Mathnet and Talk:Neuro-linguistic programming: Difference between pages

Archive #1 - Pre-October 2005

Research Questions

Outcome based research

Have any of you found any outcome-based research papers on NLP? I've only found one, but surely there must be more. I'm also looking for a good review of outcome-based vs experimental research. This article is general: http://www.scienceboard.net/community/perspectives.87.html Thanks. GregA

US National Committee

The US National Committee was asked in 1984 to judge the various techniques, and they used 14 different judges in order to do so. A review of research showed that NLP is scientifically unsupported (Heap 1988).

The 1988 US National Committee report then reported that "Individually, and as a group, these studies fail to provide an empirical base of support for NLP assumptions...or NLP effectiveness.

Hello all. Were there 2 National committees? Or was the 84 committee reported in 88 by Heap? or is there something I'm missing?

Also could anyone tell me what it was a committee for? eg "National Committee of Psychologists" etc. Thanks GregA 23:21, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

This is a little info - an Army committee anyway - http://books.nap.edu/books/0309037921/html/248.html

Actually... the national research council. The whole book is online at that link. GregA 23:33, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

PRS historic or current?

Do you happen to know of any current sources regarding NLP groups using PRS, or is it historical?

Thanks again GregA 10:58, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

This is also, I guess, in reference to what I was taught was a myth - the comment that "I'm a visual" etc GregA 23:21, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Hi Greg. Just take a look at recent NLP books. Still the same old shifty eye diagram. Also, the research conducted on PRS used specifically callibrated prs, rather than just the simplistic version (even though BnG did the research on that simple one).HeadleyDown 03:02, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

GregA, H.Down, Dilts & Delozier (2000) says that William James, the founder of psychology, was the first to note Primary Representation Primacy in Principles of Psychology (1890) [1]. As far as I am aware PRS is no longer taught in psychology or NLP. --Comaze 07:04, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

In psychology, the research generally shows that the rep styles makes no difference in learning contexts. It certainly makes no difference in communication. I can't think of an NLP book that does not teach PRS, even the recent editions.HeadleyDown 15:36, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Hi Headley.

I wasn't asking about eye accessing cues. I was asking about PRS. I just haven't heard PRS taught the way it was studied. Perhaps the NLP trainers and writers listened to early research, perhaps it was never taught that way, or perhaps I just did a good training.

So do you happen to know any current sources in NLP that teach the PRS (not eye-accessing cues) - and if so do they teach it similar to how it has been studied or not?

Hi GregA. Just take a look in the appendices of each book. For example, Andy Bradbury's book has PRS there, and the diagrams similar to the one shown here. So, yes, people are teaching PRS and its alleged implications throughout all the literature.RegardsHeadleyDown 01:11, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Let me know if you don't know the difference between the 2.

Oh by the way, "Dilts & Epstein (1995) Dynamic Learning" found correlations between deliberately using visual eye cues and increased spelling ability.

GregA 21:36, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Headley - what on earth was the point of this misinformation?

1. I do not refer in my book, nor have I ever - as far as I recall, I could be wrong - referred to PRSs. I call them PTSs, primary thinking styles. Likewise there is no eye accessing cues chart in the appendix of my book - the illustrations are distributed throughout Chapter 15. None of which would matter much in itself EXCEPT THAT it suggests that you are quoting me without having read the material you are quoting.

Oh, I do beg your pardon. Not that I have quoted your work in the article or anything, but yes you are talking about PTS. The charts in the book I see are actually in chpt 14 though. As far as I am concerned, it is just as simplistic, and just as psuedoscientific. Other people may have a different view. I understand that the books are written in fairly unequivocal terms, but there are always qualifiers after the fact. And after the negative results of research, there are always excuses from NLP promoters. Like I said, that is pseudoscientific thinking. I can represent that if you like.HeadleyDown 14:09, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

2. That is relatively minor, however, compared to the fact that you misrepresent what I say about PTSs:

"Before we move on, it is important to note that our PTSs are not set in concrete. On the contrary, they tend to be dictated by whatever our current situation may be - at home, at work, with strangers, and so on. Depending on the context people can, and frequently do, shift between PTSs as quickly as a conversation changes direction. Chefs, for example, will often go from a visual PTS when talking about food, to a kinesthetic/olfactory/gustatory PTS when they are actually sampling any kind of food. This means that we need to be sensitive to ay such shifts (a process called 'calibrating' in NLP) in order to stay in tune/spot the changes/keep up with the person or people we're communicating with."

Although I am quoting from my own book, this is a commonly understood point amongst NLPers and reflects John Grinder's comment, made several years ago, that to be really effective calibrating should be carried out at least every 30 seconds.
I'm sure you will recognise that the quote also supports GregA's point.
Andy 12:16, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

The Gordian Knot

With the greatest respect to all concerned, this entire discussion is based on a very basic misunderstanding. Once we recognise the misunderstanding the entire problem is resolved. Monstrous claim? See for yourself:

The disputed versions of the entry for Neuro-linguistic Programming, and virtually all of this discussion, are about TECHNIQUES (eye accessing cues, fast phobia cure, etc., etc.) and their VALIDITY and their APPLICATION.

BUT

THAT is NOT NLP.
NLP is not a collective noun, as so many contributors to this discussion seem to think.
NLP, as explicitly defined by John Grinder, and implicitly defined in Richard Bandler's epigram:

"NLP is an attitude and a methodology that leaves behind a trail of techniques."

Is nothing more than the "modeling" of a person who has a particular skill or ability in such a way that the essential elements of that skill or ability can be identified and used by the modeler and/or and taught to others. These "elements" may include any or all of the following:

Vocal characteristics
Beliefs
Values
Behaviours
Language patterns
and so on.

The "attitude" that Bandler spoke of is the view or belief that this modeling and teaching process is possible.

That's IT.
Whilst other people might chose slightly different words and phrases, THAT is the whole basic definition of NLP.

Everything else is, as Bandler indicated, techniques which are to varying degrees useful tools for use in the modeling process. Not one single technique is an indispensable element of NLP itself. Which is why the contents of the "toolbox" are regularly subject to modification.
Virtually all of this discussion actually ignores NLP and concentrates instead on the techniques, what people say about them, and how people use them.

So, whilst any particular technique may or may not be valid, scientifically verifiable, ethically acceptable, etc., that has no bearing on Neuro-Linguistic Programming itself. Nor do the various theories of what works, how it works, or how people apply the various techniques.
Likewise the question of a relationship between NLP and Scientology is a red herring, because Scientology has nothing to do with MODELING. Nor does est, or the Landmark Forum.
The question of "pseudo science" is a red herring, because no one is claiming that NLP modeling is an exact science.
Tony Robbins, Michael Hall, etc. are red herrings, because each has his or her own set of techniques, which they apply according to their own agenda. But Tony Robbins et al, their techniques, their style of presentation, nor practices such as fire walking, don't have anything to do with NLP itself. [ Unless you happen to be modeling a fire walker, of course ;-) ]

Likewise claims like "NLP can be used for indoctrination" are red herrings.
Taking that specific claim, NLP can certainly be used to MODEL indoctrination techniques, and various techniques which have featured at one time or another in the NLP "toolbox" might be used for indoctrination. BUT the techniques are not NLP, and NLP itself cannot be used for indoctrination.

If I may use a simile, the techniques associated with NLP are like the proverbial icing: not only are they ON the cake (rather than IN it), but all too often they OBSCURE the actual cake from view.

In fact, if every single technique currently associated with NLP in the minds of those both inside and outside the NLP community could be invalidated, that STILL would NOT invalidate NLP.

The ONLY way that NLP itself could be invalidated is if someone could invalidate one or more of these propositions:

1. The elements that enable one person to be more skilled at a given task than their peers can be modeled
2. Having been modeled, the elements that enable one person to be more skilled at a given task than their peers can be taught to others
3. Having been taught the elements that enable one person to be more skilled at a given task than their peers, a person who has the *necessary pre-requisites, and who is willing to adopt those elements in their entirety into their own beliefs, values, behaviour, etc., will be able to replicate the skill or ability of the original exemplar.

• "necessary pre-requites" - it is unrealistic to suppose that a person who is severely overweight will be able to replicate the performance of, say, an Olympic-standard hurdler, no matter how detailed and accurate a model of the hurdler's skill and ability they may have.

So, simply cut out everything that is about the techniques and see what you have left. Not a lot!

This is not a suggestion to "ignore the difficult bits," BTW.
Individual techniques could each be assigned its own entry - allowing far more focused discussions of each topic.

(Sorry about the repeated posting, but my broadband link is shaky and could fall over at any moment.)

No problem. I understand you wish to promote NLP. Unfortunately for you, that is not how Wikipedia works. The goal here is to represent NLP in the way that reflects people's views in a neutral and balanced way according to NPOV. OK, NLP is a fringe subject, so proponents are going to be in the minority already. It also tends to cloud people's perception and cause a lot of evangelical and zealous behaviour, hence the continued hype. So we have scientific views that take NLP hypotheses (yes they are hypotheses for what works eg, you do this, and that happens, you model in this way, and such and such goes on etc), and these hypotheses are tested with certain results. Now, you are certainly taking the pseudoscientific view if you talk of your red herrings. Some people say that NLP is a therapy, and some say it is Tony Robbins walking on BBQs, and some say it is a social phenomenon that is often used to fool people into joining cults and cult followings of all kinds. Basically, you argument leads to the result that NLP is "an attitude that leaves a trail" or "the difference that makes the difference" or the "unfair advantage in selling". Basically, you are saying that NLP is just a sales line. How can that be neutral or encyclopedic?JPLogan 08:26, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

With all due respect, JPL, for someone banging on about "pseudoscience" your use of language is noticeably inaccurate.

To be specific - you do NOT “understand” anything of the kind. You either "assume" it, or you are claiming to understand it for some reason of your own. To clarify the matter, I do not "wish to promote NLP" on this site. I can do that quite adequately through my book which is translated into a number of languages and sells all around the world. In the present context my only interest is to bring some clarity to an unnecessarily convoluted discussion.

Your response does however serve a useful purpose - by illustrating my point that the discussion on this page is almost entirely based on misunderstanding. Because your response does nothing but confuse the WHAT with the HOW. I have set out very clearly the ONLY three propositions/hypotheses/whatever in the WHOLE of NLP - as stated by the originators.

This is entirely separate from all of the techniques - none of which is an unequivocal element in the NLP process and therefore does not belong in the definition of NLP. I say again – if you remove ALL of the techniques and applications from this discussion whatever is left is the “real” NLP. And all you would have left is some version of the three hypotheses I set out.

By the same token you are quite wrong in your statement that "...you model in this way, and such and such goes on etc." There isn’t even an "approved" way to carry out the modeling process. Grinder has one method, Gordon and Dawes have another described another in their new book, Dilts has another, etc., etc., etc. Again, you are ignoring the simple fact that the WHAT of NLP is separate from the HOW. The WHAT is NLP – the HOW is the TECHNIQUES. The WHAT doesn’t change, the HOW can change and do change.

As to "Some people say..." - was there ever such a blatant case of POV?

You write: "Basically, you are saying that NLP is just a sales line. How can that be neutral or encyclopedic?"

Well, that certainly epitomises the bulk of this discussion, I guess, since it is, again YOUR POV, incorrect, and poses a totally spurious question.

NLP was conceived as a field of investigation, a search for the answer to the question: "Is it possible to model 'successful' people in such a way that the bases of their success could be identified and utilised by others. In its origiinal form it was an academic project with no thought of "sales" was involved.
Now that might not be the NLP-slamming Wikipedia entry you would *perhaps* like to see, but it would be a great deal more accurate and useful than the vast majority of the emotive gobbledegook that forms the majority of this often ill-tempered "discussion".
And a lot more relevant to the people who actually USE Wikipedia as a source of information.

Sometimes, as Occam noticed, the SIMPLEST answer is also the most accurate - and the most useful.
Andy

And Now - the Threats

Hello Andy. I understand what you are saying, but this is an encyclopedia. The NPOV policy encourages all views within a certain framework. It is good that you admit to being pro-NLP. Fringe views also have a chance to be heard on Wikipedia. But if you simply want to behave like all the other pro-nlpers and delete facts regardless of validity, then you are in the wrong place. I am interested in keeping this article as harmonious as I can. There are also some very intolerant elements on wikipedia who have no time at all for spamming, hype or self promotion. Considering the relatively neutral state of the article, and the wholly negative press that some have decided to leave out, it is not advisable to provoke them.Regards203.186.238.231 15:51, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Dear 203.186.238.231

1. Has it not occurred to you that people are capable of being both "pro" something AND able to adopt a neutral position on it?

2. To this person - and those others who have so dishonestly implied or stated that I am interesting in promoting NLP in this discussion - I invite you to visit the FAQs page on my website where you will find a number of CRITICAL comments on the way NLP has been hyped, on the attempts to promote certain NLP techniques as though they were genuinely scientific, the misuse of certain techniques by people in the NLP community, etc., etc., etc.

3. I don't remember off hand when I've seen so many implied threats in such a short paragraph - and I especially appreciated that last one:

"it is not advisable to provoke them" BECAUSE?

Am I really supposed to believe that the discussion here is aimed at creating a genuinely NPOV article when threats like that are being bandied around?

Thank YOU - 203.186.238.231 - for making it so abundantly clear where you are coming from. "A Town Called Harmony," perhaps.

Andy 11:32, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi Andy, I agree in this article there is a great tendency to confuse the tool with what the tool is used for (so to speak). However, a few people have told me that some NLP trainings don't mention modeling - if so then we have to reflect what they are teaching and how that relates to NLP too. Notice the non-neutral language in the paragraph directly above this (by 203.186) - "you admit to being pro-NLP. Fringe views also have a chance to be heard". Nice presupposition that pro-NLP is a fringe view eh? It'd be nice to get rid of the language distortions used in this article, get rid of subtle implications and say things outright. GregA 21:28, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Cutting the Gordian Knot - NPOV

As a matter of interest, I have copied this paragraph from Wikipedia's own definition of NPOV.
It might be interesting to see what this discussion would look like if everyone involved chose to abide by it:

"Perhaps the easiest way to make your writing more encyclopedic is to write about what people believe, rather than what is so. If this strikes you as somehow subjectivist or collectivist or imperialist, then ask me about it, because I think that you are just mistaken. What people believe is a matter of objective fact, and we can present that quite easily from the neutral point of view."
(Bold type added by me for emphasis)

Andy

Hello Andy. So far the only NPOV policy I have ignored is the one that says - do not be scared of making any statements that other people find offensive or objectionable, even if objectively true. I avoided adding those statements so we could write this article without the constant reversions by NLP promoters towards a spammy psychobabbling and hype-riddled article (similar to the present alternative page). There are facts stated by various writers that seem to give NLP an extremely bad press and that I have left out. NPOV policy recommends that those statements be included. If you want me to work strictly with that policy, then just say the word.JPLogan 02:45, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

JPL - so long as you preface the comments with a qualifier such as "It has been claimed" or "Some people believe" AND you include a fair statement of the contrary point of view AND you give approximately equal space and weight to each - go ahead. I'm a great believer in telling the truth - we could certainly do with a whole lot more of it in this discussion.

BUT be sure you know what you are talking about.

If you continue to confuse the issue by failing to distinguish between the WHAT and the HOW - NLP and the techniques associated with NLP - then whatever you produce will be totally inaccurate and utterly worthless. And in the long run it will only serve to damage Wikipedia's reputation.

I am reminded of the last days of the resistance to the introduction of alternative or complimentary medicine into the NHS in Britain - hypnosis, acupuncture, etc.
The rhetoric from the resisters was of much the same quality and content that I've seen here - the demands for scientific validation, the objection to claims made, etc., etc.
They held things up a bit, but in the end it all came to nothing, and the "new" therapies were adopted anyway - though AFAIK no one has yet provided a sound scientific explanation for hypnosis, acupuncture, etc.
C'est la vie, mate - C'est la vie!
Andy 11:50, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi JPLogan. I would also be reluctant to use that particular NPOV policy here. A good deal of reliable info on NLP turns out to be quite negative. If you write in the stronger statements it just leads to frustration on the part of the promoters and they use any tactic they can to remove the statement. Plus it takes a huge amount of time to show promotional people on the discussion page the validity of such statements. Its up to you though.HeadleyDown 03:26, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi JP. What kinds of changes would you make to the other page? (We need to start that dialogue so we can start remerging the 2 versions - do something ourselves before more official sources get involved - and perhaps even avoid that).

Specifically, are there sections of the parallel page you do accept as NPOV? What do you think of the principles section?

(this version of yours seems to be reasonably stable, is that fair to say? We're still going.)

Proposed opening paragraph: comments please.

Neuro-linguistic programming (NLP) is often described as "the study of the structure of subjective experience" (Dilts, Grinder, Bandler, Delozier, 1979) or an epistemology, with the primary focus on human patterning.

NLP is broadly focused on

1. modeling how a high performer does what he/she does, and
2. processes for change and communication

NLP teaches multiple ways of gathering information from someone, through their language and non-verbal behaviors, to find the patterns of how someone does what he/she does (whether to model them or help them change). They also teach processes for influencing patterns of thought, state management, changing beliefs (O'Connor and McDermot 1996), examining intentions and values, changing habits, and exploring the consequences of choices (for self and others).

The first NLP models were effective psychotherapists - processes for change were modeled on what they did, which when replicated produced the desired change in clients. NLP patterns are often used in therapy and personal development fields.

If a client goes to an NLP practitioner, the practitioner will gather information about what the client wants and what's going on for them by listening to what they say, interacting verbally and non-verbally, and looking for patterns the client is not aware of. They will challenge elements that may not be useful, explore congruency and ecology, and use various processes to effect a change.

NLP is highly interdisciplinary (Grinder & Bandler, 1975a) (ch.1, Grinder & Bostic, 2001)

• Modeling someone effective can be done in any field (including therapy, sports, business, sales, physics).
• Communication and change processes can be used personally and in business, sales, coaching, therapy, and so on.

Rather than focus on the history (or cause) of a pattern, or whether a pattern is true, NLP asks whether the pattern is useful in the context. If the pattern is not useful - NLP questions how the pattern is done now and what can be done differently - not why the ineffective pattern was made originally.

There is also no central control of NLP, NLP modeling and processes can be applied in many fields, and practitioners have been encouraged to use what is effective. Today, there are different approaches to where NLP processes are applied and for what purpose, and often what one person calls NLP is different to what another person calls NLP. This difference is not just internal - external groups also approach and understand NLP from various perspectives, as does research on NLP processes. Criticisms of NLP range from NLP processes having no proven effect (and being a pseudoscience), to the unethical use of NLP change processes to manipulate people (including sales and seduction).

Comments

Hi Comaze. I believe you are jumping the gun to a certain extent. Take a look at NPOV on openings and summaries. Also, it is not quite up to the standard of the present article. It seems to be more of an argument that a supported or verifiable set of statements.HeadleyDown 02:48, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree that we need some more information on the NLP practitioner paragraph. Outside of that, can you give an example of what you think is not supported or verifiable? --Comaze 03:33, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi Comaze. What I mean is any statements that are written on the current article are generally well cited and can be verified. I have checked up on all the ones that I did not add (most of them) and they check out. Thre are a whole lot of assertions on the alternative page that seem to be unverifiable. A great deal of it looks to me to be argumentative. Also, the information about the Platt, and Druckheim studies looks to be made up by the editors. For example, there is an assertion that "better research is required". It needs a name and a date. If it was made before any further studies, then better research has already been supplied etc. There is a statement that no recent research review was conducted, however, Singer is 1997, Platt is 2001, Lilienfeld and Drenth are 2003. You also misrepresented the Einspruch & Forman (1985) study. It is a single criticism of Sharpley's (1984) prior study, and Sharpley re-assessed the review in a study in 1987 with an array of extra studies afterwards and came to an even more conclusive result that "research data do not support the rather extreme claims that proponents of NLP have made as to the validity of its principles or the novelty of its procedures. Basically, you will find that the reason Lilienfeld, Carroll, Bertelsen, Singer and all the other later researchers call NLP a pseudoscientific subject is because NLP fails to provide evidence for its claims.HeadleyDown 04:27, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi Headley! Finally a comment on these!

• The US army study found lack of evidence in PRS studies, except that using all rep. predicates improved communication, and was also interested in modeling. I've linked to the exact pages, take a look.
• Heap says that Einspruch is probably correct that the effectiveness of NLP has not been properly investigated (he can't comment past the time of publication, of course!). Removing that acknowledgement removes an important fact.
• Platt - Platt is not a research review. To start with, platt's article is not in a scientific journal, and he doesn't actually research any past studies. He quotes the lack of results from Heap and the army study, acknowledges the skeptics dictionary as a source, and then cites a website of abstracts of articles which he read through. When you do a review in Psych, abstracts don't cut it. His article also focus on PRS and not the rest of NLP. Is this the quality of review you are encouraging?
• Singer's book "crazy therapies" is hardly a scientific journal (In fact, I probably should not have placed most of the studies you cite under a heading of "peer-reviewed"... that's terribly misleading.)
• Lilienfield's book "Science and Pseudoscience in Clinical Psychology" is also not a review of NLP. It's a damning book on all psychotherapies and their lack of psychological research, including psychologists themselves - and to be neutral that has to be made clear.
• who else have you said... oh, Carroll - okay the "skeptics dictionary" is also not peer reviewed scientific journal.
• Bertelsen - ahh the article is in dutch or swedish and I haven't found an english translation. Have you got a link or even abstract? I see the name doesn't include "review" but you can tell me more.

The thing is, what some of these guys are saying can be true!. Unfortunately, the scientific research itself has not effectively tested NLP claims. And why the focus only on the PRS? Where are the studies on 6-step reframe or parts-negotiation? High performance states? meta-model (I've found a few individual studies supporting the meta-model).

I'm interested in your reply to the above. Do you endorse Platt as a scientific study? What about the rest? :)

Thanks, glad to see you talking about these GregA 05:00, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

PS... did you actually answer what you didn't agree to in the opening section, as requested by comaze? GregA 05:35, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

H.Down's objections to proposed first paragraph can be usefully be summarised below. We need to attempt to resolve these issues before moving on with the process. The most serious objection would be misrepresentation of Einspruch & Forman (1985), can someone (preferrably neutral) please check this.

1. assertions on the alternative page that seem to be unverifiable (which ones specifically?)
2. proposed first paragraph is "argumentative"
3. Platt, and Druckheim studies "looks to be made up" (see comments from GregA above).
4. "misrepresented" the Einspruch & Forman (1985) study
5. Lilienfeld, Carroll, Bertelsen, Singer and all the other later researchers "call NLP a pseudoscientific subject"

--Comaze 05:48, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Comaze, you say I said "Platt, and Druckheim studies "looks to be made up"".

Please note I say Platt is a summary of abstracts and quotes Heap & Skeptic dictionary, platt is real. As is Druckheim - just that I can't find the quote they gave from Druckheim, and found quotes far more NPOV - check out [2] and [3] GregA 07:40, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Hello Comaze. I also have objections to the alternative page. It seems to me to have a wholly promotional flavour and does not even vaguely adhere to NPOV policy. There may be some parts of it which are appropriate for the current article and I will take a good look. I will offer some advice though. You start the article with statements such as "rather than look at the cause of a pattern, and there is no central control of NLP, and people understand nlp from various perspectives etc. You are starting off with a pseudoscientific argument that will probably lead to the word "pseudoscientific" throughout the article.

JP, NLP does not look for the historical cause of the pattern (though it does look at what is happening now including triggers etc). NLP does have no central control. People do have different ideas of what NLP is. The common points lie in modeling and change processes. Are you saying we should not be clear about the way NLP is? None of these is listed by Lilienfeld as a pseudoscientific characteristic. GregA 07:40, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

You have other promotional and boosterist phrases such as "practitioners often explicitly formulate these as presup..etc".

I'm not clear on the problem here. Most trainings list the presuppositions explicitly. Can you elaborate? GregA 07:40, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

You also use phrases such as "but it is important to note that" etc. I really don't see any effort on your part to meet NPOV. The Occams razor section is really funny. Do you have an NLP source for that? You also seem to be adding lots of extraneous images that seem to be appropriate for articles other than that of NLP (eg, Tesla etc).

I agree largely here. I know some trainers have mentioned Occam's razor but I don't think it's common enough to put in - better to use something from modeling regarding necessary and sufficient elements of the pattern. I also don't like the images.GregA 07:40, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Greg, Ockham's Razor is an essential principle of NLP. I'm surprised that you have not been taught this in your training. This is used in NLP modeling, after unconscious uptake and when the criteria has been achieved then Ockham's Razor is used find the minimalist coding for the model. Examples include, TOTE, 4-tuple, etc., --Comaze 09:10, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Comaze, I've heard of Ockham's razor and the term was probably used in my training in exactly the manner you suggest - what you're calling 'minimalist coding' I'm calling "necessary and sufficient elements"... I just didn't use the term Ockham's razor. Also the principle is slightly different isn't it - rather than picking between 2 completely different alternatives, we're talking about 2 versions of the same alternative, where one is simpler than the other. Maybe I should read the def of Ockham's razor :) GregA 10:47, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

I stand corrected. "Another is a preference for the simplest subset of any given theory which accounts for the data.". Thanks.

Okay... I was looking for how Grinder describes the reduced representations of a pattern when modeling, and he uses the term elegance, and refers to Occam's Razor (Whispering, pg 55). The principle is a critical part of NLP patterns... I just think of it differently to "Occam's razor". GregA 12:30, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

FYI "Ockham" is, or was, a place in England. The guy with the shaving equipment was "Occam." Grinder does IMO hold to the principle of Occam's Razor in that he looks for the least complex version of a process which is effective. This was at the heart of Bandler and Grinder's original modeling technique - start with everything and see how much you can discard whilst still getting the required results.

Andy 14:35, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Occam's Razor (also spelled Ockham's Razor)... a nice quote from William of Ockham which is congruent with NLP (especially Grinder's) idea of elegance in NLP modeling...

Ockham's razor, which states that one should always opt for an explanation in terms of the fewest possible number of causes, factors, or variables. -- --Comaze 00:23, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi Andy. Do you think there's a better way of saying that (the least complex version of a process which is effective), that would be more reflective of NLP principles than "Given two equally predictive theories, choose the simpler"? GregA 13:57, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Your history section looks like a cover up. There are tons of extra claims that NLP people attach to NLP which are entirely spurious (turing machines, and plenty that are guaranteed under examination to give nlp a bad press (cybernetics, epistemology, and Farrelly and his amazingly brutal confrontation therapies). You argue that Bateson thinks energy is fuzzy etc, although that does not relate specifically to NLP. It looks like another spurious pseudosci argument.

Any field will have intellectual antecedents... just because Turing is respected doesn't make NLP respected - nor can problems with NLP reflect on Turing. LIkewise, NLP patterns can't be judged based on how a cult uses them. ANyway, I think we should cut this down to the basic antecedents personally.GregA 07:40, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

In short, you have tried your best to make a simple scientific statement (nlp is scientifically unsupported) into "we don't know and are trying to find out" (which is a nonsensical pseudo argument), and clearly demonstrating that nlp is pseudoscientific (I actually don't mind you doing that, but it will end up with the conclusion that NLP is pseudosci).

"we don't know and are trying to find out" is not a characteristic of a pseudoscience, is it?

Perhaps you are right though - NLP does have evidence - that is an integral part of the modelling process - and we haven't made that clear. What NLP doesn't have is psychologically researched evidence, there are moves to find out more.GregA 07:40, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

You have collected a whole bunch of NLP excuses and spurious hyperbole, and done very little work on researching an encyclopedic article. I will try to extract the least spurious arguments from the alternative page, and check if they actually are real sources, and if they are, make them NPOV and brief. When I have timeJPLogan 06:46, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Earlier I asked you to comment on the Principles page that your version has. The interpretations of what positive intention means has no basis, nor failure is feedback. Perhaps you can comment on that section and justify your versions take... or that could be a good one to start merging? GregA 07:40, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

No worries chaps. Considering the deletions that Comaze has predictably tried to make during the last few edits, not much damage has been done. I believe we can continue to edit slowly over the next few days. I also believe you are trying to make "scientifically unsupported" into "don't know", which in the light of scientific understanding is totally wrong. NLP is scientifically unsupported full stop! A lay term would be "doesn't work". I believe editors are being kind by being scientific. Unsupported is exactly right and that is the conclusion. I do have texts of other reviewers who explicitly conclude that it doesn't work. Unfortunately they are extremely damning to NLP. Lets try to merge things without the surreptitious deletions, ok?.HeadleyDown 11:36, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Hey comaze... why move "Modeling" before "principles"? In the parallel page it's after principles, Headley wants it after principles... lets leave it eh?

Headley - repeating something is different to justifying it. I asked several questions of you higher up in this section regarding the articles you cite as evidence for no-scientific support. I look forward to your response! :) GregA 12:16, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

GregA. In NLP, modeling comes before principles (modeling occurs first), and the principles or concepts (The intellectual backfilling) are found later. This quote from Grinder & Delozier, 1986, summarises my position on this matter, "The transforms of Bateson; the process tools of the 4-tuple, representation systems, synesthesia patterns, Meta-models of language: all are cornerstones in the exploration of this mapping between sense impression and concepts." (Grinder & Delozier, Turtles 1986). The general rule is... {get sense impressions (modeling) -> concepts} (not the other way around). --Comaze 00:23, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Ok I've summarised JPL's objections, let's cleanup these issue so we can get moving (my comments are in brackets)

1. overly promotional (which sections?)
2. does not adhere to NPOV
3. Questions source of Occam's Razor (NLP's metholodological reductionism)
4. Questions use of images (eg, Tesla etc).
5. JPL says, "Your history section looks like a cover up." (how specially is it a cover up?)
6. Says references to intellectual antecedants of NLP includeing turing machines, cybernetics, epistemology, and :Farrelly are spurious or will "give NLP a bad press".
7. Says that Bateson, Grinder & Bandler's intolerance of fuzzy kinds of energy does not relate to NLP
8. says, "we don't know and are trying to find out" is a nonsensical pseudo argument
9. Says the editors have done very little work on researching to an encyclopedic standard
10. Says NLP not being initially concerned with the cause of a pattern is pseudoscientific.
11. JPL also criticises,

1. "There is no central control of NLP"
2. "people understand nlp from various perspectives etc."
3. "practitioners often explicitly formulate these as presup..etc".
4. phrases such as, "but it is important to note that" etc.

--Comaze 07:45, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Comaze. I don't think people are interested in excuses. Some people are kind enough to indicate the parts of your arguments are wrong. I doubt if you will get much done by arguing.CarlOxford 09:13, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

CarlOxford, First, let's establish what is NOT in dispute, then we can argue about the sections in dispute. --211.30.48.164 10:20, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Undisputed sections to merge

H.Down, GregA, and everyone. Are there any sections on Neuro-linguistic Programming(Temp),not in dispute, that can be merged now? I've merged in the 'NLP modeling' section. --Comaze 05:29, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi Everyone. I've merged in the Principles and Presuppositions paragraph from the Neuro-linguistic Programming(Temp) page. best regards. --Comaze 23:35, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Merge NLP Applications section -- comments please

Ok, next I want to merge the NLP Applications sections from Neuro-linguistic Programming(Temp). --Comaze 00:34, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

I think a lot of that section is disputed - particularly the "unethical use" section.

It may be possible to merge the first 2 pieces (psychotherapy and coaching) just before the "criticisms of NLP" section. Possibly the 3rd section (spirituality), since it's an important piece - but lets see if anyone contests that here first. GregA 02:16, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Excellent. Let's wait 24 hours so people can comment on it. --Comaze 03:44, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Greg Alexander

Hello Greg Alexander from Oz. A registered NLP promoter.

Hi Headley. Yes that's my name, I don't need to hide it :) Promoter? I advertise my practice in counselling in NLP - I guess that promotes NLP? I was pretty open about supporting NLP from my first post here. Oh, I have studied NLP to the level of Associate Trainer - though I don't train or otherwise make money in training NLP.

Just to keep things on the up and up, here is something that someone emailed me about your recruitment program. I understand what you are trying to do, but I believe your efforts to get people to change the page on behalf of you are quite futile.

I responded to some comments (both pro and con) I saw, regarding a copy of your version of the wiki page- I explained that it came from the wikipedia. I invited anyone who would like to help to help. I was careful to ask simply for help improving the page, not to join any side. Have I broken some wiki rule?

The fact is, I have added very little to the article myself. I have simply allowed other researchers to find what is relevant and scientific to the artilcle, whilst removing confusing hype and chatter from NLP promoters. At present the article is moving towards an information rich and focussed summary of the mess that is NLP.

You constantly add interpretations to articles you find. And you don't answer my challenges to your interpretations. (Anyway - we can leave that discussion to my questions in the other section)

Anyway, here is some more info:

BTW, thank you for quoting my post in its entirety. That is fair. This was my first post to the mindlist yahoo group in more than a year.

From: Greg Alexander <galexand@...> Date: Sun Oct 2, 2005 6:45 pm Subject: re: The Evil Cult-Creating Power of NLP!!! gregalexander72

>> Here is another bit of info that seems to have the same search:
>> http://www.angelfire.com/art3/inextricablylinked/NLP.htm
>> Tell me what you think
>
> Not bad. The anonymous author seems to have put a lot of work into
> it.

This is copied off the currently 'contentious' wikipedia NLP article.
Mainly a guy identifying himself as HeadleyDown, who in my opinion
has a strange understanding of "Neutral Point of View". Plus a couple
of other helpers. Note that they say my view is not Neutral.

There are currently 2 alternative pages for NLP. We are about to go
to mediation on them, followed by arbitration if agreement is not
reached. If anyone can help in improving the page (particularly in
this time of disagreement) please do!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuro-linguistic_programming for the one
copied on angelfire.
(at the top of the page it points to the "alternative page").

You can make a change to the page directly, though that will often be
undone unless there's some discussion - click on the "discussion" tab
for either page to talk to people.

> It's a bit quick in its judgments, for example, labelling biofeedback
> and neurofeedback as 'new age developments'. As far as I have heard,
> biofeedback and neurofeedback are becoming very mainstream indeed.
>
> It also gets a few facts wrong, like the idea of communication
> resulting in 'thought fields', which I have never known to be
> connected with classic NLP methods.

Yes, I agree with few points on this page.

> I do find it a bit odd that even though the article clearly states
> that the concepts and methods of NLP 'do not work' and that NLP
> 'promotes methods that are false, inaccurate or ineffective', but
> these very same methods are supposedly used to create cult-like
> dependencies. Apparently 'people with these skills acquire such
> personal power that they are able to affect people deeply'.
>
> So do the techniques work, or do they not?

Absolutely.

> "However, "Achieving
> your own outcome at the expense of or even without regard for the
> other party constitutes manipulation. What makes this particular
> 'informed manipulation' so frightening is that people with these
> skills acquire such personal power that they are able to affect
> people deeply, and their capacity to misguide others is thereby
> increased to the point of evil." (Seitz and Cohen 1992). "

I didn't realise it was possible to increase your power "to the point
of evil".

> I think that the above article about NLP was written very, very
> recently, particularly in light of events on this and another
> group.

What other group?
Greg

So you believe that the techniques work absolutely,

Where'd you get that from? (edit: oops - I see - my "Absolutely" refers to the comment repeated in #3 below :-) )

and that you do not agree with Seitz and Cohen's article?

I don't agree with the quote you give, on several levels (that doesn't reflect on their article on Job Interviews).

1. The quote is unrelated to the line above it (which says "so long as the influenced party's outcome is achieved"), since the Seitz quote relates to disregarding the other party's outcome.
2. I think that saying personal power can be "increased to the point of evil" is misunderstanding the concept of evil.
3. I find it ironic that you can mix criticisms of the power of NLP with criticisms of the impotence of NLP, and find no way of acknowledging both in a neutral way as we've tried on the other page.

Or are you recruiting people from that group because they generally exclude people who question NLP in any way shape or form?

Actually, I thought such a group would have both supporters and detractors reading it - and I was right as evidenced by someone emailing you!

Lets just say, you have lost quite a lot of cred in the last few minutes.HeadleyDown 12:16, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

So, Greg Alexander, when are you going to discuss your NLP zealot recruitment drive?

You like to use my name... you seem quite proud of finding it? I hadn't thought of it that way. Anyway, when I'm asked a question I answer it, I think my history here shows this. I have noticed you do not answer many of my questions. Is there anything else you'd like to discuss? GregA 13:38, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Hello Greg Alexander. I answer what I have time for. If you notice, I have a lot of undue nagging to cope with.HeadleyDown 16:16, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Hey I know what you mean :) I suggest you try answering even a couple of the article based questions though - we've asked some questions regarding the science being misquoted and misrepresented, we'd like a discussion from editors to clearly identify the errors so we can correct the article with their input, so far what we've said has simply been accepted GregA 22:52, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi Greg. The quotes showing "unsupported" are all correct as far as I have checked. The term unsupported is fine.JPLogan 02:52, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Which quotes are you talking about? GregA 09:49, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Does NLP Work?

To Headley and anyone else who believes that "NLP doesn't work," please explain, preferably as briefly as you can:

In what way, or ways, specifically does NLP "not work"?

Keeping answers brief would be helpful.

Andy 16:42, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Hello Andy. It may work to make money, and it may work to fool people, but that doesn't matter. Your question is actually irrelevant. It does not matter what I or you think. This is an encyclopedia. If the most reliable sources indicate that a particular view says it does not work, then those sources will be represented according to NPOV.HeadleyDown 16:11, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Andy, your question is perfectly relevant. Just keep in mind that HeadleyDown is an advocate for hyponotherapy located in UK. I have no objection to hyponotherapy, except when it is pushed onto an NLP article. --Comaze 22:54, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Headley, you just answered 2 places where NLP does work, not where it doesn't work. This encyclopedia will be more useful when we identify what specifically a source says, and whether they are reliable. For instance, magazine articles are considered bottom of the pile. GregA 23:12, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi Andy. Grinder promotes NLP for conflict resolution and negotiation. It clearly does not work:)JPLogan 02:52, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Hello JPLogan, John Grinder actually worked with Roger Fisher and William Ury who wrote #1 best seller in negotiation, Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In, (New York: Penguin Books, 1983). I don't know the full details, but Ury and Fisher now incorporate some of NLP (Perceptual Positions) into their seminars. This clearly does work. --Comaze 08:45, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Comaze - these techniques don't always work, they work in certain contexts. JPL, in business there are often mutual needs which make working together worthwhile - while other business deals aren't worthwhile. Sometimes communicating well leads to realising you don't agree. GregA 09:01, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Discussion on References

We'll need to look at who is cited, as well as what they really said. I'll start with Dilts I propose moving reference discussions from within this talk page to this section (without any alteration during the move). GregA 02:18, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Dilts, Grinder, Bandler... 1980

{{cite book}}: Empty citation (help)CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link)

This is an NLP Book.
Agreed quotes:

• NLP practitioners most commonly define NLP as "the study of the structure of subjective experience". How do we do what we do? How do we think? How do we learn?
• Two fundamental presuppositions are ...

Disputed quotes (some minor, some not so minor)

• And how do we connect with each other and our world on a physical and spiritual level? (O'Connor & McDermott, 1996) (Dilts et al 1980)(Milliner 1988).

I know Dilts places spiritual in his study of structure of subjective experience, the attitude towards spiritual is different with different trainers and practitioners and doesn't belong in the opening paragraph.GregA

• "NLP is about form and not about content" (Dilts et al 1980).

Clarify. The word pattern is more commonly used now.

• NLP advocate, Robert Dilts asserts that NLP "is theoretically rooted in the principles of neurology, psychophysiology, linguistics, cybernetics, and communication theory" (Dilts et al 1980).

If we're quoting Dilts, Grinder, Bandler, etc - no need to narrow it down to Dilts. I also question the usefulness of "advocate" in the context of the original NLP group... though I'm not sure on that.GregA

• There is no failure, only feedback (in a learning context). If you think you've failed, find a way to get around it (Dilts et al 1980)

Page number please? This interpretation of the principle (if you've failed get around it) is way off base. It's either way out of context or made up - page number please. I also think it's broader than a learning context. GregA

Hi Greg. All of these quotes check out. The Dilts theory quote seems relevant because he seems to be one who talks about theory. The other's also get their say (they say they dont have one). The get around it metaphor I have heard before. Get around is a metaphorical term (meaning the failure is an obstacle and the getting around is the flexibility in contrast with stubbornness).JPLogan 02:52, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Interesting - so when you say "If you think you've failed, find a way to get around it", what you mean is "If you think you've failed, try to do it another way". This is a different principle - that if something doesn't work, do something different. I know we mention this one somewhere else. This presupposition refers to the fact that failure is actually giving you information about what you've done, information which you can use to alter what you do in future. GregA 07:52, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Seitz and Cohen

Seitz, V A., Cohn, W A. (1992) Using the Psychology of Influence in Job Interviews. Business Forum. Los Angeles: Summer 1992.Vol.17, Iss. 3; pg. 14, 4 pgs

This is an Business magazine.

• Ethical concerns of manipulation have also been voiced: “so long as the influenced party's outcome is achieved at the same time as the influencer, this is "influencing with integrity." However, "Achieving your own outcome at the expense of or even without regard for the other party constitutes manipulation. What makes this particular 'informed manipulation' so frightening is that people with these skills acquire such personal power that they are able to affect people deeply, and their capacity to misguide others is thereby increased to the point of evil." (Seitz and Cohen 1992).

This quote has several problems.

1. The quote is unrelated to the line above it (which says "so long as the influenced party's outcome is achieved"), since the Seitz quote relates to disregarding the other party's outcome.
2. Linking the 2 quotes with "However"... weasel phrase.
3. I think that saying personal power can be "increased to the point of evil" is misunderstanding the concept of evil.
4. I find it ironic that you can mix criticisms of the power of NLP with criticisms of the impotence of NLP, and find no way of acknowledging both in a neutral way as we've tried on the other page.

It's perfectly possible that Seitz is refering to manipulating someone to get a job (since the article is on Job Interviews). She also writes on "dressing for success" etc. I don't know if it even relates to NLP. Comments!? GregA 10:02, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Unsourced

• We already have all the resources we need to succeed. It is not argued that this is true, only that it is useful to believe 'as if' it is true when attempting a change.

What does "believe 'as if' it is true" mean? "act as if" is commonly used.
GregA Note that at no time is their a requirement to believe these statements.... try them on as perceptual filters. Find out if they are useful when doing NLP... use them as if they were true. (Collingwood 2003)

The problem is a presupposition is a background belief. Even the NLP books talk about those beliefs, and also, people learning presuppositions consider them beliefs. The word belief is all over the literature in relation to presups.JPLogan 02:52, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Greg, JPLogan, That's fine. A presupposition is a type of belief. More specifically presuppositions is a type quanitifier from linguistics (Transformation Grammar). A quanitifer can also be considered a filter of experience, as Greg points out. --Comaze 03:20, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi JP. Tracking presuppositions is a great way of revealing background beliefs. A presupposition is something that has to be true for the sentence to make sense... so the presuppositions used by someone tell you what they think is true. However, presuppositions are also used in therapies as a form of belief change, and also to help clients make another change. Asking someone "do you remember the first time you realised you were becoming a really good singer"... presupposes that they did realise this sometime. I can ask that without any belief at all specifically so that for HER to make sense of my sentence she has to accept that she did realise this at some time. Likewise, when doing a 6-step reframe - there's a difference between asking a client "do you have a positive intention?", and "are you aware of your positive intention?". We can put a presupposition in whether we believe it or not - and presuppositions were used by early NLP models to help their clients. GregA 09:13, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

other

Hi Comaze. Please do not place odd presuppositions on the article. They are not representative, and the article could really do with staying brief without any signs of a "how to" in the text.JPLogan 02:56, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Well done, Headley, for keeping people in line. I did notice people were trying to remove useful links etc. Don't worry about Comaze's hillarious accusations of vandalism. We all know who has committed more fact deletion than anyone else. CheersJPLogan 02:56, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

JPLogan, HeadleyDown has been formally warned about vandalism. --Comaze 03:07, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Hello Comaze. Yes I noticed YOU placed one of these stickers on his page: You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia. Funny, isn't it! He seems to be the only one here looking towards resolution and researching rigorously while you seek to remove usefully encyclopedic facts about NLP. You really do seem to be working with a different map than most healthy minded people.JPLogan 03:21, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

JPLogan, Please stick to facts. Your personal attacks are boring. --Comaze 03:33, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

---

--Comaze 03:33, 5 October 2005 (UTC)--Comaze 03:33, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Remove Engrams

• Can someone please remove this line. It is not relevant to NLP. "although it is also supported using Wilder Pendfield's research into engrams." Also please remove all other references to engrams. --Comaze 03:13, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Once again we have an NLP promoter asking people to remove facts on their behalf! Come on Comaze, that is not what wikipedia NPOV means by cooperation.JPLogan 03:25, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Also please remove this reference, it is a self-published book and not a valid reference.

• Sinclair. J. (1992) An ABC of NLP. Publisher: ASPEN ISBN: 0951366017

regards, --Comaze 03:30, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps somebody could remove Comaze. He seems to be the only person with a stated committment to biasing the whole page towards a single NLP set of books and authors. Comaze has also spent the past few months persistently removing cited facts from the present article whilst encouraging others to do the same.JPLogan 03:34, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

JPLogan, 6 references to engram from the one dodgy reference, and a link to a half-finished web site (hypnosis-online.org) is not cited fact. Can you find some better sources than that? --Comaze 03:36, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Hello Comaze. I count at least 3 refs to engram, two from peer reviewed journals, and one from a published book about NLP. Actually, I have another two NLP books about engrams sitting next to me that are itching to end up on the article. There are more to come.JPLogan 03:43, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

EXCELLENT!. This is the kind of thing we need to look things up. 2 weeks ago you said you had some evidence... please supply? I copied this from earlier in this page:

Comaze. Engram is a largely debunked concept. NLP theorists use it, and engram describes exactly what they are doing, and their assumptions. It is recognised by psychology and is a very useful descriptive link. And yes, I can provide evidence. It will come in time. JPLogan 02:39, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Remove disputed references to dodgy engram concept

Engram is a false belief, that has long been disproven in neuropsychology. I can put my hand on 300 NLP books that do not use engram. Plus I can confidently say that Dilts, Bandler, Grinder, Delozier, and Cameron-Bandler have never used the engram concept in defining NLP. Yet HeadleyDown and JPLogan insist on putting the engram term in 6 times based on a dodgy reference to Sinclair's self-published book, and a reference to a half-finished web site. If you want to include this fringe idea of engrams, you will have to qualify it. The following statements, mostly added by HeadleyDown and JPLogan. I propose that all of these be removed.

• The methods of NLP involve programming and reprogramming engrams (Sinclair 1992) (Drenth 2003) [1]
• NLP makes use of concept of the engram (Sinclair 1992) in relation to the mind/body connection, (Drenth 2003) for the utility of change, the development of unconscious competence, and the treatment or removal of traumas (Andreas & Faulkner, 1994).
• The engram is a patterned response, which has been stabilised at the level of unconscious competence. These engrams are beneficial if they involve automatic activities which are useful, but also comprise activities which are automatic and pernicious, such as addictive behaviour (Sinclair 1992). The concept involves the memory trace, can be located using the eye directionality, or other such cues, and then can be accessed and manipulated using changes in internal visuo-spatial imagery.
• The engram concept is by and large scientifically unsupported.
• Christina Hall has argued that peoples resources are their sensory representation systems and the manner in which they are organised,
• although it is also supported using Wilder Pendfield's research into engrams.
• Fritz Perls who had a great interest in the engram concept, and during this period, promoted and operated a Dianetics clinic (Clarkson and Mackewn 1993).
• NLP promoters have consistently failed to provide even normal scientific evidence. This includes the notion of adopting unconscious competence through the manipulation of the engram, which is also not supported by science.

The highest priority is to remove ", although it is also supported using Wilder Penfield's research into engrams" because this is completely false and misleading. --Comaze 05:31, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Umm Headley or JPL - whoever wrote Wilder Penfield... who is this guy? You don't cite him and your link doesn't work. Is he related in any way to NLP or are you just throwing in a name? GregA 09:21, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Wilder Penfield was added by HeadleyDown, see this link: [4]

Concerted effort towards merging?- NOT!

Hello Comaze. I remember someone said something about merging. Now, I don't believe that is ever going to happen with you deleting facts as you have always done.HeadleyDown 04:06, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm attempting to resolve the current differences between the two versions. Since HeadleyDown and JPLogan were the ones who added the engram stuff (firstly HeadleyDown). You can assist by removing the engram concepts yourself, or by framing engram as a minority view. This idea is certainly not shared by the developers of NLP, or the majority of the NLP community. These issues needs to be resolved so we can continue with the merge. --Comaze 04:15, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Now this is an interesting development, Comaze. You seem to be giving yourself the authority to remove facts using messages addressed to yourself:) Thats pretty suspicious cooperation!HeadleyDown 04:21, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

It is quite simple. Since you (HeadleyDown, JPLogan, ...) added the false engram information, I was asking you HeadleyDown to remove the references or frame them as a minority view, that is not supported by majority of science or NLP community. --Comaze 04:27, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Comaze. Read the article. There is already information that says the engram is part of NLP. There is also info about scientific thinking believing that the engram is not scientifically supported. Not my fault. That is just a fact.HeadleyDown 04:40, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

HeadleyDown, You missed the point here. Engram concept is not support by the majority of NLP or science community. On a side note, we need to create an archive for this discussion because it is getting too long. --Comaze 04:47, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Headley - we certainly won't get anywhere until questions are responded to. Personally, I will write up here ANY sentence I dispute, to give you 24 hours to respond to it. Then we can discuss! and work out what was really said. If you think the line was wrong it'd be easier to say so, but lack of comment for 24hrs is also a reflection of having nothing to say isn't it? GregA 09:34, 5 October 2005 (UTC)