in the body of this article, so there is no need to cite them in the lead section. Just plain Bill (talk) 14:13, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Reverted edit to remove pseudoscience in lead

I’ve reverted an edit removing pseudoscience, which is described as being “opinionated”. It’s not a matter of opinion, it’s a matter of fact. Many other articles relating to pseudoscience have it stated in the lead, this should be no different. Ambitus (talk) 07:27, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

"I’ve reverted an edit removing pseudoscience". May I just say "no you didn't I did." I thought that you were complaining about it!!! -Roxy, the dog. wooF 07:54, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Hah hah Roxy! I reverted the edit to your previous edit, so I guess that’s why your name shows up :) Ambitus (talk) 08:05, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

I think we only need to say it once in the lede. Less is more. Alexbrn (talk) 08:47, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

It was only once in the lead Ambitus (talk) 13:52, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

It was only once in the lead Ambitus (talk) 13:52, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 December 2019

CHANGE UNDER CRITICISM AND EFFICACY Neurolinguistic programming is also known as neurolinguistic psychotherapy. A plethora of studies confirms the effectiveness of NLP; however, scepticism remains evident. Neurolinguistic programming psychotherapy(NLPt) aims to determine patient’s patterns and change their response’s to stimuli in order to help them regulate their environment and themselves more effectively. NLPt attempts to achieve goals, improve relationships, eliminate fears, build self-image and worth, and for the patient to do their best. NLPt originated as NLP in the 1970s. NLPt is derived from neurobiological, systematic and metatheoretical foundations. NLPt deducts from NLP’s techniques. There is evidence of NLPt helping in some cases, but also there is evidence where NLPt was not beneficial. NLPt’s use for patients with psychological challenges and low perceived quality of life was effective as an intervention, improving both of these deficits significantly. Among claustrophobic patients who had to undergo MRI, NLPt was effective in decreasing the need for general anaesthesia and therefore it can be concluded as an effective intervention for this group. NLPt was shown to impact the allergic immune function in birch pollen allergic humans and these patients experienced significant improvement in all psychological symptoms.<references/Zaharia, Cătălin, et al. “EVIDENCE-BASED NEURO LINGUISTIC PSYCHOTHERAPY: A META-ANALYSIS.” Psychiatria Danubina, vol. 27, no. 4, 2015, pp. 355–363.> NLPt administered to those with anxiety for public speaking as a single session treatment for phobias, in comparison to an intervention of self-control desensitization for the same amount of time or a waiting-list control condition (other psychotherapeutic interventions), was less efficient in decreasing anxiety. Additionally, the seemingly rapid effectiveness of NLP may have been a product of changes that may have occurred without the interventions provided, therefore the efficacy of NLPt decreasing different social and/or psychological problems remains unclear. There is evidence to support the positive effects of NLPt however further study is necessary to corroborate such a claim due to small sample sizes of previous studies.<references/Sturt, Jackie, et al. “Neurolinguistic Programming: a Systematic Review of the Effects on Health Outcomes.” British Journal of General Practice, vol. 62, no. 604, 2012, doi:10.3399/bjgp12x658287.> NLP suffers seven critical challenges, which results scepticism in its efficacy. They are as followed: NLP’s pragmatic, anti-theoretical stance, its eclecticism and lack of theoretical coherence, its weak linkage to contemporary academic work in relevant fields, the belief that there is research evidence refuting NLP, an unclear evidence base for NLP and a lack of evaluation of its practices, ethical concerns about the way NLP is used in practice, and a lack of reflexive critique of NLP’s discourse and social practices. NLP’s pragmatic, anti-theoretical stance has been a criticism of it because the founders of NLP held an explicitly anti-theoretical, pragmatic stance, however there are theoretical skills, classroom management, teaching design that are integral to NLP. For example, the core language model of NLP which is called the meta-model is made up of a set of verbal patterns with corresponding forms of question that evoke exploration of learners’ mental constructs. This meta-model provides a framework that enables the intervener to inquire the patient effectively. In addition, NLP takes into account non-verbal communication, which can improve the intervener’s observations of the patient. NLP’s eclecticism and lack of theoretical coherence is due to its contents and practices drawing upon diverse fields such as behavioural psychology, cybernetics, cognitive psychology, the Palo Alto school of brief therapy, and Chomsky’s transformational linguistics. NLP’s weak linkage to contemporary academic work in relevant fields is due to a need for more explicit evidence. There is a lack of academic research of NLP, it is lacking empirical support. It has been concerned that NLP may be manipulative, therefore warrants ethical concerns. <references/ Tosey, Paul, and Jane Mathison. “Neuro‐Linguistic Programming as an Innovation in Education and Teaching.” Innovations in Education and Teaching International, vol. 47, no. 3, 2010, pp. 317–326., doi:10.1080/14703297.2010.498183.> 99.25.73.78 (talk) 01:19, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

 Not done Please only use this template after consensus has been established for an edit, per the template usage instructions. Alexbrn (talk) 01:21, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Removing Stephen Briers' Provocative Metaphor

Under the Psychotherapeutic subheading of "Applications" subsection, Stephen Briers was quoted saying "NLP's reframe casts us into the role of a widower avoiding the pain of grief by leap-frogging into a rebound relationship with a younger woman, never pausing to say a proper goodbye to his dead wife." While a colorful and vivid metaphor, it's too sensational and provocative, not worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedic article. It's also unnecessary within the larger, more substantive quotes criticizing "the NLP maxim—a presupposition in NLP jargon—'there is no failure, only feedback'". This is mae clear in the abstract without referencing such an unseemly metaphor. Cuvtixo (talk) 17:43, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 June 2020

As a practitioner of NLP for 20 years, with many successful client change efforts, I do not dispute the research cited but I do dispute the use of "pseudoscience". NLP has never claimed to be a science but rather a "process-driven" approach to change. Thus, I request the following change of the first sentence: Neuro-linguistic programming is a process-driven approach to change through communication, personal development, and psychotherapy created by Richard Bandler and John Grinder in California, United States, in the 1970s. 98.114.91.21 (talk) 12:25, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

We just report the mainstream view, as noted in reliable sources, so we wont be changing on the say so of a practitioner. -Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 12:27, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Adjust page?

https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1988-01-29-mn-26470-story.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jojothedogboy (talk • contribs) 19:34, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

articles on popular nlp books

Frogs into princes has been cited over 1500 times on Google scholar and sold more than [ https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/03069885.2019.1622075 270,000 copies]. The Structure of Magic as over 1300 cites. Patterns of the hypnotic techniques of Milton H. Erickson 1&2 has over 1000 cites combined. We've got an article on Psychology Gone Wrong: The Dark Sides of Science and Therapy - it only has 13 citations which criticises some of these books. There is a quote from Weitzenhoffer which criticises Patterns 1&2 but there is no context. Similarly the quote attributed to Stollznow about the book "Frogs into princes" also has no context and completely dismisses it as pseudoscience without further discussion. A quick scan of the 1500 citations shows that most of the discussion of the book takes it seriously. There are many academic articles and reputable authors who at least took it seriously at some point. Quotes of language patterns that Bandler and Grinder extracted from Milton Erickson's video transcripts would give context. You can use some short video or audio snippets under fair use as well. In terms of changes, I think you should some quotes and perhaps audio or video from Bandler and/or Grinder demonstrating the use of language patterns they claim to have extracted (modeled) from Milton Erickson, Virginia Satir, and/or Fritz Perls. --Croech (talk) 03:32, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

We don't write essays based on primary sources here - we use third party material. I don't think (from my reading) that other than a rather narrow compass of practitioners it is take than seriously in main stream academia -----Snowded ^TALK 05:52, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

NLP coaching

There was a special issue on 'NLP Coaching' in last year's International Coaching Psychology Review Volume 14 No. 1. These articles provide historical context from the point of view of psychology and coaching practitioners on the development of the personal and executive coaching industries currently missing from this article. --Croech (talk) 05:07, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

If you check the names of the authors they seem to be NLP practitioners - again not third party -----Snowded ^TALK 05:55, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

I wouldn't be so hasty. As far as I can tell, all the authors have PhDs in psychology and professional registration in psychology. Lisa de Rijk (PhD in Psychology from Surrey University), Lucas A.C. Derks (psychologist), Bruce Grimley (PhD Clinical Psychology) and Jaap Hollander (Psychologist?). I have no doubt they are trained and use NLP. The titles "The evidence for NLP" and "The need for neuro-linguistic programming to develop greater construct validity" seem serious enough. Anthony M. Grant (Coaching Psychology), Jonathan Passmore (Coaching Psychology) and Tatiana Rowson (Business and Coaching Psychology) are proponents of using evidence-based practice in coaching. You're probably aware of the grass wars in psychology over executive and personal coaching. Passmore is far more critical than the others. --Croech (talk) 08:03, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

If you check the archives you will see prior discussions on the neutrality of the Surrey NLP group. I can't see any proposal here for a change anyway -----Snowded ^TALK 10:00, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't think the prior discussions of Surrey group (Lisa de Rijk was formerly Lisa Wake) in the archives are going to help much as those discussions occurred years before that special issue on NLP Coaching. All the papers in that issue were submitted using a blind process to try to minimise bias. The editor of the special issue, Passmore (who is a strong critic of NLP) says "NLP is one of the four most popular coaching approaches, along with behavioural (GROW), solution focused, and cognitive behavioural coaching across most of Europe, according to a large scale survey of 3000 coaches from 50 European countries undertaken in 2017 (Passmore, Brown & Csigas, 2017). However its validity as a tool for behavioural change is widely challenged. In this issue we called for papers making the case for NLP Coaching and papers adopt a more critical stance. In this way we hope to deepen your understanding of NLP, and what role it may play in evidenced based coaching psychology." That survey cited by Passmore might be worth citing in the article somewhere when you're discussing reception and popularity. Is there a reason why NLP Coaching is not in the current article? --Croech (talk) 11:35, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

If you think there is a case propose a change - but it will need third party sourcing -----Snowded ^TALK 16:50, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 March 2021

There has been extensive recent testing of NLO for successful treatment of PTSD in the military which hasn’t been represented here. For further information please see: http://www.researchandrecognition.org/pdf/Traumatology.pdf 203.118.175.156 (talk) 23:12, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

 Not done. Extensive? Your paper says "NLP has generated a great deal of anecdotal evidence of effectiveness but has undergone little empirical testing." Also see WP:MEDRS. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 00:31, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

This statement under "As a quasi-religion" appears to be more about promoting Christianity and less about critiquing NLP specifically

Bovbjerg's secular critique of NLP is echoed in the conservative Christian perspective of the New Age as represented by Jeremiah (1995)[116] who argues that, "[t]he 'transformation' recommended by the founders and leaders of these business seminars [such as NLP] has spiritual implications that a non-Christian or new believer may not recognise. The belief that human beings can change themselves by calling upon the power (or god) within or their own infinite human potential is a contradiction of the Christian view. The Bible says man is a sinner and is saved by God's grace alone.

Its not clear to me why this paragraph is present in this article except to promote Christianity given that it does not specifically critique NLP. It could just as easily be applied to psychology, mindfulness, or life coaching. I could quote a number of other non-Christian religious traditions that are complementary or contradictory to NLP or this perspective.

Proposal to expand "Techniques or set of practices" section

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

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

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

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

References

Problems with this article's introduction

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Semi-protected edit request on 2 February 2022

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• What I think should be changed:

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

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

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

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Complete quotation from Sturt et al

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

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

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

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

Is NLP Pseudoscience

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

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

There are at least three other things wrong with this:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Semi-protected edit request on 29 May 2023

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

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

Tony Robbins

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

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

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

Biased article alert

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Intellectual property disputes" section seems poorly sourced

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

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

Not to be confused with...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Section on Persuasion ?

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

Wikipedia:Pending changes

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

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

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

Extremely biased introduction

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

More on this

WP:POV

WP:OR

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

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

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

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

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

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

Which is not a psychological association.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I said a few studies too.

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

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

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

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

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

Proposed Change to "Psychotherapeutic" Section / Scientific Criticisms

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

corrections: Satir, Perls

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

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