Jump to content

Talk:Neuro-linguistic programming

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Camridge (talk | contribs) at 07:32, 3 January 2006 (→Hardiman). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


Sub article

Neuro-linguistic programming/Working is now the working article, where I will make comprimises or fixes.

However, a few of the criticism sources are a bit questionable, at least the cult ones(7 habits of highly effective people is even criticism there!). On the other hand removing all references to cult behavoir, most of the science section, and the image would seem to be crossing into censorship. Lets agknowledge NLP's faults, and off course, if attributes that are supported scientifically can be found, then add them to the science section. The engram section should be modified to no longer focus on just engrams, as they are rarely used.

And lets not edit war down there either please.Voice of AllT|@|ESP 18:25, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello VoiceOfAll. I checked the Loma ref again. Seven habits do not appear on that piece of literature. The NACHF paper focuses on empirically unvalidated (falsified) dubious therapies. So, the link to the webpage is not an accurate attribution, however the view that NLP is a dubious therapy in the same category as Dianetics is a credible source. 203.186.238.166 02:18, 23 December 2005 (UTC)HeadleyDown 02:19, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I almost forgot, Stephen Covey is often criticised for his claims to scientific support for his 7 habits (although automaticity research refutes this) and he is about as guilty as Deepak Chopra for mixing mysticism with his "remedies". [1]. Regards HeadleyDown 02:26, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I am unable to find an author named Loma. What is Loma's first name? And what university/organisation is this author attached to? --Comaze 04:00, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
We still have no evidence that an author named Loma exists. How does this fabricated author keep getting into the article? And by the way NCAHF/Loma ref is not a paper at all, it is a short article that is not published by any reputable publisher. The Loma ref is most likely written by Steven Barrett. --Comaze 03:05, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This is fine with me. And of course like every method that claims to enact influence NLP and hypnosis are used in the context of cults. I admit i overdid my proposal a little bit because the premature assumption of the self-proclaimed 'proponents of science' about me being an NLP-Fan together with the sloppy methodical work irked me somewhat. Personally i regard most of the methods collected in NLP as unverified regarding their effectiveness in a therapeutic setting, and as far as the scientific background goes: B & G made it clear enough that they aren't very much interested in it. Blauregen 23:57, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Blauregen. Your excuses make it clear that the pseudoscience section is absolutely necessary for the article. It makes no difference whether BnG say they are priests, pragmatists, or anti-science gurus. The fact is, they make hypotheses and scientists test them. They propose theory to support their assertions, and those theories are odd mixtures of pseudoscientific and/or falsified theory and assumption built on assumption. They choose to create whole glossaries of obscurantism in order to sound scientific. And they make pseudoscientific excuses placing the burden of proof on science and on the consumer to prove the efficacy of their dubious rituals. They (and many other NLPers) also actively associate various other pseudosciences with their pet pseudoscience. (all according to the literature). HeadleyDown 02:35, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No HeadleyDown. We don't need to provide an additional explanation what pseudoscience is. I am all for mentioning that <source> regards NLP as pseudoscientific - though for the sake of brevity and comprehensibility we should restrict ourselves to a few reputable and representative sources - and to link to the appropriate article. That <source> stated this opinion is factually correct. Citing the complete list of reasons why they have this opinion is far beyond the scope of the article and should be left to the sources. Blauregen 08:58, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Blauregen, your agenda to censor criticism is clear. The pseudoscience section should read "NLP's pseudoscientific characteristics". At least that would stop people like you from claiming we already know what pseudoscience is. Just read the thing clearly. It is not explaining to readers what pseudoscience is. It explains in what ways NLP is pseudoscientific, and it reduces the size of the article. NPOV states that a fact should be explained when the reason for the view is unclear. Pseudoscientific subjects are notoriously confusing. If there were no NLP pseudoscience section, those citations that are there would have to be mentioned in other places, and each with their own particular explanation. As it stands, the NLP pseudoscience section is a concise and clear network of facts. HeadleyDown 09:35, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hate to break this to you HeadleyDown, but your assertion is wrong. Around half of this section is simply swaggering about "The characteristics of pseudoscience....". If you have the impression that the appropriate article on pseudoscience is incorrect you should try to correct the errors there, instead of here. If you feel an urge to explain the pseudo-scientic characteristics of certain premises and methods of NLP this belongs to the appropriate methods and principles. There is a whole article on Principles of NLP where you could place criticism of said Principles, without artificially inflating this section of the main article. Blauregen 10:16, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I make no assertions about the pseudoscience article. However, I have noticed your desperation towards censoring the NLP pseudoscience section, thereby whitewashing the article. Remember that any side-section or extra articles on principles etc were written by similarly desperate fanatics who could not write their promotional obscurantisms on the main NLP article. So they decided to place their fringe psychobabble in other wikipedia places. NLP is a fringe practice. A single article is sufficient. HeadleyDown 13:48, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


I am happy that the NLP page is locked for further edits and tagged as NPOV. People should conduct their own edit war on their own website. --Dejakitty 20:26, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Fine by me also. Saves me having to revert the censorship of fanatical meatpuppets. HeadleyDown 00:44, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all. I re-pasted in the images into the working article. They save the reader a great deal of time, and save having to spend a couple of extra paras each on explaining textually. HeadleyDown 01:16, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings Headley and science orientation editors. Well done for showing a clear article and your clear explanation. The net is too full of false claimants. It appears here to dirty the encyclopedia, and you do well to brush it off. I wish I had more time. It is satisfying to point out the truth(facts). It looks like you get the satisfaction every day. All those unconvincing deluded (Comaze, FT2, old bandits, and the new fools (DejaKitty, AKlukis, and so on) have been well exposed for their wronghead promoting of fakevetenskap. Merry Xmas. HansAntel 04:06, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yes wikipedia is satisfying. Its mostly clarity that is rewarding though. A kind of intrinsic motivation. ATB HeadleyDown 09:42, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I seem to have come at a bad time:) Well, it is clear that this article has some fervent believers, so I will try not to diss the gospel according to the authors. Anyway, I have been looking at the article and it looks quite scientifically deeply covered, and ---well I have to say it, NLP is considered a highly dubious pseudoscience according to my research also. From discussion it is also clear that the new age aspects of NLP explain a lot about its state. Well, here are some references from my investigations:

Concerning pseudoscience: Bandler and Grinder's observations, theories and grasp of neuroanatomy have been discredited and NLP is considered a dubious therapy according to (Elich, et al 1985; Gumm, et al 1982; Jupp, 1989; Poffel & Cross, 1985; Salas, et al 1989).

Elich, M., Thompson, R. W., & Miller, L. (1985). Mental imagery as revealed by eye movements and spoken predicates: A test of neurolinguistic programming. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 32(4), 622-625.

Jupp, J. J. (1989). A further empirical evaluation of neurolinguistic primary representational systems (PRS). Counselling Psychology Quarterly, 2(4), 441- 450.

Gumm, W. B., Walker, M. K., & Day, H. D. (1982). Neurolinguistics programming: Method or myth? Journal of Counseling Psychology, 29(3), 327-330.

Poffel, S. A., & Cross, H. J. (1985). Neurolinguistic programming: A test of the eyemovement hypothesis. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 61(3, Pt 2), 1262.

Salas, J. A., de Groot, H., & Spanos, N. P. (1989). Neuro-linguistic programming and hypnotic responding: An empirical evaluation. Journal of Mental Imagery, 13(1), 79-89.

Hope this helps to clarify things. Merry tidings. DocEastwood DocEastwood 06:18, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the refs Doc. The more the merrier. ATB HeadleyDown 09:42, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, Hi again. I noticed that engram is an 'issue' here. Well, if you're into popular psychology, you're gonna associate engram with scientology (because dianetics is part of popular psychology). I relate it to neurology theory, but then again, I am a scientist. I'm not really into popular psychology. Most people havn't a clue what an engram is. From my reading of the Dilts et al 1980s Subjective Experience book, its pretty clear that they're talking about engrams from cover to cover. - Internal circuits, V-K-A, fourtuples, and so on. If you mention senses and the neurology and mental processing that is entailed, you are talking about engrams. There's no escaping the fact that NLP is about engrams, even if they do handle the concept in an "odd" way. DocEastwood 06:52, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nevertheless, NLP engrams seem to be a dead concept, possibly abandoned due to credibility issues. We shouldn't simply say "NLP is about engrams" if that is an outdated minority view. On the other hand, several major NLP authors did mention them, so we have to let the history speak for itslelf, and not just ignore them.
Quote"If you mention senses and the neurology and mental processing that is entailed, you are talking about engrams"
Well, not necessarily, engrams are a theory and are a slightly more detailed abration than "neurology". Most NLP books likely mentioned neurology just to use the word, because it seems scientific, I have seen this kind of thing before. That issue is already addressed in the criticism section though. Enneagrams, which are not scientific at all, are actually used more than egrams. You might want to increase their mentioning rather than the small engram idea.Voice of AllT|@|ESP 07:35, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi VoA. I noticed that the engram term is actually used fairly recently, so its not outdated. Also, it would seem that engram is more a European/asian NLP term, than a minority one. I remember Hans mentioning that NPOV does have a passage about not being Anglo-american in perspective. I checked, and he's correct. BTW, its cool that we have a pagelock again. Cheers DaveRight 08:03, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

DaveRight, I think that the use of engram in some Hong Kong "NLP" training is a minority view, and there are counter-example that would need to be given the same or more weight. --Comaze 03:22, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No sorry. A google.de search on engram and nlp shows that most hits only use both terms in spatial proximity, the main sources that use use them otherwise are anglo-american and predominantly this article or ripoffs of it. Blauregen 12:34, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Blauregen. Your search is narrow. As is your view. HeadleyDown 13:48, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Hi again VoA. The Dilts and BnG books all mention "circuits" when talking about those sense combinations/connections. They also talk about "loops". This is central to engrams theory and explains how NLP is supposed to sustain its brief quick fix methods. Neuronal nets as a concept does not cover circuits. The engram concept is the only concept in neuroscience covering neural circuits and loops. Cheers again. DaveRight 08:09, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

So if i understand you correctly engrams as a neuroscientific concept (as opposed to the faulty use in dianetics) should be mentioned in the article in correlation to NLP? Well, they aren't that common, but if you insist i would not be opposed to mention them with an addition which interpretation is actually meant. This would give NLP an not entirely justified scientific appeal though. Blauregen 12:34, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, this is a possible point for clarification. To my knowledge Dilts does not use the engram concept in relation to the subconscious. He does, however, make errors concerning the use of the neural network term (which refers to an artificial computing development) and he also makes pseudoscientific jumps from Hebb's rule, to the practicalities of NLP anchoring rituals (unfalsifiable). I think we could add something there, however, as it stands, some NLPers do make the gaff of applying engrams to the unconscious. In fact, some define the engram using exactly the same definition as the one invented by Hubbard [www.mcguireprogramme.com/articles/Unpredictability5.rtf]. Regards HeadleyDown 13:48, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Minor correction. According to wikipedia the term neural network refers to both, artifical and bilological structures. The supplied RTF refers to NLP only in one paragraph and a reference to Robbins, who as far as i know practces something he calls NAC, not basic NLP. It is hardly representative. Blauregen 14:29, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
OK, fine, the engram passage needs no changes at all. Anyway, your reliance on the web, and on other wikipedia pages is not particularly helpful. HeadleyDown 02:14, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Dilts & Delozier's (2000) article on Artificial intelligence (http://www.nlpuniversitypress.com/html/AkAz18.html p.41) and it's influence on NLP is also relevant for the definition and use of Mind or neuro in NLP. See section on Bateson's Criteria of mind which is the minimal definition use in NLP practitioner training. --Comaze 02:57, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bateson's Criteria of Mind

The entire field of neural networks is based on circuits. For example the machine learning model, feedforward, feedforward loops. NLP (eg. Malloy et al 2005) actually does cite Neutral networks as the source for some brain theory. It is important to note that Grinder (2001) considers neurology to be outside the domain of NLP and encourages those interested in NLP to become familar with recent developments in cognitive linguistics so that those interested can work alongside researchers in other field such as neuroscience. According to Grinder the scope of NLP is primarily the "linguistically mediated maps of first access".
The relevant passage from "Steps to ecology of emergence is"...
"The conceptualization of knowledge in terms of the “all or none” character of “difference” goes back in its modern computationally-based form at least to McCulloch and Pitts (1943). The fundamentals of neural nets that they laid down have undergone various stages of elaboration and development by theorists like Hebb (1949), Holland (1975) and Varela, Thompson and Rosch (1993) among many others. And the rigorous focus on difference as the defining epistemological relationship was developed extensively by Bateson (1972, 1979/2002), and continued in our own work by DeLozier and Grinder (1987) with application as a teaching method by Malloy (2001). Influenced by McCulloch’s thinking (see M. C. Bateson, 1991), Gregory Bateson proposes that difference is the basis of mental process which itself has six criteria:
  1. Mind is an aggregate of interacting parts or components.
  2. The interaction between parts of mind is triggered by difference.
  3. Mental process requires collateral energy.
  4. Mental process requires circular (or more complex) chains of determination.
  5. In mental process the effects of difference are to be regarded as transforms (i.e., coded versions) of the difference which preceded them.
  6. The description and classification of these processes of transformation discloses a hierarchy of logical types immanent in the phenomena. "(Malloy et al 2005 pp.40-41) --Comaze 02:48, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The term is engram. And we have plenty of references that show the fact. Citing Grinder on neuroscience is like citing Hubbard. HeadleyDown 02:18, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Malloy, Grinder and Bostic should be given more weight than Sinclair based on notability and authority in the field. Above is a direct quote from Malloy, Grinder and Bostic-St Clair published in Cybernetics and Human Knowing, 2005. See also Dilts & Delozier (2000 pp.246-274). --Comaze 02:48, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Science needs more weight, Comaze, with supporting references. HansAntel 03:44, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Weight is also determined by the verifiability, number of citations, authority of authors and reputation of publisher. Steps to ecology of mind (Bateson 1979) has over 1400 known citations so that source can be considered authoritative for Batesonian Epistemology. Steps spans many fields including communication theory and anthropology. --Comaze 04:15, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comaze, all of the stuff that you want to "shoe horn" into the article from Malloy, Bateson, McCulloch and cybernetic epistemology is gibberish. Bateson's impact is largely confined to the 1960s and 1970s on the West Coast of the USA -- an era and locale receptive to the ideas of the "hippy philosopher". Bateson's influence on contemporary epistemology -- at least in the English speaking world is virtually zero. Bateson's notion of "difference" and his "six criteria" are nonsense. I know of no psychologist, neurologist, philosopher of mind, psycholinguist or computer scientists of repute and significance that accords any weight to Bateson's post-modern intellectual masturbation. Malloy has no standing. What you are presenting is a chain of pseudoscientists citing each other: McCulloch -> Bateson -> Grinder -> Malloy. Turing regarded McCulloch a charlatan[2]. I conjecture he would have regarded Bateson, Grinder and Malloy the same. In deference to Turing and his huge contribution to the allied victory in WW II can we not sully his name by linking him with an idiotic, commercially-focussed, narcissistic, Californian, psycho-cult? Turing machines and Turing's other ideas have no substantive relationship to NLP. You are attempting to legitimise NLP theory and practice by associating it with major figures in Western intellectual history. You are acting as a pawn of Grinder, helping him to set-up his papier-mâché scientific facade for NLP. flavius 05:27, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comaze, here's a core principle from "cyebernetic epistemology" from McCulloch (that is given lip-service by Bateson see Bateson, 1972b, p. 399) that Grinder, Malloy and you need to ponder: ‘To have proved a hypothesis false is indeed the peak of knowledge’ (McCulloch, 1970, p. 154). Von Glaserfeld adds, "This is equivalent to negative feedback: things are not what we thought they were." (Von Glasersfeld, 1996, p. 156). Thus from within the epistemology that you contend is native to NLP we are impelled to regard NLP as negative feedback, a huge sign shouting, "WRONG WAY -- GO BACK!". Consider Grinder and Bostic St Clairs curious interpretation of negative feedback:
One of the favorite patterns of NLP research to be subjected to testing by, no doubt, well-intentioned psychologists is representational systems (visual, auditory and kinesthetic) and, in particular, the eye movements that indicate which of the three major representational systems (visual, auditory and kinesthetics) is activated. Suppose that you as a researcher were interested in investigating the validity of the eye movements in a conventional scientific way...Suppose that we employ a video camera focused on the eye movements of the subjects involved and that we discover upon completion of the processing of 100 subjects that 80 of the 100 subjects when presented with this particular prompt, move their eyes to a position above the horizon and dilate their pupils prior to responding to the question. Further the remaining 20 subjects move their eyes down and to their left and then either dilate their pupils in position or then shift their eyes to a position above the horizon. What are we to make of this? Shall we conclude along with the psychologists that the probability is 0.8 that when presented with this prompt, the subject (and the general population to which we presumably wish to generalize our findings) will move his eyes to a position above the horizon? And that there is a probability of 0.2 that the subject will look down and to his left and dilate his pupils or down and to his left and then to a position above the horizon? It is possible to imagine contexts in which such probabilities might serve some purpose - the manipulation of eye movements in large groups of people (e.g. communication in print in mass advertising). However, to us as researchers, the conclusion is at best, amusing. The experienced NLP trained observer ideally would continue the investigation of the 20 subjects whose response was at variance with the predicted behavior - that is, whose response was the movement down and to their left and dilated pupils; or, down and to their left and then to a position above the horizon - subject by subject. More specifically, the investigator would elicit with great care a description from each of these subjects regarding what his or her ongoing experience was at the time of the movements involved. What one would hope to discover thereby is that the subject was using internal dialogue to repeat the prompt sentence when in the down and left position and then formed a visual image of the mentioned person, either in position (down and left) or after shifting to a position above the horizon. Such elicitation would bring the behavior of all subjects into conformity with the anticipated behavior and would thereby simply regularize the data. Such a result would offer very strong support for the thesis under consideration. (Grinder & Bostic-St Clair, 2002, Ch. 3)(italics added)
Besides demonstrating a complete misunderstanding of experiment design, inferential statistics and hypothesis testing the above excerpt demonstrates a perversion of the fundamental tenet in "cybernetic epistemology" of negative feedback. The hypothetical "20 subjects whose response was at variance with the predicted behavior" don't show us that "things are not what we thought they were" (in Glaserfeld's words) but rather than things are how we thought they were -- for some mysterious unspecified reason (Grinder's infallibility?) -- and that our method of inquiry needs adjustment. Grinder and Bostic St Clair's notion of the use negative feedback is to produce unfalsifiable hpotheses. The eye accessing cues hypothesis can't be false according to Grinder and his squeeze. This sophistry apparently hasn't occurred to Bandler since in his interview with the researchers from the US Army he downplayed the eye accessing and PRS hypothesis (Swets & Bjork, 1990). In cybernetic terms, Grinder's proposal is akin to programming a missile's inertial navigation system to repeatedly query the missiles speed and direction sensors in the "hope" that they will eventually indicate that the missile in on track when it has in fact veered off course. Grinder and Bostic St Clair demonstrate no fidelity to "cybernetic epistemology", no more fidelity that they exhibit to instrumentalism and fictionalism. It's just more name dropping and scientific pretence.
The problem for those of us that have some concern with truth and that value science is that no expert will review and debunk the crap currently pouring out of Grinder and Malloy because NLP is off the research agenda, its status as pseudoscience and psycho-shamanism has been settled. Wikipedia's prohibition of OR will enable B&Gs self-serving take on fictionalism (as-if inquiry minus the empirical test) and Grinder's self-serving and nonsensical interpretation of cyebernetic epistemology (treat all negative feedback as an artifact of the process of measurement/render all hypothesis unfalsifiable) to go without criticism. Given that Grinder's take on cybernetic epistemology and Malloy's post-modern vomitorium of a website is even more fringe than NLP (and consequently has not and most likely will not come to the attention of any topic experts) any references in the article to "cybernetic epistemology", "ecology of emergence", "discrete dynamical systems" and the like should be removed.
References:
McCulloch, W.S. (1970) Embodiments of Mind, Cambridge, Massachusetts, MIT Press.
Glasersfeld, E.V. (1996) Radical Constructivism: A Way of Knowing and Learing, London, Farmer Press.
Bateson, G. (1972b) Steps to an Ecology of Mind, New York, Ballantine.
Grinder, J. Bostic-St Clair C. (2002) Whispering in the Wind.
PS:- Fred Blaurden (or whathever your name is) does the above fall within the terms of that phrase in your private language "newsnet style spamming"? Your remark is utterly incomprehensible to me (and perhaps to you also). Spam (noun) is bulk unsolicited commercial email. Spamming (verb) is the act send of such electronic documents to Usenet forums (typically cross-posted to a multitude of groups and harvested email addresses. Do you have your own defintion of spam and spamming? If you do have such a private definition note that is has no value in communication. Also, what is "newsnet"? Perhaps newsnet is where you obtain your definitions of spam and spamming. How can I access newsnet and its mysterious lexicon? flavius 07:34, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Revisions

How does everyone like the current proposal?[3] Voice of AllT|@|ESP 18:32, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Looks fine, VoA. Reasonable file size, clear and factual, with no particularly large passages censored. I think it should be stabilized more or less around there. Regards HeadleyDown 02:11, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Article unprotected. Please make only minor changes to it without agreement. Larger changes can be made to the working article. Also, lets just keep the tag there since there is discussion. If Comaze or someone would like to replace it with sectional tags for certain areas, then please do so.Voice of AllT|@|ESP 03:28, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, yes Voicofall. Improving using incrementals is good. Also, I think the pseudoscience section can have info added. I have some European journal papers that explain more. But to be added piece by piece. HansAntel 03:42, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Great, we need the highest quality references we can find. I've added NPOV sectional tags to the section that require higher priority of attention. --Comaze 04:27, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
"Higher", I take it there are other sections you have qualms with? Is it a general style or ref. issue, as the other sections seem like they could only use minimal work.Voice of AllT|@|ESP 04:33, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The current structure and layout of the document is fine, except I still think that the "Questionable applications" can be connected to the "Applications section". "False claims to science" can be merged with "Pseudoscience". In terms of refs there are still many over-generalisations that need to be connected to aspects or specific schools or authors of NLP because they are not shared by the entire field, this can be done by tracing back the citations in the references. Generally the style and prose can be more encyclopedic, and kept consistant throughout the entire document -- this might need to be delegated to an external wikipedian. Some of the less-notable references and content can probably be removed in favour more reputable sources that is both for definitions and criticism of NLP. In some cases the references do not closely match the attributed statements, we'll need to work on this one-by-one. --Comaze 05:26, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Progress

I see that comaze has made the NPOV tag into more specific tags...good.

Now all we need is a point by point list, for each section, of what is wrong and a suggested fix.Voice of AllT|@|ESP 04:25, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK VoiceOfAll, but I am sure it is unneccesary to repeat what has been stated over and over in the archives. I suggest short replies to the NLP fanatics, and if they employ the old badgering trick, it is simply a trolling tactic that is best ignored. Regards HeadleyDown 09:24, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I list would be nice, as before, we often had long rants that were not very concise.
I noticed that you moved the picture down to the applications section. Thats seems fine over there. If every reference will get challenged or something, then I might be bothered.Voice of AllT|@|ESP 19:32, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Issues:

This is a draft list (still more to come). Feel free to populate the list --Comaze 22:05, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Meaning of "Neuro" in NLP

  1. Include short paraphrase of meaning of mind from Structure of Magic Vol.1 (1975a), Frogs into princes (1979), Whispering 2001, Malloy (2005).
  2. Definitely mention AI/Neural Networks/Hebb influence include refs
  3. Possibly mention Turing Machine, Neurological transforms, Linguistic transforms, first access (4-tuple, primary experience), linguistically mediated maps -- probably too much detail
  4. TOTE (Test-Operate-Test-Exit) proposed by Miller, Galanter & Pribram (1960). And Miller's The Magical Number Seven, Plus or Minus Two) and neuropsychologist Oliver Sacks.

OK, though I am not sure about number 3, much of that seems like it would go into too much detail, and digress. Definetely, the neural networks should go in, perhpas Millar influence, and some of the number 3 items.Voice of AllT|@|ESP 23:52, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comaze, Miller (1956) (available online at [4]) is outdated science. I know it is often quoted by NLP trainers and it has even seeped into numerous design disciplines but it is nevertheless outdated science. See for example

Yntema, D. B. (1963). Keeping track of several things at once. Human Factors, 5, 7-17.
Yntema, D. B., & Mueser, G. E. (1960). Remembering the present state of a number of variables. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 60, 18-22.
Venturino, M. (1997). Interference and Information Organization in Keeping Track of Continually Changing Information. Human Factors, 39(4), 532-539.
[5]

This reliance on outdated science that is convenient is characteristic of pseudoscience. The function of an encyclopedia is partly to educate. In the interests of this goal, outdated scientific results shouldn't be promulgated as if they represent the state of the art. flavius 04:26, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Scientific analysis of NLP

  1. Include peer-review journals [6] and [7]. Identify verifiability and notability of sources listed in those links.
  2. Include relevant findings APS conference, "Neuro-linguistic Programming (NLP) Pseudoscience or Topic of Peer Reviewed Academic Merit"[8]
  3. include some information about proper experiment design as defined by Grinder and Bostic St-Clair (2002)
  4. Distinguish between clinical psychology studies and outcome based studies.

Comaze, these issues have been discussed before multiple times, and your persistent denial shows that you are only here to enlarge the article. None of the studies you present are conclusive. They offer no proof. The current scientific analsysis is conclusive and based on expert (clinical psychologists) views. Your addition of those refs will lead to multiple explanations being added and a much larger section. Considering your bad faith actions, I will remove the NPOV tag. HeadleyDown 02:45, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

HeadleyDown. I've added point 4 based on your feedback. I'm still working on a paraphrase of the APS convention paper, we might be able to insert some relevant findings --Comaze 03:42, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, you can get started on the working article. However, note the message on the bottom of those webpages about study size and the fact that these are not external. They will therfore be worded as "but studies by X contents that..."

However, the Topic of Peer Reviewed Academic Merit link does not really go anywhere. The other two links mention or list reviews, but don't have them, and they are likely not by notable people. If there are any, then they can be cited.Voice of AllT|@|ESP 23:43, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pseudoscience

  1. Include findings 17th American Psychological Science conference, "Neuro-linguistic Programming (NLP) Pseudoscience or Topic of Peer Reviewed Academic Merit"[9] - a poster can be found on Michael Foley's site [10].
  2. Correction to ref Lilienfield et al 2003 [p.248 criticism is connected to VK/D (Grinder & Bandler 1979) that is used in workshops (eg. Figley) to treat PTSD, anxiety and trauma while VK/D lacks substantive clinical support Herbert, Lilienfeld et al. p.964[11]

If any relavent findings can be found then add them, but that first link is just an event summary. This may have very limited use then.

If the criticism refered only to one/several aspect(s), then reword the section on the working article.Voice of AllT|@|ESP 23:48, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've been forwarded the paper from the APS convention so I can paraphrase some relevant findings from there. --Comaze 00:08, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I still doubt this will make much improvement. As for Lilienfield, I dont see what is wrong with the two areas he is cited at in that section. Do you not want the ref for the "self help delopement" part or at the list?Voice of AllT|@|ESP 04:29, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Lilienfeld specificially criticises VK/D (Grinder & Bandler 1979) for treatment of trauma as taught in workshops, he says without substantive evidence. Lilienfeld does not study the entire field of NLP, at the moment Lilienfeld is overgeneralised. --Comaze 05:02, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Show how you would reword it one the workin article.Voice of AllT|@|ESP 05:15, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry VoA, everyone: I've run out of time today. Should have some time tomorrow. --Comaze 10:27, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
As usual, Comaze is advocating that highly respected clinical psychologists should not have their views represented. And that NLP and turing machines should be. Go figure! HeadleyDown 16:33, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Based on your feedback I modified the Lilienfeld point to make it more specific. --Comaze 22:42, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cult characteristics

  1. What authors, techniques or specific aspects of NLP are cult-like? All criticism needs to be connected to specific aspects of NLP.
  1. If NLP is a set of techniques what techniques are cult like, or used by cults? Is this just an opinion of the author, or is this cited? This needs to be balanced with Hassan and Prof. Charles Figley who consider techniques of NLP useful in helping people leave cults and the view that NLP is promoted as a way to encourage independant critical thinking
  2. Hassan is aware of some cult leaders that have trained in NLP, he is not aware of any cults that use NLP as a central part of the indoctrination methods.
  3. Some prominant trainers are Christian (eg. Dilts) some are Agnostic, some are against any sort of indoctination. At the moment the Cult section
  4. Gary Tippet is misrepresented[12]. He basically state that some cult leaders are training in NLP.
  5. Crabtree is not notable[13], this reference and attributed statement can be removed or truncated into the first sentence in that section, "NLP is referred to a technique used by both mild and aggressive cults".
  6. Singer, Margaret & Janja Lalich are given alot of weight in the article. What aspects or schools of NLP are they criticising?
  7. Navopashin (2004) is a violation of "guilt by association" or Wikipedia:No Original Research see [14] for details

Its no good claiming that things are not notable. You must explain why. And considering the demands Comaze has made, you have to explain for MONTHS. These pointwise assertions are facile. The cult section could do with expanding in response to this censorious nonsense.JPLogan 03:34, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

JPLogan, are you claiming that Crabtree is a notable author in this field? What is your evidence? --Comaze 01:19, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the difference between the "commercial cult" and actual cults should be stated more clearly in the article.


Specific attributtes of NLP, such as group pressure, should be tied to cult criticism, rather than all of NLP. There likely is no cult that is just build around being an "NLP cult". NLP does seem like a "commercial cult" at times, given the secretiveness, ellusion of peer review, ect...Criticism should be reworded to either "some aspects" or the exact ones("aspects, such as..."), but it should not just be deleted.

Commercial cult is already mentioned in order to distinguish the sect/religion/cults from commercial cults. The term 'new age' could be useful there though.HeadleyDown 02:53, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Many of the "NLP sucks" quotes have already been trimmed out, so we won't need to cut out too many more of those.Voice of AllT|@|ESP 23:58, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've modified comments about Hassan, added Crabtree, and Tippet while you were editing. Based on your comments I'll refactor the list accordingly. I'll be back later . Can you change your comments after it has been refactored? :) --Comaze 00:08, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Can we agree to remove or truncate Crabtree ref , and reword Tippett? This should be fairly simple. Then we can cross out those two points and move forward --Comaze 09:48, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No Comaze, but most of us have agreed that your are bent on censorship/whitewash. You are ultimately destined for disappointment. JPLogan 03:23, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
What points are you referring to here? --Comaze 01:19, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Other editors

FT2 has "given up" on this article. Fuelwagon won't be back anytime soon [15]. Where the others?Voice of AllT|@|ESP 05:14, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hay, VoiceOfAll. Didn't someone remind you? Its Christmas:) Comaze is hoping Santa will allow him to remove all criticisms from the article. HeadleyDown 16:31, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My primary focus now is accuracy; closeness of attribution to the actual source. --Comaze 22:46, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Comaze's focus in actual fact is just the same as it always was; To remove criticisms of NLP. This is quite a dry season, but I will be checking up on things at least once a week - forever. And any facts I see that should be in the article, I will paste right back there. You hear that Comaze? JPLogan 03:22, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What was the writer of this bit trying to say?

"Grinder has stated that NLP is a science and an art, and Bandler and Grinder have used erroneously explained neuroscience to NLP (Bandler and Grinder 1975a)."

Fritz Perls and Dianetics

I wrote the Gestalt Institute a letter regarding the details of Perls' involvement in Dianetics when there was much consternation about this matter in the discussion page. I haven't received a reply (yet) but I have discovered a Perls biography:

Shepard, Martin (1975) Fritz, Saturday Review Press, New York.

The bio didn't contain any references to Perls running an auditing clinic but the excerpts below suggest that his involvement with Dianetics was more than dabbling. His biographer reports:

"It was not too long before Fritz began traveling from city to city on a "milk run"--to Cleveland, Detroit, Toronto, Miami--running small groups for those professionals and laymen interested in Gestalt Therapy. In addition, he took advantage of observing, attending, and being affected by such pioneers as Charlotte Selver (Body Awareness) and J. L. Moreno (Psychodrama), studying Dianetics with Arthur Ceppos, and being turned on to Zen by Paul Weisz, his friend, confidant, and fellow Gestaltist in New York." (Shepard, 1975, p. 64)
'Fritz was particularly intrigued with L. Ron Hubbard's Dianetics--later referred to as Scientology--and was one of the first people audited by this procedure. The Dianeticist's technique of emotional recall of past disturbing elements in the present time, as though they were happening now, in order to erase and eliminate these influences through emotional catharsis, was clearly evident in Fritz's later work, as was their insistence on communicating, on taking responsibility for one's own feelings. Thus, a Scientology student would say, "I feel uncomfortable when I am around you," rather than "You make me feel uncomfortable."' (Shepard, 1975, p. 65)

If this is still a topic of interest I'll pursue the matter more aggressively investigating Arthus Ceppos and attempting to obtain a copy of the Dianetics book that Perls wrote the intro for. flavius 10:42, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Flavius, doing a google search indicates that Dianetics was Hubbard's abuse of Perl's Gestalt Therapy (and other ideas). Thus, it was not Perls being influenced by Hubbard, but HUBBARD's joke-religion was based on Perls' work.
http://home.snafu.de/tilman/j/origins6.html Hubbard also seems to have borrowed ideas from Fritz Perls' Gestalt ...
http://www.as3265.net/~kspaink/cos/essays/atack_origin.html Hubbard also seems to have borrowed ideas from Fritz Perls' GESTALT therapy
Perls ALSO wrote this about Hubbard's Dianetics: "Hubbard, with his mixture of science and fiction, his bombastic way of pretending to something new by giving abstract names... to processes, his rejection of the patient's responsibility... his unsubstantiated claims, makes it easy for anyone to reject his work in toto,..." in the Introduction for this book: J. A. Winter, A Doctor's Report on Dianetics, p. xiv.
Perls could have been speaking about NLP and NLP promoters, being bombastic, mixing science and fiction, giving things abstract names (obscurantisms), unsubstantiated claims, and so on. Perls would probably be extremely critical of NLP. Camridge 03:10, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
In his book "A Doctor's Report on Dianetics" book, J.A. Winter wrote (in Chapter 1):


Another point in which dianetics did not seem to follow out the claims of its originator was in the concept of "clear." Hubbard defines a "clear" as an individual who, through dianetic therapy, has had all his engrams removed, who "has neither active nor potential psychosomatic illness or aberration" (p. 170). He further states that an engram, once removed, is gone permanently, and can never return to influence a person's behavior. In our early correspondence he mentioned that a "clear" had been obtained in as few as twenty hours of therapy; this sort of result has not, to my knowledge, been obtained by other practitioners of dianetics. I know of persons who have had 1500 to 2000 hours of therapy and do not approximate the state of "clear," as defined. True, they are in better health and are more effectual and happy citizens -- but they have not reached this absolute goal.


I have yet to see a "clear" before and after dianetic therapy. I have not reached that state myself, nor have I been able to produce that state in any of my patients. I have seen some individuals who are supposed to be "clear," but their behavior does not conform to the definition of the state. Moreover, an individual supposed to have been "clear" has undergone a relapse into conduct which suggests an incipient psychosis.
Thankyou AKulkis, this is clear evidence that Perls practiced Dianetics "I have not reached that state, nor have I been able to produce that state in any of my patients." Camridge 03:10, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Camridge, I believe that it is Winters speaking not Perls. There are a couple of indicators of this (i) the editor inserts "[snipped a couple of pages describing this woman's condition - quite gloomy. Dr. Winter continued his narrative...]"; (ii) the narrator says his home is in Michigan, Perls was based in New York City; (iii) the narrator states "For several years I had written articles on medical subjects for the laity, and some of my work had been published in Astounding Science Fiction". Perls never wrote for that magazine, Winter did ref ASTOUNDING SCIENCE FICTION 1948: November (Vol.42 No.3) [16] The above notwithsatnding there is enough evidence to reinstate a reference to the Perls/Dianetics connection. flavius 06:08, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


This does not mean that I am denying the existence of the state of being "clear." It remains a theoretical possibility, granting the validity of certain postulates. I must, however, regard this claim as one which has not been confirmed. [...]
Another observation which I made during my association with the Foundation had to do with the phenomenon called "positive suggestion." It has been known since the days of the Egyptians that most people can be put into a state in which they act as if whatever they are told is true; they are said to be hypnotized, and the statements made by the operator in manipulating the subject's actions are called "positive suggestions." Hubbard in his book had inveighed against hypnosis and pointed out that being hypnotized was tantamount to being given an engram.
"My association with the foundation" Perls was associated or affiliated with Dianetics. Camridge 03:10, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It has been known for some time that hypnosis can alter a person's behavior pattern for better or worse, not only during the hypnotic state but also for an indefinite period thereafter. [Werner Wolff, "The Threshold of the Abnormal," Hermitage House, Inc., New York, 1950, p. 328.] It was generally believed, however, that the person had to be in the hypnotic state in order to have a positive suggestion installed and his conduct thereby altered. ...


By October, 1950, I had come to the conclusion that I could not agree with all the tenets of dianetics as set forth by the Foundation. I could not, as previously mentioned, support Hubbard's claims regarding the state of "clear." I no longer felt, as I once had, that any intelligent person could (and presumably should) practice dianetics. I noted several points on which the actions of the Foundation were at variance with the expressed ideals of dianetics: one of these points was a tendency toward the development of an authoritarian attitude. Moreover, there was a poorly concealed attitude of disparagement of the medical profession and of the efforts of previous workers in the field of mental illness. Finally, the avowed purpose of the Foundation -- the accomplishment of precise scientific research into the functioning of the mind -- was conspicuously absent.
http://www.xenu.net/archive/fifties/e510000.htm (Operation Clambake: Undressing Scientology)
Notice the qualified statements: Perls could not agree with all the tenets of dianetics. But he agreed with some. Not any intelligent person should practice dianetics, but some. Authoritarian attitude - NLP. Disparagment of medicine - NLP. Camridge 03:10, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
[Note that Hubbard and his Dianetics specifically REJECTS the use of hypnosis, which is in direct contrast to the NLP community which ENCOURAGES the use of hypnosis whenever it is convenient (including the use of covert hypnotic inductions while outside of clinical settings).]
Auditing has been banned in Australia, because it uses command hypnosis. The same kind of hypnotic commands as NLP. Camridge 03:10, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Perls wrote the forward to this book, and therefore endorsed Winter's position. And if it's not entirely clear from that act alone, the following statement by Perls in the forward makes it certain:
"Hubbard, with his mixture of science and fiction, his bombastic way of pretending to something new by giving abstract names... to processes, his rejection of the patient's responsibility... his unsubstantiated claims, makes it easy for anyone to reject his work in toto,..."
The Perls' statement is a POSITIVE REJECTION of Hubbard's views, and therefore, of Dianetics. Akulkis 14:43, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Perls did not actually say he rejected Dianetics. But he did say that he practiced it, and he was closely associated with dianetics. Here is the statement as it reads[17]: "Perls, a staunch adherent of dianetics and a follower of Winter's group, has taken issue with Hubbard. He writes, "Hubbard, with his mixture of science and fiction, his bombastic....." THEREFORE: Perls was a staunch adherent, an associate, and a practitioner of dianetics who somply took issue with some of Hubbards methods/characteristics. I think we have enough sources for "Perls the dianetics fan" for now. Camridge 03:10, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

WOW! I knew Perls was a xenuphile, but I didn't know he was a staunch adherent of dianetics. Learn something new every day:)DaveRight 04:00, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron, I'm familiar with Atack's essay which you have referenced. Atack states,"Hubbard also seems to have borrowed ideas from Fritz Perls' Gestalt Therapy - though I haven't looked into this in any depth yet." Thus Atack's account is self-admittedly tentative. Shepard's bio is well-researched and his chronology of events is sensible. I don't see a reason to reject Shepard's work in favour of Atack's conjecture. Headley's account is consistent with Shepard's. Furthermore, your proposed chronology of events is discordant. Hubbard announced his creation of Dianetics in the December 1949 edition of Astounding Science Fiction[18]. The first Dianetics article appeared in the Spring 1950 edition of The Explorers Club Journal[19]. Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health was published on May 9, 1950 [20]. At this point Gestalt Therapy (distinct but related to Gestalt Psychology) was only just forming. Perls published Ego, Hunger and Aggression: A Revision of Psychoanalysis in 1947 which contained only the germ of Gestalt Therapy. At this stage Perls remained heavily influenced by Freudian psychoanalysis, Gestalt Psychology and existentianl psychotherapy . According to Laura Perls, Fritz was at this stage existential in orientation[21]. Perls' et als Gestalt Therapy: Excitement and Growth in the Human Personality wasn't published until 1951. Arthur Ceppos published Hubbard's Dianetics and Perl's Gestalt Therapy. Shepard tells us that Perls studied Dianetics with Ceppos during the latter formative years of Gestalt Therapy, namely, the 1950-1. Ceppos very likely introduced Perls to Dianetics. Thus Dianetics preceded Gestalt Therapy. Prior to Perls' exposure to Dianetics the nascent Gestalt Therapy was a pastiche of post-war Continetal Eurpoean humanistic psychologies. The only abreactive element that Perls originally had came from Freudian psychoanalysis (Existential Psychotherapy and Gestalt Psychology do not incorporate abreaction). Gestalt Therapy's trauma therapy by abreaction is not Freudian it is more like that in Dianetics. In the foreword in Winter's book Perls doesn't actually state that he rejects Dianetics in toto, he actually re-iterates his ostensibly "ecelectic" philosophy which is evident throughout his career. By the time Winter's book was published Gestalt Therapy was on its way to becoming institutionalised (in 1952 the New York Gestalt Institute was established) and Hubbard's paranoid schizophrenia had become acute and he was penning venomous, paranoid and accusatory letters to the FBI regarding both Winters and Ceppos [22]. If Perls wanted any credibility it was important that he distance himself from Hubbard and Dianetics. Also, in 1953 Harvey Jay Fischer published Dianetic Therapy: An Experimental Evaluation(online at [23]). In it he describes Perls as "a staunch adherent of dianetics and a follower of Winter's group" (Ch. 1). There is nothing peculiar about Hubbard's falling out with Winter's and Perls, Hubbard was a paranoid schizophrenic (just like you?) he fell out with many people (including Aleister Crowley). Your (vestigial) argument re hypnosis and dianetics is specious (like all of your contributions). You are in effect proposing that because A does not share all properties in common with B then A and B must be unrelated. Apparently, in your aberrant surrealistic world there are no intersecting sets (in naive set-theoretic terms). By your superior Engineering/US Army/Patent seeking/drill sergeant assaying logic then vanilla ice cream and chocolate ice cream are unrelated because they do not share a common flavour. Similarly kick-boxing is unrelated to boxing because they don't kick in boxing. If this weren't enough to damn you, your entire thesis is more of your simulacra. No one is claiming that NLP is Dianetics or that it is a subset of Dianetics. The thesis -- which has ample evidence -- is that NLP incorporates elements of Dianetics via Perls' influence on the formation of NLP. There is no evidence that Bandler or Grinder had any interest in Dianetics. There is ample evidence that Perls had much interest in Dianetics and we know that Perls was very influential in the formation of NLP. As Headley has explained, the core NLP notion of the submodality and the core technique of submodality manipulation for the purpose of attenuating traumatic memories is closely paralleled by Dianetic auditing. None of the other antecedents of Gestalt Therapy (besides Dianetics) have sensory based trauma reduction techniques. Finally, Hubbard's distancing of Dianetics and Scientology from hypnosis is merely marketing and a pre-requisite to his vilification of psychiatrists and psychologists. "Propaganda by Redefinition of Words” (PR series 12)[24][25] (or "loaded language" in Lifton's Thought Reform Model) is component of CoS doctrine. Dianetics can be understood as a form of hypnosis[26]. The pre-clear's state of relaxtion -- called reverie in Dianetics jargon -- during an auditing session is akin to light hypnotic trance. The Anderson Report (excerpted here [27], [28]; in full here [29]) states that "It is the firm conclusion of this Board that most scientology and dianetic techniques are those of authoritative hypnosis and as such are dangerous...the scientific evidence which the Board heard from several expert witnesses of the highest repute and possessed of the highest qualifications in their professions of medicine, psychology, and other sciences - and which was virtually unchallenged - leads to the inescapable conclusion that it is only in name that there is any difference between authoritative hypnosis and most of the techniques of scientology. Many scientology techniques are in fact hypnotic techniques, and Hubbard has not changed their nature by changing their names." (p.115) Consistent with PR series 12, the Anderson Report states, 'The common practice of Hubbard is to change the names of hypnotic phenomena to names of his own invention, purporting thereby to change the nature and significance of such phenomena. Thus, a form of unconsciousness experienced in hypnosis he has renamed variously "anaten", "boil-off", and "dope-off"; hypnotic hallucinations he has called "mental image pictures"; and "dissociation" he has called "exteriorization".' (p.115). Also, I remind you that you haven't answered any of my substantive criticisms of your blather and bluster. Will you conveniently ignore my arguments concerning inter alia your false harmless/ineffective dichotomy, your misrepresentation of Barrett's litigation, your inability to distinguish assertion from argument, your privileging of your own subjective experince, your presentation of anecdote as evidence, your self-refuting argument regarding the essential bias of those with a vested interest, your need to reconcile the last 500 years of scientific progress with the allegedly corrupt and entrenched institution of science, your need to reconcile the staunch criticism of psychology by psychologists given the alleged corruption of the profession ad nauseum? flavius 05:37, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Perls practiced Dianetics and adapted trauma treatments directly from dianetics. Going back into a traumatic experience, and making "in the shoes" gestures was Perl's major contribution to Gestalt therapy (a fringe therapy). Of course this is the same as submodality treatments of NLP. Naranjo has mentioned this, and in true narcissistic style, Perls then distances himself from Hubbard and claims the method for himself. Perls was into Dianetics until people started saying "hey thats not empirically supported". Then he goes to Esalen institute to suck dope with the other shamen. If he were alive today, he would probably use bits of NLP, then diss NLP for being empirically unsupported. How about we discuss Satir's enneagrams now?:) HeadleyDown 16:31, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
There are whole books written on NLP and the enneagram [30].Camridge 03:12, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comaze, what you mean to say is that you would really love to censor the fact that NLP is based on the convenient yet ineffective techniques of Dianetics proponents and other such new agers. NLP fanatics such as yourself spend months trying to delete the fact that NLP is categorized with Dianetics and Scientology as pseudoscientific and cultlike. As NPOV states, we must explain that to people. And all those oldies who read NLP for the first time and say to themselves "Hang on! Thats just like Dianetics, isn't it?". We can clarify the facts for them. Or perhaps you could write a big sentence for them at the end saying "Oh no, this isnt at all like Dianetics, no not at all, nononononono! really, its not! Honestly!". DaveRight 02:37, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comaze, I put it to you that it is not consistent with your "web of belief" (my apologies to Quine) to "work out why". NLP and Dianetics are "cut from the same cloth", they are of the same category (pseudoscientific, unsubstantiated, theoretically unfounded, ineffective, psycho-shamanistic, psycho-cults) share a historical connection via Perls, have in common regressive techniques (auditing vs. VK dissoaciation, submodality manipulation and time line therapy), Bandler's scornful descriptions of the "conscious mind" closely parallel Hubbard's disdain for the "reactive mind", the "clear" is essentially a person without pernicious "anchors", the unconscious mind is deified in both Dianetics and NLP, both NLP and Dianetics conceptualise pathology as learnt and eliminable via unlearning (engram removal vs. collapsing anchors/submodality attenuation/VK dissociation), both NLP and Dianetics claim General Semantics as influences. The parallels are too many to ignore. Sociologically, what is fascinating is that in the same way that Dianetics eventually grew into Scientology (a broader metpahysical framework within which Dianetics is placed) NLP has gained broader metaphysical/quasi-spiritual layers within which it nestled, supplying the psycho-philosophical theory for a grander metpahysical theory. The only difference is that NLP has undergone this expansion in a distributed and diverse fashion producing a multitute of quasi-religions. Perhaps this needs more explanation by way of analogy:
Dianetics is to Scientology as
NLP is to Tad James' Huna/NLP fusion
NLP is to Bandler's Magick/DHE/NHR fusion
NLP is to Kenrick Cleveland's Santeria/NLP fusion
NLP is to Philip Farber's Magick/NLP fusion
NLP is to Grinder's Castaneda/radical social constructivist/NLP fusion
These outgrowths demonstrate that NLP alone -- like Dianetics -- is insufficient to form a comprehensive New Religion. Religions present a soteriology, cosmology and a conception of human nature. NLP supplies a part of the conception of human nature but it has no soteriology and cosmology. To serve as a substitute religion these additional elements must be added. In the same way that Hubbard borrowed from gnosticism, gnostic mythology and science fiction to provide the necessary soteriology and cosmology so too have numerous NLP authorities borrowed from the occult. In my experience of NLP seminars the bulk of attendants have rejected traditional religion (Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism) and are seeking "something else". This disillusionment with traditional religion appears to have been experienced by the NLP authorities themselves and they consequently develop there own New Religion with NLP serving as an initiation and practical component of the "faith". Narcissistic baby-boomers with the money to spend form the ballast of these New Religions. Thus also from a sociological perspective there is a parallel between Dianetics and NLP. flavius 02:47, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I still cannot work out why is there only one mention of "Gestalt therapy" and 12 repeats of Dianetics/Scientology (not including engrams ambiguity)? I think we are currently giving Scientology and Dianetics viewpoint too much weight in the current article. Firstly, NLP is not a religion and has been applied to sales training in business more than it has been applied in religious contexts. I think we're going to have to get an RfC on this from an expert in the field (Gestalt therapy?). The link between Dianetics and Gestalt is weak AND the link between Gestalt and NLP is also weak. Some language patterns observed in Bandler and Perls were imported into the meta model of therapy (1975a), the same model also includes language patterns from Virginia Satir and Transformational syntax so these also need to be included. Comaze 06:44, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all. Here are some other interesting links: [31][32]. This "spiritual technology" is based partly on NLP, and the PEAT processes seem to be exactly the same. I notice that they also talk about language in the same way as dianetics, and this shows exactly how people perceive NLP. The loaded language of Scientology is so similar to NLP. Hubbard devotes a whole book to communication in his Dianetics 55, and his science and tech of achievement in his main Dianetics tome. NLP books themselves are very sanitized in comparison with what actualy goes on in use, or in groups, or in the seminars of NLP gurus. Take mirroring and matching for example. In social psych, mirroring is simply an effect rather than a cause. If you gain empathy with someone, you will automatically match them in some subtle ways. In NLP it is a mindfuck. You become a jedi who can gain compliance with your subject by cleverly, artfully and craftily matching their movements and leading them to do as you desire. The obscurantisms are similar. In hypnosis, you give suggestions to the subject. In NLP you COMMAND them. You go out to command your acquaintances using a deeper resonant pitch, like the voice of their own subconscious. NLP is designed to inspire you to consider this kind of "empowerment" by delusion. It gives you tools. The tools look great, and you can peel the golden foil off and eat the chocolate. But they do nothing for you in reality. They offer ultimate flexibility. But so does shamanism. You can evoke your halucinations and visions, and see the future you can create through building "outcomes", and all for the price of a seminar or novel. And you can surround yourself with like-minded people, on newsgroups and in clubs and seminars. For sure, sociologically this subject just gets more interesting the deeper you go. Camridge 03:26, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Camridge, I feel dumber after visiting those URLs :-) "Spiritual Technology" reads much like Dianetics and Scientology. It amuses me how the author refers to NLP to substantiate his claims (as if it were a fundamental science). The author of that web site has learnt much from Hubbard and B&G. "Loaded language" is a characteristic of cults. In this regard NLP is cult-like. I agree that the weirdest material is to be discovered at NLP seminars. I provided some links to reviews of Bandler's master prac classes that substantiates this.flavius 07:29, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
We've still got a major bias towards "New Age" (17 repeats), and "Dianetics/Scientology(20 repeats) points of view. --Comaze 04:53, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comaze, clearly you still do not see the connections. The new age and dianetics issues will be quite useful for clarifying more of the article. I will make the appropriate clarifications in time. HeadleyDown 03:03, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Embedded Commands, Co-operative approach v. Authoritative approach

The embedded command is a basic technique that is taught in all master prac seminars that I am familiar with. I will dig-out my seminar manuals if need be. There is no confusion other than that which you are creating. I know from first-hand that Bandler, Ross Jeffries, Kenrick Cleveland and the Essential Skills group all teach NLP techniques as a means of covertly commanding unwitting victims. flavius 07:37, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yes in NLP it is not framed as a suggestion, rather than an authoritative power word. In fact, they often sell 18 power words, and get people to practice them as commands. NOW, when you DO THIS, you will NOTICE, you can FEEL COMPELLED, to BUY THIS IDEA, and when you REALIZE ITS SO SEXY, you will COME OVER AND OVER AGAIN, to the same conclusion that you are FALLING UNDER THE SPELL, and SUCCUMMING TO NLP. NOW, how much does that make you FEEL REALLY GOOD to FALL FOR THAT? Of course its all bullshit, but it makes the practitioner feel like a powerhouse jedi shaman. If you ever hear that sort of thing coming from an NLPer, just realize they are probably also jerking off under the table. The terms in NLP are generally designed to give the practitioner delusions of grandure. Bookmain 08:36, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thats really funny Bookmain. They use these "commands" all the time on newsgroups. Here is an article on commands [33] The idea is that they bypass the rational mind and hit you right in the subconscious (a notion considered dubious by hypnotherapists). The moderators of NLP newsgroups tend to use them a lot, and it gives them some mistique. In fact moderators of NLP groups tend to also act very bombastically, just like their heros (Bandler, Sikes, Hubbard etc) for the same reason. Their arguments and metaphors are generally designed to insult people indirectly in order to keep order. This only works in situations of group control, where people are under the threat of being booted and flamed. So when you HEAR DODGY NLP idiots such as Akulkis and his NLPgroup derived arguments, you may NOTICE THE NLPER is just PULLING ITS OWN PLONKER without the benefit of a group for backup. For sure, it mostly just comes across as shouting. In a "covert undercover NLP situation" it is usually used with "subtle artfullness" and "slight of mouth" in order to subtly "lead the victim to an outcome". You gotta learn some more "secrets" to get to that point though. Probably from one on one tuition from "qualified" NLPists. You gotta pay lots of money for that though. ATB Camridge 09:03, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comaze, the only confusion is that which you are trying to spread. Saying "oh thats not the way we do it" has been your standard line from the beginning. NLP uses commands, full stop. They are termed commands. It doesn't matter whether you dress them up for song and dance, the fact is, NLP promotes methods that have dubious efficacy for what they are intended for. However, they seem to be great for fooling the practitioner/user. If you deliberately send people commands, then you feel you are impacting their subconscious somehow. Magic! You are in control and you have power over somebody else's mind. At least that is how they feel about it. Mirroring is similar. From research conducted on mirroring, if you tell a group of people that mirroring makes you persuasive, then they will find anybody who mirrors them will seem highly persuasive. But to those who don't know the hypothesis, mirroring makes no difference at all. Great for seminars that include mirroring workouts! NLP is set up to fool the practitioner (and it often encourages them to try devious and ethically dubious activities). Mostly though, it is just a lot of evasive rituals dressed up as science. HeadleyDown 03:16, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I have also seen lists of power words, often sold as secrets in NLP. Perhaps this trend has died down, but it was very common a few years back on the WWW. HeadleyDown 03:20, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Flavius makes the most accurate comment here, saying "The embedded command is a basic technique" in NLP practitioner training. But you guys are still discounting the view best represented by Stephen Gilligan PhD -- the co-operative approach. One of the original developers of NLP and students of Milton Erickson, who wrote his PhD on this co-operative relationship between hypnotist and client for use in psychotherapy.
Camridge says, "In NLP you COMMAND them" and "[They] use these 'commands' all the time on newsgroups."
HeadleyDown says, "NLP uses commands, full stop." and
There is still confusion around the difference between the commanding/authoritative approach used in clinical hypnotherapy and stage hypnosis, and the co-operative approach promoted by many NLP trainers. I'm not saying that this approach is used by all practitioners of NLP and all NLP training but it certainly a majority, examples can be found all the early NLP books (Patterns 1&2 1976-1977, Trance-formations 1981, Turtles 1986) and the same patterns is found in pacing and leading in rapport (Patterns 1&2 1976-1977), this is a dance where no one person is in control of the relationship. In the psychotherapy setting embedded commands are not used as bald statements, embedded commands are taught for use in subtle generative suggestions. Also, there is still a confusion around the difference between stage hypnosis/clinical hypnosis which can be very commanding/authoritative, and the ericksonian approach to hypnosis a softly pacing/leading approach.
Bookmain says, "[they] often sell 18 power words"
HeadleyDown says, "power words, often sold as secrets in NLP."
By definition power words are content, not process and therefore not part of any NLP syllabus -- not part of any topic covered in a course.. Do you have any counter-examples for this? Who teaches them? Are they taught by any notable trainers/authors in the field? If so, when? This is again part of the co-operative approach which allows the student or client to use his/her own words to describe the desired states and resources required to achieve outcomes. Additionally HeadleyDown/Bookmain/Camridge make the claim that NLP can be used in newsgroups. Well, strictly this is not true; NLP can only be used in face-to-face communication. There are no verbal or non-verbal cues to calibrate with text therefore you are not doing NLP. --Comaze 04:22, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

History repeating winwinwin

NLP fanatics make demands for more evidence, more evidence is presented, and NLP fanatics don't like it. Thats the history of this article. I quite like the process. It is a win-win-win. I win because it makes a clear article, and humanity wins because it makes a clear article, and humility wins because dickhead NLPbrains get to look really stupid:) DaveRight 04:04, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If Perls at once promoted all or most of Dianetics, then the link should stay. Methinks I removed it too hastily :).

Nevertheless, lets not insult people. Comaze has been very civil, whether he seems annoying to you or not.Voice of AllT|@|ESP 05:28, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi VoiceOfAll. Your edits work well, as we are trying to keep things brief. Changes to your edits are only made when an editor has more info at hand than you. Regards Camridge 06:00, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Mmm! I wonder. I think Comaze's months of creating annoyance and extra work is extremely uncivil. Especially when those annoying incidences are highlighted by his daily and mostly unwarrented accusations of personal attacks (slur campaign). We know Comaze's game all too well. I don't think any editor is going to see his edits or suggestions as anything more than a desire for censorship. We all have to live with that, including him. Camridge 06:00, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This is on topic Comaze. Your activities highlight the pseudoscientific attitudes and cultlike nature of NLP proponents. And any solutions to reduce your antagonistic and conflict provoking efforts have always been useful for the advancement of this article. Bookmain 08:26, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing strict about discussions pages Comaze. People here are doing their best to cope with your censorship and your fostering of wikispam/promotion/confusion. I think anything that helps avoid such confounding nonsense is a good thing for the article. HeadleyDown 03:23, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
By refering to your agenda, Comaze, nobody is being personal. And by refering to your agenda here, rather than on personal pages, you will have less chance of creating conflict with your multiple unreasonable objections. HeadleyDown 04:50, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Accuracy, Verifiability and No original research

I've created a page to document any inaccuracies, overgeneralisations, misleading statements or statements that do not have proper citations, see Talk:Neuro-linguistic_programming/inaccurate. This will take some time to document all the sections, but will help us sort out the content disputes and prepare for a fact and reference check. Any assistance would be greatly appreciate, anyone want to join me on this project? Please assist by adding references and page numbers to all facts -- the quick test is, can someone verify this in 10 years time? I've just added some page numbers for your reference. Also marked REF or PAGE where page number or REF is required as per the proposed decision of arbitration. We also need to be careful because some of the current statements use "guilt by association" to connect NLP to negative things, this would be covered under verifiability and Wikipedia: No original research. I've also made some changes to the Neuro-linguistic_programming/Working version to mark out some missing references and proposed changes to that "questionable application" section. --Comaze 11:50, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comaze, you are obsessed. Trying to recruit more cronies? This is really funny. In the process you will undoubtedly uncover plenty of extra criticism towards NLP. Do you care to share it on your new "advocate censorship" article? HeadleyDown 03:07, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I modified the Brain laterilization section for 1 of the 4 request. The other 1 was already fulfilled. I dont see how the issue with the first 2 however: "some" is due to books by major NLP writers mentioning it, but not everyone using it, and it is an oversimplification, that is well known by now.Voice of AllT|@|ESP 04:38, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation Page

Please use Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Neuro-linguistic programming for mediation disputes(please summarize and keep it orderly) and email me for conduct disputes. Thanks.Voice of AllT|@|ESP 18:50, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The current dispute is getting silly with so much personal attack. You are giving Wikipedia a bad reputation by setting a bad example. If you have strong emotional stance either against or for NLP, you should consider putting up a website of your own to express your views instead of using wikipedia as a free web hosting service. The objective of wikipedia is to inform not to indoctrinate. I would suggest that if people can't achieve an NPOV consensus and continue with immature personal attacks, I think the mediator should consider removing the NLP page from wikipedia.--Dejakitty 03:06, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dejakitty, the present situation involves the improvement of the article, and includes any pointing out of various agendas of various editors. That is the way this particular cult-ridden subject works. You may have noticed that it is in fact working; the article has become more brief and more clear. Mainly through clarification of facts, and clarification of the promoter/cult agenda situation. HeadleyDown 15:06, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

HeadlyDown, As I have said, the purpose of Wikipedia is to inform, not indoctrinate. If you believe that there is cult conspiracy behind any particular NLP training organization, I don't think Wikipedia is the appropriate platform to make such an accusation. You should also consider the problem of other websites "scrapping" off an outdated version of wikipedia article. Accusation of cultism is a serious charge and should not be taken lightly. If you think you have sufficient evidence against a particular NLP organization or practitioner, you should consider presenting your case to an appropriate local regulatory body, such as UKCP (in the case of psychotherapy in UK). There is no centralized regulatory body in NLP, so it does not make any sense accusing NLP of global cult agenda. Any poorly presented, unfocused attacks on NLP (as opposed to critical review) will hurt the reputation of Wikipedia in the long-run and will have no effect on any potential bad NLP practioners and institutions. Please exercise responsibility when submitting on-line, otherwise we may face the end of the open-source Wikipedia. --Dejakitty 21:30, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dejakitty, there does not have to be a conspiracy for a cult to form. Scientists who state NLP is a cult are nothing to do with me. If they say it is a cult, then that is there view. However, the activities of NLPers on this article and discussion are consistent with the fact that NLP is a cult and have been conspiring to censor the article. Your own overreaction to the NLP-cult facts being presented on this article shows that you also have an agenda to censor. The sort of whitewash/censorship you are proposing places you as a member of the NLP cult, and highlights NLP's cult characteristics. It would be irresponsible for any wikipedia editor to allow cult members such as yourself or Comaze to censor an article to whitewash or promote their biased and anti-science views. HeadleyDown 01:28, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Dejakitty, I agree "the purpose of Wikipedia is to inform, not indoctrinate". Consistent with that objective, any expert opinion which characterises NLP as a psycho-cult, cult-like, business cult should be included in the article. To do otherwise would be to allow the article to serve as a PR piece for the NLP industry/cult. This would amount to advocacy and promotion. Advocacy and promotion disguised as education is inimical to the the credibility of Wikipedia. HeadleyDown isn't making an "accustaion", he is reporting expert opinion. You are again correct, "[a]ccusation of cultism is a serious charge and should not be taken lightly", that is why the expert opinion of cult authorties such as Singer should be reported. Like HeadleyDown I too do not comprehend your equation of cults with conspiracy or global organisation. Cults may be conspiratorial and globally organised but they need not be. None of the models of cults that I am familiar with require conspiracy or global organsiation for identification. Lifton (1981) identifies cults using three criteria:
Charismatic leadership
Thought reform
Exploitation (sexual, economic, other) of group members by the leader and the ruling coterie
Lifton is an authority on cults, unfortunately he hasn't taken an interest in NLP. By Lifton's criteria, NLP is a cult -- not one large global cult -- but a multitude of small cults each with their own leadership and peculiarities. The OR prohibition prevents us from including Lifton's criteria. However, other authorities have taken an interest in NLP and have concluded that it is a cult. Any person with their critical faculties switched-on that attends a Bandler NLP or DHE seminar will arrive at the same conclusion. Consider a typical Bandler seminar: you pay US$3000-5000 to attend, Bandler enters stage with triumphalist music playing, he assumes his center stage seat where he delivers what is essentially a sermon (the shaman/high-priest talks, the disciples listen -- no questions asked), the flock learns a bunch of techniques that don't work, Bandler fictionalises his biography (claiming to have a doctorate, claiming to be a physicist, computer scientist, holographer, information scientists, claims he was in a band, claims he worked for the CIA... ostensibly for the purpose of state elicitation) and denigrates any ideas and individuals that compete in the commercial and intellectual markets with him (I've yet to hear a Bandler seminar where he doesn't denigrate psychology and psychiatry and indoctrinate his students against these professions). Cogntive dissonance and social pressure prevent any expression of dissatisfaction. I have a report from a person that attended a DHE seminar that a short-sighted person attended. Bandler claimed that using DHE and making the student "hallucinate" a pair of spectacles the student would be cured of his mypoia. After Bandler performed his shamanistic ritual on the student the student exclaimed his cure. Contrary to expectations the student spent the rest of the seminar squinting and bumping into furniture. The myopic student didn't put his spectacles back on. My reporter tells me that the myopic student probably feared the censure he would be subjected to as a "non-believer". At the end of the seminar when he left the hall he promptly put his spectacles back on. This anecdote illustrates several psychological forces and ploys that you'll find in many cult gatherings. I provie this only for your education. My conclusions and those of HeadleyDown are irrelevant -- it is the conclusions of experts that matter and that is what's being reported. flavius 02:37, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that you are using the word cult differently than I have in mind. I usually think of highly secretively non-mainstream religion organization, with a tendency to mind control and brainwash people. I don't know what you have in mind. The fact that you refer me as cult member suggests that you just use the word loosely to refer to anyone who doesn't subscribe to your view. If that is true, you might be correct referring NLP as cult. You should be clearer about what do you mean by cult when writing for an encyclopedia entry. Also, when quoting other authors referring NLP as cult, you should also be explicit about what the others mean by cult, as well as considering their potential biasis. I think I might be biased about this article. Therefore I have choosen not to contributely directly. You should also consider the reason why you are writing this article. If you think you have a strong agenda, you may not be the best person to contribute this entry. No one is censoring your right of expression. However you should consider what you write is appropriate for wikipedia. If not, you can always find other channel to express yourself. Please exercise self-control. --Dejakitty 01:56, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dejakitty, it is your conception of cult that is flawed. Your notion of a cult is a caricature with little relationship to the research of social psychologists and psychitarists on the topic. Part of your dissatisfaction with the edits stems from your self-referential cogitations: "I usually think of highly secretively non-mainstream religion organization, with a tendency to mind control and brainwash people". You are not a recognised authority on cults (such as Lifton and Singer) so what you think a cult is, is irrelevant and forms no basis for accusations of bias and polemic against editors. Pre-empting all of the banal criticisms (such as yours regarding the definition of a cult) can be easily accomplished (because these criticisms don't stand up to critical scrutiny) but would come at the cost of brevity. Your admonition about considering the "potential biasis" of authors is specious and stinks of bad faith. There are numerous probelems with your admonition: (i) a declaration of an authors potential bias is OR; (ii) stating that an author may have a potential bias is at best conjecture; (iii) it reveals a double-standard on your part in that you demonstrate no concern for flagging "potential biasis" from NLP promoters; (iv) the notion of a potential X is informationally bankrupt, why not say the author is a potential liar, potential genius, potential saint, potential murderer, potential rapist (as per Andrea Dworkin Lesbian-Separatist propaganda), potential homosexual, there are no boundaries regarding ascribing potential qualities to people without any evidence, knock yourself out. Why aren't NLP promoters potential cult leaders? Everyone has influences on their beliefs that come from family, friends, religion, personal experience, temperament, age, gender and so on. An influence is not a bias. It is entirely possible to be influenced without being biased. If you have a bias in favour of NLP then it suggests that your accpetance of NLP is not based on evidence, reason and education but on emotion, faith and/or pecuniary interest. Anything that you conribute from a position of bias would be unable to withstand any critical scrutiny and it wouldn't originate from the conclusions of topic experts (neurologists, psychiatrists, linguists, psychologists and philosophers). Reporting the consensus of expert opinion on the topic of NLP may proceed from a position of personal influence (eg. in my case I spent many thousands of dollars on NLP training and media and much time that proved worthless) without being biased. Bias would be demonstrated by failing to report methodologically sound research that demonstrates the efficacy of NLP or the integrity of its underlying theory. There is no such research. I have sought it on PubMed and PsycInfo and I have checked Bolstadt's list of NLP research. The experts quoted in the article have been entirely fair. Again my OR is irrelevant, I offer it only for your education. Experts such as Sharpley have performed exhaustive literature reviews and have even answered criticisms (which have subsequently gone unanswered). Prima facie the experts exhbit no bias (sure they have influences as we all do) -- the process of peer review would have flushed this out (refer to the dialogue between Sharpley (1984 and 1987) and Einspruch and Forman (1985)). Your concern with bias is misplaced. NLP is fundamentally a commercial enterprise. NLP Practitoner training is more expensive than even the most expensive private university in my part of the world (in terms of (tuition fee)/(service hours), service hours includes lectures, tutorials, one-on-one consultation, assignment grading, examination). NLP promoters trademark and copyright their every fart and burp and sell them as seminars, DVDs and CDs at exhorbiant rates (eg. Bandler's "State of the Art"). Contrast this with scientific research where not only are the latest research results available freely at academic libraries but for the cost of a typical NLP DVD set you can get an annual online subscription to a publishers entire catalogue of journals on a particular topic. Who is most likely to be biased: a salaried obscure academic whose findings can be found in a library at no cost or a charismatic, entrepreunarial NLP promoter that trademarks nelogisms and copyrights banality (with no research cost to recover) and sells them at rates higher than our learning institutions teach substantive disciplines such as civil engineering? flavius 03:48, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To Flavius, I am sorry that you have wasted all your money on NLP on courses without getting any benefit. Unless you can find a way to get your money back, I think all you can do is to take what you have learnt and be a bit wiser the next time.

No, I can do more than that. I can help prevent others from falling into the same trap. flavius 04:39, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1) Most people like me have no idea what is the expert scientific definition of cult. We can only react to words based on our past experience. I guess from your personal experience you mean training organizations pressuring people to enrole more courses than they need. Unfortunately, there are greedy people in NLP thinking that they will make as much money as Tony Robbins, though I can't say all NLP organizations are like that.
"The road to hell is paved with good intentions." I don't think the people that taught me NLP were greedy or malevolent. They were true believers. Whether the trainers themselves are greedy or otherwise is irrelevant, that is not what is at issue. The issue is what they are teaching. What I was taught was crap irrespective of the intentions, motives and skills of the trainer. flavius 04:39, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 2) Potential bias is not meant to be an insult to scientists. In fact, when submitting articles to peered-reviewed journal, you have to declare any potential biasis (institutional and methodological). What I was trying to say was that you should review all sources critically whether they are from expert sources or from NLP literature. This is the best way to protect yourself from "cultish" influence. I was not implying that all expert research are false and all pro-NLP literature should be taken as absolute truth.
Unless there is prima facie evidence of bias then no accusations should be made. The matter of bias is secondary to the disputed points. Even a biased source can conribute to a debate if (s)he supplies argument and evidence (as opposed to assertion and emotion). flavius 04:39, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 3) Like many things, NLP has strength and weakness. At the risk of oversimplification, there are broadly two types of NLP training, one with the emphasis on doing modelling with the right attitude, and one with emphasis on teaching specific techniques. It will take ages to comment on the former, but the latter is a bit like learning foreign languages with Michel Thomas method (loose analogy).
I'm familiar with the distinction. Grinder makes much of it in Whispering. It doesn't help, NLP is "Garbage All the Way Down" ;-) flavius 04:39, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 4) NLP is an illegitimate child of science. Thus there is an inherent institutional illegitimacy. It has to constantly justify itself as either science, art, philosophy, martial arts, sports etc. There are similarities to each categories, it does not exactly fit into any one of these categories. Unfortunately, John Grinder lost his job as assistant professor of linguists early on because of accusation of ethics violation (you probably konw more than I do on this). JG and RB were desperate to make their enterprise commercially viable. Other subjects like General Semantics (Korzybski) also suffers from lack of institutional endorsement. However, being illegitimate doesn't mean being worthless.
NLP has nothing to do with science, it's not even an illegitimate child of it. The correct categorisation of NLP is a non-issue. What is vitally improtant is: Does NLP work? and Is NLP theoretically sound?. Unfortunately, it doesn't work and it is without foundation. Thus, any discussion about whether NLP is art, science or whatever is peripheral and is the least of NLPs problems. flavius 04:39, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 5) It would not be reasonable to expect NLP practionners or institutions to provide scientific peer-reviewed proof, as they do not have the right expertise nor resources to do so. It is also difficult for university academics to secure funding for NLP research because of its lack of institutional legitimacy. Francine Shapiro's EMDR is one of the proposed method for treating PTSD. The current evidence supporting EMDR is far from conclusive. Unlike NLP, Francine Shapiro (MRI research fellow) has strong connection with research institutions and has submitted numerous papers on the subject. Thus you will find a number of papers on the subject from Pubmed. Despite the number of publications in pubmed, the strength of evidence is not conclusive.
Not so, I strongly disagree. Bandler snorted kilos of cocaine in the 80s. If he had any interest in substantiation he could have funded research. Similarly, Grinder and his gal are busy writing amateurish philosophical apologetics for why NLP doesn't need emprical testing instead of engaging in empirical testing. EMDR has been tested (I supplied a citation to a paper that is a literature review of EMDR research), it too is junk. I'm familiar with PubMed, it's not exhaustive on NLP research. This matter is "old hat" we've alreadt covered it. Please refer to the archived discussions. flavius 04:39, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 6) I think critism of NLP should be split into the following categories
    • Scientific testing of
      • Existing models of NLP (falsifiable) e.g. eye movement model
      • Efficacy of Specific Applications of NLP
    • Review from multiple perspectives
      • Preppositions or attitude of NLP
      • Existing models of NLP (non-falsifiable)
      • Practice of NLP as practiced NLP practioner and institutions - e.g. exorbitant price etc, commercialism

Traditional scientific testing (hypothesis based) should have a great role in evaluating areas like falsifiable NLP models and efficacy of specific NLP applications like Swish technique on PTSD. There is still lots to be done in this area and the current level of evidence is far from conclusive. This will require recouncilation between research institution and NLP practionners. I think the chances of this happening is not all that great.

Unfalsifiable hypotheses are junk hypotheses. flavius
Yes, and so what? The scientific evidence "[a]t the end of the day" says that NLP doesn't work. flavius
Dejakitty. Your obviously NLP-promotional appeal has been covered before, more than once. Here is the research: The claims of NLP promoters are extraordinary. Until they provide extraordinary evidence for those claims, they continue to be part of the list of pseudoscientific cults such as dianetics, EST (landmark forum), and could even be considered part of the more "magical thinking" pseudosciences. You have completely ignored the fact that NLP is a falsified pseudoscience based on other unverified, unverifiable, or falsified pseudosciences. NLP is heavily laced with pseudoscientific and popularly mythical bunkum. NLP's research stream is dry as a bone because nobody wants to spend money on researching the pseudoscience of NLP. The "other" parts of NLP are not to be researched because they are also based on nonsense. Indeed, more could be achieved by researching dianetics or phrenology. The "amazing results" claimed by the NLP promoters have not been presented to the scientific community because they are far from amazing. According to the research to date, they do not even come up to normal standards. NLP was measured, it failed the tests, the fad is over, and the effort to provide any evidence for the claimed results has been somewhere between negative and pathetic. HeadleyDown 16:41, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

HeadlyDown Calm down. There is no need to get overly emotional on a subject you don't care about. If NLP are not to be researched because they are based on nonsense, could you tell me exactly what have you been doing for the last few months writing this entry? Are you telling me that you have been writing on NLP without doing any form of research on NLP? Sounds like you have been ripped off by some bad NLP trainers and still have a grudge. Exactly how much catharsis are you getting for the last few months? Is what you have been doing really working? Are you really the right person writing this article without getting too emotional about it? --Dejakitty 19:36, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dejakitty, your accusations are not working. We have heard it all before. Now, would you like to deal with the issue that NLP is based on the most wobbly bunk in pseudoscience? No, clearly you wouldn't! Because you want to say that your NLP is actually not the pseudoscientific and ineffective NLP that scientists have written about. You are trying to promote NLP by using your ridiculous implication that "some" NLP is really bad, and therefore, all other NLP must be kosher. Here is the result that your communication got: It sounds like you mean only some charlatans and pseudoscientists are dodgy! HeadleyDown 02:49, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Dejakitty, I can tell you have really swotted up on NLP persuasion technologies - you are completely unconvincing. As a follower of the NLP cult, you seem to have fallen for one of its biggest cons. You seem to think that NLP is convincing outside of high pressure NLP fanatic social situations (NLP seminars and groups). If you post any of the science from this article on NLP newsgroups to support a questioning or critical NLP attitude, you will find the only thing they can do is boot you off. It is their only option. As an NLP cult follower, you are using emotional arguments against scientific evidence. And the only thing you can do is advocate for the removal of scientific fact, or to claim that people who support the article with science are being emotional. If NLP is not a cult, then just try to stop behaving like a cult fanatic. DaveRight 04:03, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Dejakitty, you're starting to distinguish yourself as a deluded zealot. Your statememnt above to HeadleyDown is unpersuasive and can only be understood as a lame attempt at being provocative. The accusation of hyper-emotionality is without substance and is an exemplar of Ad Hominem. HeadleyDown's emotionality even if it were evident would be irrelevant. An editors contribution is assessed on its own merits without (irrelevant) reference to their biography. You've conflated the notion of care with the notion of emotionality which you have in turn conflated with bias. In NLP terms you have formed a complex equivalence: care = emotionality = bias. All editors have some interest in the topic they contribute to, this is a truism. Whether they have a bias -- and if they did it would not necessairly be any grounds for censure -- can not be inferred from the amount of research engaged in or the volume of edits. Bias would be indicated by the quality of the edits. Insofar as NLP doesn't work All NLP trainers "rip off" their clients. No NLP trainer can deliver what NLP promises. The problem is less to do with the trainers and more to do with the subject -- it is a content problem not a form problem ;-) Your assertion regarding HeadleyDown seeking "catharsis" is without substance. In NLP terms it's another Meta Model violation, perhaps the gravest of NLP sins: the mind read. Since you have committed two Meta Model violations you should cleanse yourself of your NLP sins by suffering through Bandler and La Valle's "Persuasion Engineering". flavius 05:05, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

References

Let's tone it down and discuss how we can improve the article. I've done alot of work cleaning up the references today, removed unused refs, and provided URL link to sources for verifiability. Let's see if we can implement some of arbitration's proposed recommendations such as the suggested citation style. --Comaze 04:34, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alternatively, lets revert all of Comaze's attempts to transform scientists and other experts into narrow minded fringe web page writers. There have already been many deleted views of scientists and other such experts. These were deleted through Comaze's advocacy for censorship. His attempts at censorship have sometimes been rewarded, and thus reinforced. If this article is further clarified by briefly placing the views of experts, then the NLP fanatics will be punished. In fact anything that clarifies the article will lead to NLP fanatics being punished. Looks like we have no choice but to torture Comaze and co by clarifying the article some more. Camridge 06:26, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hardiman

Hardiman (1994) NLP background and issues. Industrial relations review and report No 560 May

  • I am not able to locate this source. There are no results on google for it. Does this satisfy verifiability? What is the author's full name? What is the name of the publication? What is that page number? Is this author notable? --Comaze 06:51, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comaze, you and other NLPbrains have tried this trick too many times. It does not work. The ref exists in the literature, and the google spambot is not designed as a tool for determining verifiability. Normal people use libraries in order to do research. Your persistent argument for the censorship of criticism is ignored. Camridge 06:29, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Based on your feedback I've altered my post, can you please refactor your reply based on the changes. --Comaze 06:51, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comaze, I just looked up Hardiman on the web. She is both notable and quotable. Stop trying to waste my time. I will revert your edits and ignore your ridiculous requests. Camridge 07:32, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Neuro-linguistic_programming&oldid=33703386"