Talk:Neuro-linguistic programming/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Role of Timothy Leary

Absolutely no mention of Dr. Timothy Leary? I was under the distinct impression that he founded the concept of Neuro-Linguistic Programming.

Not so far as I am aware. [1] (link added) FT2 11:13, Jul 27, 2004 (UTC)

Timothy Leary was involved in some work that Robert Dilts did for his reimprinting techniques.

See this article on Robert Dilt's site. [2]. Robert Dilts and Timothy Leary taught an NLP workshop together on "designing intelligence", which I have a copy of.

Neutrality

Someone continually edits this description to be distinctly anti-Richard Bandler. I think the description should be balanced. Certainly many trainers have their detractors, but there is more to NLP than Bandler's trial in the mid-70's, and his legal actions are only one small part of his involvement in NLP. The language continually is changed to be distinctly anti-Bandler, and this is a non-biased source, so let's keep to fairness between the NLP factions.

• * * * *

The entry as it currently stands (16/08/05) is balanced and undistracted by superfluous\biographical details.

There's no mention of Bandler's trial, former cocaine habit, his current obesity and his current denigration of NLP so the entry isn't biased against Bandler. In any event, such biographical detail should be confined to the 'Richard Bandler' entry.

A section should be added on the intellectual antecedents of NLP.

URLs for the abstracts of various research papers pertaining to NLP topics should be included. This is preferable to simply stating "research has shown..." or "research has failed to show...". The 'NLP Research Database' (http://www.nlp.de/cgi-bin/research/nlp-rdb.cgi) has many such abstracts though I'm not sure of its completeness.

I replaced the POV flag on the article as reading the history there have been a series of reversions (I count 13 in 3 days)in the last few days. These are a clear indication of (at least) two points of view about the page and its contents. My opinion fwiw is that the page should first and foremost present an overview of NLP as it is today including references to its history and the divergent streams and secondarily - but importantly should cover the criticisms and associations that many people feel about it. --GreyHead 08:12, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes, Greyhead. It was absent in the ViewOfAll version posted a few days ago (which I believe is closer to what you are suggesting), and in an attempt to keep the page stable it was reverted to that version. Things seem to be settling down now. I think it is fine to keep the POV flag flying for a while though. Regards HeadleyDown 10:32, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

I think that principle is sound. Make this about NLP today, make it clear where different groups diverge, tell the history, make the criticisms clear. Is it fair to say any history accidentally included in different sections should be moved to the history section?

I think it's worth keeping the PoV flag too!GregA 10:48, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Organization of the article

On a side, can someone have a go at cleaning up the various "principles" section? The subsections probably overlap and could do with some review and neatening up. FT2 11:13, Jul 27, 2004 (UTC)

I've noticed some overlap too. This might be a good place to make divergent streams of NLP apparent too. GregA 10:48, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

American versus British spelling

This article began using American rather than British spelling but is now a hodgepodge. I think it should be made consistent at the former; see discussion at Talk:Modelling (NLP). JamesMLane 22:39, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The whole article could probably do with some cleanup and review, now it's more comprehensive, I agree. Volunteers? FT2 05:41, Aug 3, 2004 (UTC)

I agree with you. I've made the spelling consistent; as an added bonus, I've removed initial caps from the headings so as to comply with Wikipedia style. Someone else will have to handle the substantive review, though. JamesMLane 23:22, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Asking Why (vs. How or What) in NLP

Incidentally I've removed the sentence Asking "why?" when gathering information is an advanced technique, reserved for special situations.

It's not a 'principle' of NLP, nor strictly an accurate statement. The reason NLP discourages "why?" is pragmatic: it will get beliefs about the problem, rather than operational information about the problem. "Why" can often be a red herring because it gets information which is not as relevant to actually understanding or changing a problem, so much as justifications why the problem needs to be there.

Often the more useful questions are "how?" and "what?" - how is it a problem, how do you experience it, what would you prefer to have happen? which in general help move towards resolving a problem. FT2 07:17, Aug 10, 2004 (UTC)

---

I removed the dmoz link for the reasons listed at Wikipedia talk:External links/temp#Against. A search lists only about 1000 of the 430,000+ en.wikipedia articles having dmoz links to its 590,000+ categories, demonstrating that common practice does not currently support it. Zigger 14:30, 2004 Dec 26 (UTC)

I don't see a logic in "common practice does not currently support it". It not yet used widely. Conan 17:58, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The logic is simple: we all must begin at once. :)

External Link Spamming

There are some spammy external links about penis enlargement and the such (Note 1, Note 2, etc). Going to remove then (as i don't think NLP has something to do with these kind of things.

NLP is used to sell a great many "services". I believe to give a good representative sample of applications, it is important to encompass the whole range. Take a look on the web. NLP really is used for all kinds of things.

---

I noticed today quite a bit of external link spamming to NLP-related pages, all linking to nlpschedule.com. I tagged the links-only pages with speedy deletions, but do not have the subject matter knowledge to judge the usefulness of links on other pages. Would someone be willing to look through them and remove the ones that aren't useful or are otherwise inappropriate to Wikipedia? You can find the list of affected articles on Talk:NLP map. Also, they are on the talk pages for the posting anons: User talk:63.199.31.178 and User talk:69.109.178.79. Thanks! --JimCollaborator 21:52, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)

Thank you to Gadfium for the clean-up work he did with these link spams. JimCollaborator\^talk ~ 21:52, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

---

I have to say I was extremely disappointed with this article. It is certainly substandard. That first sentence is terrible. It needs a big overhaul; I learnt more from a ten-line article in my dictionary of psychology than from this twaddle. ZephyrAnycon 23:34, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yup. (The first paragraph is horrible - the bit that says: The field has grown in many directions since its beginnings in modeling successful psychotherapists makes no sense whatsoever. elpincha 12:00, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

---

Reversions to this page

Apparently this page is being constantly bombarded by an NLP fanatic (username ChrisG?) who regards any revisions to his pro-NLP text as "vandalism". A reasonable compromise would for Chris to provide a SHORT version of his current text (which is already enormously over wikipedia's suggested length limit) while someone else provides another view - JC

JC, while I found your entry quite funny and I don't dismiss your points, you can't delete the whole article and then write the following hyper critical text (2 paragraphs):

Neuro-linguistic programming (NLP) claims to be a field of human endeavor concerned with empirically studying and modeling human performance and excellence, with the goal of creating transferable skill sets. It specifically claims to be based on the idea that the unconscious mind can be "programmed" like a computer. However no evidence has ever been provided to show that this idea is true, and despite having charged millions of people thousands of dollars each for seminars on how to apply NLP to their lives, NLP practitioners are unable to show any evidence that NLP is effective at anything other than making NLP trainers richer. Many clinically trained psychiatrists have expressed their fears over NLP "experts" with minimum training treating people for phobias and other problems.

While NLP claims (amongst many other things) to be a science of perfect communication, communication between its two founders is now carried on solely between their lawyers, as they compete for a share of the declining but still considerable revenues the NLP brand brings in.

The article itself is not over Wikipedia article size limits, the 32K limit was first put in because of the limitations of some browsers. Most featured articles are well over 32k, and the only suggested ranges put forward (recently) were 32k to 55k, and that was considered too limiting and so never became part of the criteria.

Obviously the article could do with work; but it does cover a difficult topic and so that is unsurprising. Deleting it all and starting again would not be a positive step. You should trust the wiki process: it will be a much better article in a year's time. Finally, I myself have contributed very little to the article itself, which you could have discovered by examining the article history. :ChrisG 07:21, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Chris - the article limit may have first arisen because of browser limits: that does not mean that it is its only purpose. As for my supposedly not being able to delete the article and replace it within the proper length limits, which does not contain a single claim that isn't verifiable - balderdash. Of course I can. There's nothing to say that a huge mass of excuses and evasions can't be replaced with a short clear statement of fact. I repeat my proposal: you or someone else "pro" NLP should produce an article of a length that is within the usual wiki limits, which should be balanced by an opposing view

Brevity is the soul of wit, chaps! This article could really do with a bit more cutting. And there's presently more spam and hype than you would find on ten average NLP sites.

Yes, I see that it is completely overboard at the moment. The introduction seems to be ok at the moment, except that the epistemology should really be part of the methods section. As NLP does entail quite some controversial claims, it does seem appropriate to state the bounds of NLP as has been attempted already. Added to the list could also be claims to heal cancer, improve crystal healing, predict winning lottery numbers, increase the power of charms, in addition to the speed seduction claims already there. This could be done in note form in order to make unspamlike and informative. A clear summing up/future of nlp section would help begin the info reduction effort also. Regards D.Right 12:06, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Title

Is there a reason the title isn't bold? I mean a subject such as this... you probably have other things to worry about.... N/M... I'll bold it for yas.

Criticism (New Age, Cults, Scientology etc.)

The Criticism section does not cover the criticisms made about NLP by the scientific community, instead what it is really covering is the criticisms leveled at one-another between different factions within the NLP community.

Specifically how about covering some of the following:

- Many of NLPs core methods have little scientific basis, and in some cases have been shown to be completely ineffective. For example Anchoring, Modelling behavior using "submodalities", and use of hypnosis. When the article states: "Find the client's internal representations and/or processes which drive the problem behavior. If you change the representations and/or the way they are processed, you will often change the behavior", what proof of this is there?

- There is no scientific proof that subtle internal emotional states are linked to some externally observable bodily cues -- whether it be breathing, posture, eye position or what ever.

- "Submodalities" and the whole notation that people are primarily "visual, kinesthetic, auditory, etc" is dubious. What proof exists that people's thought processes are linked to these bodily senses, as is claimed by NLP.

- There are no serious studies showing that anyone that has undergone NLP treatment has been helped with their depression, phobia, etc. If you claim there has been then please reference them!!

- The claim that NLP can't be submitted to rigorous scientific investigation is bunk; it's an excuse at best. If NLP produces results, then surely these results can be measured. It can be as simple as comparing 100 NLP treated patients against 100 non-NLP treated patients.

Yes, this seems to be good fact and reasoning. And I have heard or read this kind of thing coming from people who know (psychologists usually). The section could do with this kind of quality. References would also be useful. regards EBlack 21:49, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Frankly I see a significant flaw in this reasoning. This is like doing a scientific test to see if one martial art is "more effective" than another. You could not determine whether kung-fu is better than karate or not by having 100 people who practice karate fight against 100 people practice kung-fu. Obviously, the outcome would depend far more on the skill and training of the individuals more than the relative merits of the two martial arts. --Ascendant 23:32, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

The section titled "NLP is not a science" is about as biased a section I have read in Wikipedia. Statements such as, "In sum, NLP promotes methods which are verifiable and have so far been found to be largely false, inaccurate or ineffective," demonstrate extreme POV and it needs to be cleaned up.--Agiantman 11:26, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

It needs work. But the fact is, according to documented science, NLP models have been tested, and according to the sum of the studies produced, they found that the methods were verifiable, and they were false overall. It is quite a measured statement. If you could find a way to make it more precise, then go ahead.

As far as the new age/Scientology/EST connection goes, it is a historical fact. I don’t think you can change history. Regards D.Right 15:09, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Sources, please? I don't think there's any evidence that Grinder and Bandler's original work was highly influenced by any of "new age", "Scientology", or "EST". If you want to argue that, it's not NPOV without sources. I'm re-removing the paragraph in question since it violates NPOV. --Randal L. Schwartz 15:16, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

No problem Randal. Here is one for teasing starters: http://www.timboucher.com/journal/2005/06/30/landmark-forum-scientology/ And there is a seminal and review based academic source entitled: Mind Myths: Exploring Popular Assumptions About the Mind and Brain (Paperback) by Sergio Della Sala (Editor). I can paste a whole thesis about the inextricable historical, cultural, theoretical, and philosophical links between NLP, Scientology and new age notions on this discussion page if you like. Regards D.Right 15:57, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

But your source doesn't state any facts about NLP being directly influenced by Scientology or EST. That's not a source. Admittedly, I'm an insider here. I've worked with people directly trained by Grinder and Bandler, and studied the published work of early NLP. I also did a lot of Werner Erhard's programs during the mid-80's. I can say directly as an insider that there's no direct connection, other than the fact that a lot of people studied both. So, if you can find a real source that talks about how Grinder and Bandler deliberately took EST or Scientology into their work, I'll let the paragraph stand. Otherwise, it's POV. --Randal L. Schwartz 16:04, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Continuing for a moment... I think the problem with the way you put it is that you paint them all with one brush. There are sane people in the world that would easily discount EST and Scientology that would legitimately support NLP. Maybe you don't, but that's why it's POV. [grin]. When I reviewed the rest of the article, it says what you're trying to say (people can be programmed and deprogrammed) without the smearing of the "new age" label on it. So let the rest of the article speak for itself, and leave out the POV lumping of NLP in with EST and Scientology --Randal L. Schwartz 16:12, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, I am as sane as any researcher can be. If you look at the references presented, you will find that the documents they refer to state facts, as I have done. Let me remind you that this issue is about NLP, not me! D.Right 18:22, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Scientology

Please don't put that Scientology nonsense in again without sourcing it. And it should be well regarded as fact if it is included in the introduction (i.e., actual cites to Bandler, Grinder, etc.)The idea that a technology that involves the processing and manipulation of natural language somehow relates to that Scientology alien nonsense is absurd. I am not sure if it is repeatedly added here to wrongfully give credit to Scientology for the discovery of NLP or to disparage NLP. Because NLP can be a very powerful manipulative tool, I can imagine a cult unethically abusing it to brainwash their followers. Maybe that's what your source says.--Agiantman 19:07, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

BTW - I regularly use NLP to pick up women and in the work environment (mirroring, creating positive states, anchoring, patterns, weasel words, etc.) and I know how scary effective it is. The suggestion by some here that it does not work conflicts with my own experience. Also, Tony Robbins' millions in repeat business are testament to its effectiveness.--Agiantman 19:07, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Pseudoscience and magic

Hello Randal. It is clear that you are promoting NLP. Your opinion is ok, but please stop posting these mindcrippling adverts. I was involved in some NLP groups in the past, but no longer. It really does not rely on science at all. It is totally dependent on misleading and disproved pseudoscience. Everything from suppositions to metamodels are set up to soften the punter to buy into more of the same nonsense - until you start getting into the NLP concepts of magic and occult. Then, if you are still sane, you will realize you have wasted your money on stuff you could have very easily have done without. I'll level with you. I'm ex forces myself. You are a man, right? Why should you learn this NLP underhand and dodgy stuff for doing something you are well entitled to by birth? Be a man! A.Turner 16:08, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Turner, sounds like you spent money and decided that you didn't get value. Ya ought to go ask for a refund. Some other folks continue to spend their money because they get value. Some folks will abuse NLP, just like others will abuse powerful tools, like silicone implants or jack daniels. How about you share the story of what got your panties i a bunch, so we know where you are comming from. I've been doing transformational work for 8 years, and it makes a positive difference in my life that is imeasurable. Leave we be, as we are smart people that don't need your babysitting. Unreg: Jak P. Oakland, CA

Interesting, User:A.Turner, that you cannot distinguish between [[User::Agiantman]] and me. I am not posting adverts. I'm merely trying to set the record straight about NLP's origins (not pseudoscience) from some of the claims of people that are using it (to which I would agree is snake oil). Unfortunately, when you paint the whole field with the snake-oil brush, you are denying the legitimate claims. Sad. But I have other battles to fight, so whatever misinformation remains here will have to be for someone else to correct. --Randal L. Schwartz 17:00, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Well Sorry, mate! My mistake, but you seem to be associating yourself with some very dubious types. What's more you seem to be associating yourself with the claims of charlatans. These people spread the proverbial bull like nobody else. From my own searches, I have discovered that not all is well with the founding fathers of NLP. They seem to be intent on shoveling some very iffy stuff my way, and you seem to be part of that shoveling. It is not a pleasant experience. A.Turner 18:38, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Maybe we should move Pseudoscience discussion to this section? BTW: There is a nice summary of pseudoscience at http://www.psychologicalscience.org/observer/teachingtips.cfm My psychology teachers were reasonably good on this kind of thing, though they accidentally encouraged several practices during research that would lead to inaccurate data. GregA 13:27, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Cult Association

Yes, the cult association with NLP is undeniable. Whether it is because of any innate occult power, or it simply contains ingredients that cult leaders and followers find appealing, who knows? The fact is though it was derived from the success of previous cults and quasi-religions such as Scientology. I myself have no interest in Tom Cruise, or learning to pick up women using unethical covert methods, command hypnosis or whatever. My main interest here is to report the facts in an encyclopedic fashion. Perhaps you missed it, but I did quote a very solid source: Mind Myths: Exploring Popular Assumptions About the Mind and Brain, by Sergio Della Sala (Editor).

Scientology

Here is an extract from one of the related peer reviewed journals: "Scientology and NLP are historically, psychologically and sociologically one in the same in that they: are based on hypnotism or command suggestion, they are generally thought to be religions or quasi-religious cults, they encourage dangerous dissociative delusions for “treatment”, they claim to make use of covert suggestion, they derive their beliefs from new age notions of superhuman potential and reincarnation, they infer the same lists of claimed benefits, they use hypnotic regression and past life regression, they refer to pseudo scientific principles (often long since debunked by science), they actively encourage occult notions of black magic through anecdotes by their founding authority figures, they both make liberal use of outlandish stories for indoctrination, and they suggest that people require re-programmed through clearing processes, they both use the 90% or 99% mind potential myth, and they both pay homage to misleading left/right brain myths". I will consolidate and integrate these facts with the article. D.Right 07:01, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

That is pure wackiness and an extreme minority view from the same people who associate Halloween with Satan. NLP is a set of psychological and linguistic tools that can be used to manipulate others by understanding how people process natural language. NLP is not a cult. There is no organization, no leader, and nothing to buy. Scientology is a cult. I detest cults and cult-like organizations such as Scientology and EST. I acknowledge that NLP can be used by those groups to manipulate and brainwash followers. But NLP is also a cult fighter: once you know about NLP and brainwashing techniques, you can better guard against their use by a cult. But Scientology and EST had absolutely nothing to do with the formation of NLP and you will not be able to provide any evidence to support that. I will be looking for your citations to primary sources. I will revert nonsense.--Agiantman 11:15, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Ross Jeffries

BTW - You may not like the ladies, but others here may. I recommend that anyone who wants to have better success with women to look into the works of the great Ross Jeffries, author of "How To Get The Women You Desire Into Bed," who teaches guys how to manipulate women into the sack with NLP. Here is a Playboy article discussing Jeffries and NLP.http://www.seduction.com/playboy.asp Please note the absence of references to Scientology, EST, "clearing," etc. in the article. LOL!--Agiantman 11:15, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

I notice that d.right did not name his peer reviewed source. It is "Conspiracy Theory Monthly."--Mr j galt 14:02, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

New Age

The thought of some greasy talking Tony Robbins wannabe drooling NLP pick up lines to the women I know just makes me laugh. I'm sure the world laughs with me. Truly, you should dispense with the wikispam. This is not the place for Ross Jeffries psychic pickups or remote kahuna black magic NLP. Here is at least one simple link you could follow that shows people do consider NLP to be programming, or mind programming, or command hypnosis.

 http://psychicinvestigator.com/demo/Cults.htm

NLP has its gurus, as is evident by what you have admitted. NLP originated as a new age based pseudoscientific (not real psychology) large group awareness sessions, just like EST, and uses hypnotic language, and pretend science just like Scientology. It pretends to be scientific, but has yet to show positive overall results. That is fact. D.Right 14:12, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

"NLP originated as a new age based pseudoscientific (not real psychology) large group awareness sessions ... That is a fact." - this shows you don't know enough about NLP to be editing this article with NPOV, because this is definitely not the case. You've clearly not studied the literature. You're also mixing up NLP (as a science, and yes, it was created by scientists Grinder and Bandler in their post-doc studies), with what 'some' people did with it afterwards. Please stop lumping NLP in with everything else you are (perhaps irrationally) afraid of. --Randal L. Schwartz 14:18, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

New Age / Scientology

According to the very structure of their writing, NLP is a new age concept. Scientology was not the inspiration for NLP though. However, it was a strong influence. Wikipedia requires a certain amount of association with related subjects. New age thinking and Scientology are valid in this respect. DoctorDog 15:51, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

New Age? Do you think trying to get women into bed is a "new age" activity? And how is "new age"-- a term coined in the late 1980's-- applied to NLP-- which was created in the early 1970's, or even Scientology, which started in the 1950's? --Agiantman 20:08, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

I did not associate new age with ultimate power within, magic psychic NLP seduction, although, now you mention it! And new age roots originated way before the turn of the 20th century, according to most historians. They stem from early religions and cults of pre-Christian era, and involve philosophies that include re-incarnation, subjective knowledge etc. So new age is the umbrella for Scientology hypnotic mental programming and NLP hypnotic mental programming. When you desperately try to wang a weasle phrase on your unatainable wet dream, you are not exhibiting a solid knowledge of psychology, but rather a strong association with the occult. DoctorDog 21:19, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

NLP & Cult

And DoctorDog, I am still waiting for the named source for your opinions. Sergio Della Sala's book looks to be a credible source, but it is the only one you haven't quoted here so I am not sure that it stands for your proposition. I have learned here that there are some people (probably not many) that misperceive NLP as a cult. That is an interesting fact that I will include in the Criticism section when I redraft that part.--Agiantman 20:32, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

What is wrong with cults? Some of them are positive! I will reiterate what the other chap posted because this statement says a great deal: "Scientology and NLP are historically, psychologically and sociologically one in the same in that they: are based on hypnotism or command suggestion, they are generally thought to be religions or quasi-religious cults, they encourage dangerous dissociative delusions for “treatment”, they claim to make use of covert suggestion, they derive their beliefs from new age notions of superhuman potential and reincarnation, they infer the same lists of claimed benefits, they use hypnotic regression and past life regression, they refer to pseudoscientific principles (often long since debunked by science), they actively encourage occult notions of black magic through anecdotes by their founding authority figures, they both make liberal use of outlandish stories for indoctrination, and they suggest that people require re-programmed through clearing processes, they both use the 90% or 99% mind potential myth, and they both pay homage to misleading left/right brain myths". Sala's book is good and points the way to other similar sources. I believe common knowledge is that NLP, scientology, EFT, etc are all part of the same new age set of notions. The statement above actually comes from a very good source. If you patiently took your time to search for it, without demanding source upon source, then perhaps you would gain some kind of consensus. Till then! DoctorDog 21:05, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Am I to assume that DoctorDog and D.Right are different individuals who share the same fringe views, have read the same obscure Sala book, and are familiar with the same "very good source" but refuse to name it? LOL! I guess I could pull the university library apart book by book searching for the "very good source," but I think it would be easier if one (or both of you) just told us what it is.--Agiantman 21:28, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Hi NLP loverboys. I have the source! I have also looked around for validation for NLP's unique claims for many years without ever coming across any truth in those claims. I have come across many very obvious associations between NLP and other cults. I am also not very happy with your abusive guru worshiping tone. So if you really want the actual source, ISBN code, page numbers, author, associated references, publication and year, -- go fetch!Authopten 22:20, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Scientology, EST, Landmark, NLP

Come on guys! Lets keep it civil! As far as minority views are concerned, China and a large section of the Catholic and some of the larger Christian churches, especially in the US, recognise that NLP and Scientology are in the same category. In the US, Scientology is considered a religion. In Europe and the rest of the world Scientology is is a cult, and generally thought to have given rise to all the other large group awareness concerns of NLP, EST, Landmark Forums etc. A lot of the German and Swiss sites are very concerned with these relations. They often report NLP stemming from Scientology in this respect. I am open to all views, but lets face it, NLP devotees are fairly likely to be extremely biased, considering the "new age religion" or "mind power" nature of NLP books you get in the spirit section of the bookstore, and the evangelical large group NLP seminars that are sold. JuneD 23:52, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Hey! What happened to my favorite sockpuppet, D.Right? This guy uses so many sockpuppet names, I can't keep track. I am Catholic and I have never heard NLP mentioned in church or seen it mentioned in the diocese newspaper. If you think your thoughts are mainstream, you are too involved in some fringe religious sect. Again, NLP is a set of psychological and linguistic tools that can be used to manipulate others by understanding how people process natural language. NLP is not a cult. There is no organization, no leader, and nothing to buy. I have never been to the spirit section of the bookstore. On second thought, with the occult references here, should I believe that NLP is really Satan's toolbox and the power of NLP is testament to the power of the Lord of Darkness? Has Ross Jeffries lured me unwittingly into devil worship?--Agiantman 00:08, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

New Age Notion

Now you are just being silly! NLP is considered a new age notion, and Bandler is considered a new age guru with a cult following according to many sources including these---The Bandler Method Clancy, Frank, Yorkshire, Heidi. Mother Jones. San Francisco: Feb 1989. Vol. 14. The Times. London (UK): Sep 5, 2001. pg. Creme.4. Scientology case settled out of court; [CITY EDITION] MARY CAROLAN. Irish Times. Dublin: Mar 14, 2003. pg. 4 Self-directed change in a well-balanced way; [Management Times Edition] Goh Chooi Chin. New Straits Times. Kuala Lumpur: Feb 27, 1996. pg. 11 "Money is just spiritual energy": Incorporating the new age Lisa Aldred. Journal of Popular Culture. Bowling Green: Spring 2002. Vol. 35, I'm sure nobody is saying it is an evil or satanic cult. Regards JuneD 00:17, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Hey those are some respected heavyweight peer reviewed sources! LOL! I just read the Mother Jones article "The Bandler Method."[3] It is a fascinating read about one of the co-founders and good info for the Bandler page. Contrary to your assertions though, the article specifically states, "Bandler was never a guru in any traditional sense" and there are zero references to Scientology, e-meters, EST, and "the occult." The foreign article "Scientology case settled out of court"[4] makes no mention to NLP, it is about Scientology. "Money is just spiritual energy: incorporating the New Age"[5] also makes no reference to NLP. So much for your silly "sources."--Agiantman 01:28, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

New Age, Scientology, Mind Control

Yes, these are some quick searches that anyone can do on the web using goggle. Simply type in the related keywords and you will come up with facts about NLP gurus such as Bandler and Robbins being NEW AGE and SCIENTOLOGY involving MIND CONTROL etc. The Bandler article is particularly interesting though. Lots of unethical persuasion going on there including claiming to be a Doctor, with no PhD. I like this extra one by Dave Barry http://www.lynxfeather.net/nest/humor/2002/alteredstates.html These were simply to induce you to look up the rest of the close associations between NLP Scientology and other new age movements. There are many, in many languages. Regards JuneD 06:03, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

What are those searches you are referring to? Can you spell the exact text of the search? Can you provide any direct links? The article by Dave Barry has nothing to do with NLP, it's not even mentioned there. Tony Robbins used to have a licence agreement with Richard Bandler somewhere in the 1980's or maybe 1990's, but it is definitely not the case in 2000's. You can go have a look at Tony's website, you will not find anything about NLP there. Robbins is just not an NLP guru. --Thecroaker 07:00, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Unqualified v. qualified practitioners

The difference between qualified NLP practitioners and unqualified NLP practitioners is currently not represented in this article. Some countries recognise NLP as a legitimate form of psychotherapy. For example, European Association for Neuro-Linguistic Psychotherapy [6]. Also, in Australia there is a government recognised qualification in NLP. [7]

NLP and Psychology

As I've studied Psych (only 3 years) and NLP this area interests me. There are certainly criticisms of NLP by psychologists, I'm just not sure how they relate to some of what's here. For instance:

"NLP is criticized for its lack of a unified personality theory and thus does not adequately explain how people come to think or behave." Have we got some sort of evidence that Psychologists think NLP should have a unified personality theory, or even what interest they have in saying what NLP should have?

" The NLP allusion to "what works" and delay in explaining "why it works" until after the event is generally viewed by scientists as unconvincing. Ethical standards bodies require that the client should have an explanation for why something works for it to be acceptable as a treatment." Is it scientists or ethical standards bodies that are unconvinced - any links? Scientists or psychologists?

".... NLP will continue to be viewed as a pseudoscience." Rather than presupposing this, we probably could open the whole NLP and Psychology page saying that NLP is viewed by Psychologists as a pseudoscience.

" ...NLP began ... in the human potential movement" - is this an assumption from the psych paper or from an NLP source?

Any thoughts on this area? GregA 08:21, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks GregA. Yes I've been meaning to clear these up. Looks like we may have a chance at last:) I can provide references for the belief in the lack of theory. Ethical standards really are more of an issue towards psychologists and psychotherapists. We can work towards clearing this also. refs are available to search for on the web on psychology and codes of conduct. Your point about pseudoscience is about to change the page for the better I believe. Several cooperative editors have mentioned this, and the NPOV agrees with the point. Refs can be provided to support the assertion that scientists generally believe NLP is pseudoscientific. From that point, the article can be prioritised properly. The human potential movement part is related to its beginnings with Perls, Satir, Dianetics, Esalen institute etc. Bandler and Grinder began NLP with these factors. I believe the source is more to historical associations, but the science relates also in terms of those people having the same scientific and pseudoscientific assumptions. Given time to dig the refs up this can probably even be brevified to a degree. Thanks much regards HeadleyDown 12:09, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

I know you said this a couple of days ago HeadleyDown - but I didn't say that we should say NLP is a pseudoscience. I said that the paragraph ALREADY said it was a pseudoscience, and when we're saying something we should make it clear what we're saying. (the page had said "NLP will continue to be considered a pseudoscience" - yet the page had not said "NLP is considered a pseudoscience" anywhere! GregA 10:59, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Sure, GregA. That's why it has been classified as such. Clarity is important here. Here are just a few other characteristics of a pseudoscience that have already been expressed in the article: Absence of connectivity;Use of obscurantist language.;Overreliance on testimonial and anecdotal evidence.;Absence of boundary conditions.;The mantra of holism.;An overuse of ad hoc hypotheses designed to immunize claims from falsification.;Evasion of peer review.;Reversed burden of proof.;Emphasis on confirmation rather refutation. And then we have stated opinions of specific scientists. Regards HeadleyDown 11:28, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Hi again Greg A and all. Actually, there is enough information in the page already to be able to class NLP as pseudoscientific. Eg: (Bleimeister, 1988) (Morgan, 1993) (Platt, 2001). They all state that the hypotheses, assertions, patterns or observations of NLP do not hold true at all. NLP promoters continue to claim that they do hold, so they are in actual fact pseudoscientific. There are other pseudoscientific characteristics though. Such as hyped endorsements, the use of anecdotes and testimonials for support only, and the use of strange buzzwords and odd out of context terminology. Regards HeadleyDown 17:05, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Hi. I've made an alteration to this on the main page. Mainly it's just a restructure of what was already there, though I've also made sure I write things like "Psychologists consider it a pseudo-science" rather than "it is a pseudo-science" (as described in the Wiki NPOV instructions!).Give it a read. It doesn't quite make it yet as it is, so hopefully you or others will have some good stuff to add. I have taken out the "NLP began in human potential movement" mainly because the criticisms I've heard (unfortunately not read so no cite!) were more about what NLP says and not growing out of psychology, than where NLP grew from. What do you think?

Could you say which psychologists consider NLP a pseudoscience? I have examined the research database link in detail, and it is quite clear that one can selectively pick and choose studies to support a particular POV. I am a neutral regarding NLP, however it seems to me that an equivalent statement "psychologists practice and support NLP" could be made if I pick and choose my sources. As the statement is only accurate when applied to a subset of the category 'psychologists', it should be specified what that subset is

Hi GregA. I believe that would be an impossible task to identify a particular subset as the works that I have read come from a wide selection of psychology and other scientists. Also, NLP is listed in the Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience, and there are so many editors there that it probably constitutes the opinion of the whole of psychology, neurology, linguistics etc. The refs that are here now are quite representative. CarlOxford 09:30, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Hi CarlOxford... that wasn't me :) Not sure who it was. NLP and Psychology have distinctly different takes on how to work with people, it's unsurprising to have disagreements. The criticisms are very important but belong in the criticisms section. (

ps. Is it okay to post between HDs line (below now), and what I'm responding to (directly above), or is there a different convention? GregA 10:59, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Looks great to me, GregA. Cheers HeadleyDown 07:52, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm glad you've done something regarding epistemology!... and I think we need more. I almost feel like we lose the force of the criticism unless we're clear on what the NLP hypotheses, conjectures, and epistemology are.. but I'll have to think about that (maybe that's somewhere else in the page that I've missed :). I'm also wondering about the significance of "continue to" - I'm not sure of the history there - are you saying we need to add something about psychologists requesting NLP promoters to stop calling NLP a science, but they're still doing it? GregA 07:57, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

No Scientology Roots or Association?

I am not sure if the "new age" label that JuneD and fellow sockpuppets attribute to NLP really matters. "New age" to me conjures up images of Yanni music and yoga, not NLP. I doubt John Tesh and Ross Jeffries have much in common. I guess "new age" has some negative connotations in the right-wing Christian community, but to most people, "new age" things just seem liberal, a little out of touch, and otherwise harmless.--Agiantman 11:41, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

The attempt to associate Scientology to NLP is more troubling, suggesting that anyone who learns about NLP is really getting involved in a cult. Again, NLP is a set of psychological and linguistic tools that can be used to manipulate others by understanding how people process natural language. NLP is not a cult. There is no organization, no leader, and nothing to buy. Are there articles on the Internet about Scientology and NLP? Sure. Why? Because cults are effective at mind control and NLP tools can be used to manipulate people's minds. Does or did Scientology, the Moonies, EST, Heaven's Gate, David Koresh, Jim Jones, etc. use NLP? I bet they have and do, but so does the US Army, therapists, car salesmen, pick-up artists, and motivational speakers. Just because a cult may use NLP tools to indoctrinate people in their cult, does not mean the cult created or has any impact on NLP. I assure you that a cult will not teach what NLP is to their followers, or else their devotees would realize that they are being manipulated the same day and walk out. If Tom Cruise learned about NLP, he would be telling us how he had been fooled, that he could now see through all of Scientology's tactics and the Scientology teachings are full of wacky alien nonsense.--Agiantman 11:41, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Hi again Agi. New agey ideas are really quite flakey, as you say. However they are so intrinsic to NLP now that they are inseparable, for example http://www.ppimk.com/links/nlp-links49.htm

Also, it is very clear from these adverts that Ross Jeffries is even more new age than John Tesh: http://www.seduction.com/products/RJ170.asp. Here he is advertising magick products, involving new age concepts of psychic influence, etc. As you say, this kind of thing looks a little out of touch. Harmless is probably right, although there are some ethical problems that may need ironing out.

I repeat, I don’t believe anyone here is saying that NLP is a destructive cult. But NLP has a strong cult following. Perhaps you take the cult label too negatively. Again, I agree with your belief that NLP is designed to manipulate using specific devices and tools. This is how it is marketed. For example: http://www.xtrememind.com/. This sells techniques that encourage this kind of manipulation. Whether it works or not is perhaps not the issue yet. There are ethical issues to cover though. One point of distinction though is the leadership issue. NLP is often used by cults that have leaders. And there are a lot of things to buy. Also, NLP has its own gurus who have cult followings. This is a fact. Also, these gurus stand to gain financially from their followers. I understand what you mean about Mr Cruise:) I have watched Oprah! But his alleged belief in planet Zog is really only as ridiculous as Ross Jeffries manipulating the belief in psychic influence or thoughtballs. At least, to most rational people looking in from the outside. It appears that NLP is being used to sell those myths also, in the same way that Scientology manipulates the belief in aliens. So the connections here are interesting and intricate, and the links are very strong.JuneD 12:14, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Hi Agiantman. You are deleting facts that have already been sourced (eg psychic ability and NLP, new age connections with NLP, etc) on the article page, and this one. I quite understand your desperate chagrin at the facts being unsupportive to your Ross Jeffries NLP magick Kahuna devotion. And a tidied or re-arranged paragraph does not need sources for it to be valid. I added the source in the link section that actually treats the NLP Scientology connection very mildly. I do, on the other hand, have other sources from published cult recovery manuals that will be very good at highlighting NLP's unethical and cultlike nature and use, and its close relations with Scientology, Dianetics, EST, Aum, Branch Davidians etc.... D.Right 03:07, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

I think we can work this out. That link to Jeffries' Secrets Of "Kick-Butt" Magick and Psychic…Influence[8] was funny but i think it proved your point. So i thing some references to new age and even psychic nonsense is fine. i also don't disagree that NLP is used by Scientology, Dianetics, EST, Aum, Branch Davidians because I don't know what other mind manipulation techniques they would use. But cults don't teach NLP, they use it against their victims. One thing I don't understand is the recurring statements in the article that NLP is somehow ineffective. If all of these cults are using it, and they seem to be developing slavish devotees, how can you or anyone else argue it ineffective? (And what about all the women I pick up?) You cant have it both ways: either it is ineffective or its very effective and abused by cults. I think Tom Cruise is the posterboy for the effectiveness of NLP's techniques.--Agiantman 12:46, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes I also believe we can positively work this out according to wikipedia ways. Wikipedia takes a neutral tone with all sides. NLP is considered variously by many different views. One says that it is a technology of achievement (but has yet to prove any effectiveness), another view says it is the bees knees (the business if you like) in terms of being able to change your life, improve your earnings, gain better futures and make everything nice, new agey and fluffy, other views say it is useful for psyching out your opposition in a totally unfair and covert way, and other views would say it is a philosophy that views reality as variable according to what excuses you want to make up at the time. All views agree that NLP is about programming and re-programming the mind. Scientology is the same in this respect, and the philosophies connect on all levels. So not only can we have it both ways, but we can have it all ways. And fortunately, that is the way the page is heading. Here is some more knowledge from books; Cults do teach NLP - to their recruiters. Some NLP groups have been labeled cults. Most cult awareness bodies identify NLP as a cult that manipulates people. They don't like manipulation; it is something unscrupulous people resort to. You seem to have resorted to it! It doesn't really matter what you believe about cults and NLP. There are documented facts from various sources, and they will be presented, one way or another. NLP, Tom Cruise, and Scientology, do triangulate very strongly. Regards D.Right 14:34, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

NLP is a set of tools. It is not an organization. There is no leader. There is nothing to buy. There is no NLP headquarters. And no one is trying to bring in NLP converts. Are there people selling books, tapes, DVDs, etc. to teach NLP techniques? Sure, but that's no different than people selling books, tapes, and DVDs on how to exercise or how to lose weight. That doesn't make "weight loss" a cult or "exercise" a cult.--Agiantman 21:08, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Hello once again. Your view of NLP has been represented. But there are NLP organisations that use covert and unethical recruitment and manipulation techniques. There are books, tapes, seminars etc that they want to sell, and people buy them. And they desperately want repeat buyers (devotees). Some views say that cults and NLP developers saw the coercion technologies of various earlier cults such as Dianetics and EST, and said "That makes money for them! It will work for us!" It is definitely another view, and the unethical issues are clear. D.Right 04:28, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Hello RandalSchwartz. If you have a reference to connect the roots and background principles of IBM and NLP, then please supply them. Otherwise, revert the properly researched and referenced Scientology, new age, and NLP information that was there before. Alternatively, like the persistent wikipedian that I am, I will do it for the sake of the article. Nobody is saying that any of these things are evil. D.Right 09:54, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

D.Right - I am still waiting for credible reviewed evidence from you that shows that NLP was derived from Scientology. You seem to want to paint a broad brush across everything that you don't completely understand, perhaps through paranoia. The original NLP technology is not Scientology. Some followers of Scientology may use NLP techniques, but by that linking, you should also be saying that English is evil because the Scientologists use that. Your motivation here is in question. I'm trying to reduce the NLP article to a NPOV, but you keep bringing in your hallucinations. Would you please simply admit that NLP is a science (or pseudo science, if you must), without linking it with everything else "new age" in one stroke? If you wanna edit the New Age page and put NLP there, go ahead. But it doesn't belong here. I offer direct, first person observations, factually based. You offer only links to paranoid websites that feed off each other in fear of what they don't understand --Randal L. Schwartz 15:11, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

OK good. A reference is not an hallucination. When we talk of NLP it would be well to place it in an historical context. If we have nothing to compare it with, then it is just floating on its own. Historically, it was part of a trend in new age thinking that was spurred by writers such as the general semantics chap and some science fiction writers (who also raved about Scientology). The original book came out around the time Bandler was certified as a shaman and a self help guru. The whole trend surfaced due to the new age and the increased financial success of Scientology. All of these groups have the same fundamental philosophy. That bad stuff gets programmed and you need to reprogram it. If you get bogged down in the hype and pseudoscientific pretend terminology of NLP you will end up more blinkered than Tom Cruise. NLP claims to be a technology or science of achievement, and uses hypnosis. Dianetics claims to be a technology or science of achievement and uses hypnosis. You will find them rubbing shoulders in all the bookshops. They are also very historically connected. I can post yet another real book reference from another professionally affiliated Phd holder if you need that reassurance? I have started to make the article more historical just to soften it up for NLP devotees such as yourself. I wouldn't want to brutally smash your delusions of santa Bandler and the evil witch Hubbard, after all. But one thing remains. NLP has become a big mishmash of new age notions. Do any search on any search engine and that is what you will see. Flakesville! It is a product of 20th century history. D.Right 16:30, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

To give an example of the techniques of NLP being used AND proven for all to see, a recent TV program in the United Kingdom by a well-known hypnotist, Paul McKenna was aired for a number of weeks whereby he took NLP techniques (anchoring, state changes etc) to positively influence people with phobias, disease and other difficulties. I cannot put them all here, but they are available for those doubting the integrity of NLP practice or the effectiveness of said techniques. I'm sure there's something online about the program on Sky 1 by Paul McKenna. Happy hunting. [User:D.Stevens]

D.Right, please tell me where I can become a "certified shaman." That sounds interesting. Thanks.--Agiantman 01:57, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Hi Agi antman. Here is a link for you to follow http://www.nlpiash.org/98WHpresentations.htm Have fun! D.Right 06:17, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Hello D.Stevens. Paul Mckenna wrote a book called The Paranormal World of Paul McKenna. He also does some exorcism "acts". Do I need to say more? I think it was him or someone equally balding who hypnotized someone's headaches away for them (this is medically possible). Unfortunately, they had a brain tumour and by the time the headaches came back it was too late to treat conventionally (RIP). Nice one, lovely fluffy ethically responsible sciencephobic NLPee-ers. D.Right 06:17, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Hi RandalSchwartz. Here is yet another link that places NLP well and truly in the new age. http://www.lifepositive.com/Mind/psychology/stress/stress-reduction.asp It even gives an explanation of NLP that is an exact facsimile of an explanation for dianetics "the technology of achievement". D.Right 06:42, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

If you want to label New Age to 'everything that changes people, sure. But I think that definition would then apply to IBM Corporate Culture, as I mocked a few changes ago. I don't see anything there that makes it equate to dianetics, and yes, I'm very familiar with both. --Randal L. Schwartz 08:12, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Hi RandalSchwartz. Here is a link to new age concepts and roots New Age. It strongly correlates to NLP chronologically, and in how NLP has developed. People are seeking methods of change which traditional Christianity doesn't seem to have. Dianetics promises the same sorts of methods. They are both about altered states of consciousness (which may not even exist) for the purpose of self improvement. Lets just say, when you are looking for something to help people place NLP in their mental framework, psychology, linguistics, philosophy etc really do not come close. But dianetics especially, and Scientology are the closest entities to NLP. They are not only close, they overlap almost to their entirety. I can see why some people would want to distance their NLP hobby from dianetics, but people pick up these subjects for the same reasons. They want to have a prescription for life, to evolve themselves, to grasp the vagueries of life, and to gain more personal power for communicating, business, healing etc. I have done quite some study on new age ideals and LGATs etc, and NLP really is just a new improved and more popular version of dianetics, with more pseudoscience and magick baloney tacked on. D.Right 10:38, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

D.Right, The classification of NLP or it's actives as a cult, cult-like or "New Age" is almost meaningless. The definitions of "cult" or "New age" are so broad as to include anything outside of Orthodoxy. I have personally trained with many people from many different religions, including a Catholic minister who wanted to improve his presentation and counseling skills. I know of two Islamic followers who also have trained in NLP, one of them had a Ph.D in linguistics and completed NLP trainers training now teaches Islamic studies at an Australian university. The point I want to make is that NLP in respect to religion is ethically neutral.

I understand your view. It is not my view exactly, but it is a referenced view that supports the other evidence from cult manuals that NLP is being used by aggressive cults etc. BTW, my village had a catholic minister who coerced small boys into illegal sexual acts. A cult is not a religion. In this way, it is more closely related to dianetics than Scientology. The new age notions match so closely you could say dianetics is the older twin. D.Right 11:36, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

D.Right, Please explain your logic in assigning Dianetics to the same class as Neuro-Linguistic Programming. In response to your first point about "consciousness", in NLP, consciousness (or conscious attention) is defined as what we are attending to at any one time, ie. what we can see, hear, feel, taste, smell. Unconscious attention is defined as everything else that is contained within our neurology. There is nothing mystical in either definition.

D.Right, I like how you used the term NLP Hobby. NLP Hobbyists, those who claim to be trained in NLP but have no real qualifications are problematic. -Comaze

There is presently a course running in London headed by Paul Mckenna and R Bandler. Everyone passes, no matter what! Are they superteachers? OR is it problematic? D.Right 11:36, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

That is a valid argument in my opinion. I think that attendance based passing is problematic if people attend the course, then pass without passing any assessment for competency, then claim to offer services in NLP. In my opinion, a short (hobby) course, with no assessment for competency is not enough to actually offer services in NLP. Again, there is a different between hobbyists and properly trained practitioners. --Comaze 22:01, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Engrams, etc.

Links to Neuro-Linguistic Programming from the Scientology and Dianetics and engrams articles have been thrown out. See Talk:Scientology. --Comaze 05:11, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Also, the term Scientology term engram is not used in NLP. HeadleyDown references "Structure of Magic Vol.2". HeadleyDown may be confusing this with the Satir categories, Placator, Blamer, Computer, Distractor (terms borrowed from Enneagrams - a personality typing system). It is important to note that these categories are not longer taught in strict NLP training. Apply the quick and dirty Google test...

• Results 1 - 10 of about 442 for nlp engram
• Results 1 - 10 of about 62,300 for nlp enneagram

See Also, "The Enneagram and NLP: A Journey of Evolution. Anne Linden, Murray Spalding (1994) --Comaze 05:46, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

I can answer this easily myself as a scientist. Engram is a psychological term to describe a part of a history or memory trace of episodic memory. It is commonly used in NLP by Bandler, Dilts, Grinder et al and was also used by Perls and Virginia Satir. It is used widely in NLP literature. Do not rely on google. The NLP that is promoted there is just that: Promotional. EBlack 11:48, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

I have failed to find any reference to "engram" by Bandler, Dilts, Grinder et al in NLP literature. What are your sources (with page numbers)?

1. No entry for engram in Encyclopedia of NLP (online version) [9] (Dilts & Delozier, 2000).
2. No entry for engram in "Shorter Oxford English dictionary (1973).

 --Comaze 00:57, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

EBlack says, "Do not rely on google. The NLP that is promoted there is just that: Promotional."

1. If you search "engrams" on google, every single one of the top 10 results is for Scientology. I know this is not conclusive but it definitely begs the question.
2. Why does engram does not appear in any of the developers literature?
3. Also, what is your source for defining Engram as a psychological term?
4. Engram appears on a List of alternative, speculative and disputed theories
5. Karl S. Lashley (1890-1958) was an American behaviorist well-remembered for his influential contributions to the study of learning and memory. His failure to find a single biological locus of memory (or "engram", as he called it) suggested to him that memories were not localized to one part of the brain, but were widely distributed throughout the cortex (src: Karl S. Lashley).
6. Lashley argued for distributed representations as a result of his failure to find anything like a localized engram in years of lesion experiments (src: Early work, Connectionism).

--Comaze 03:32, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Comaze. Your research is irellevant. Do a search of Engrams and psychology. Also, look at these pages:

http://www.nlptrainings.com/humanistic.html\ http://www.conts.com/learn.html http://www.online-hypnosis.org/encyclopedia/definition.asp?word=Engram&theme=General&letter=E

I understand that NLP writers often do not use an index in their book, but keep on searching through the text and you will find copious use of the term "engram" in the text. Also, an introductory paragraph should have something recognisable in the text. Engrams is linked to the wiki article on engrams and that gives a clear idea of what it is about. Whats more, consensus is towards this point. More links and book references can be added to the engram link in due course. Have faith in wikiprocess, and be patient. HeadleyDown 04:38, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

I am still not convinced. I still have not found any reference to "engram" by any of the NLP developers (Bandler, Grinder, Delozier, Dilts, ...). And your third link says, "There is no current research based evidence for the physical existence of engrams."[10] I am not convinced of any relevance of engram to NLP. Do you have any other references (with page numbers)? --Comaze 05:26, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

If you want engram stuff to stay, you will need to provide a reference (and page number), otherwise this will be removed. Lashley, the guy who came up with the term engram, was not able to find one. Rather he found "that all cortical areas can substitute for each other as far as learning is concerned." Arun Jagota, 1988 ([Lashley's Search for the Engram http://neuron-ai.tuke.sk/NCS/VOL1/P3_html/node13.html]) --Comaze 01:55, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

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

Hi JPLogan. Psychology once used the term Engram didn't it? Are you aware when it fell from usage in Psychological fields? GregA 05:36, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Scientology Terminology: Clearing and Re-Programming

One editor here so desperately wants others to believe NLP is a "cult" (LOL), he makes up nonsense about the need to be "cleared" (obviously a Scientology reference) and the need to be reprogrammed. Anyone who knows about NLP knows you don't need to be reprogrammed to use NLP techniques or be "cleared," whatever that means. I will continue to revert that nonsense until he provides a legitimate source.--Agiantman 03:40, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Well I'm not sure about your feeling but I am enjoying this. I have learned a huge amount about NLP. I even went to a lecture about it at a university. Reprogramming is a common word in NLP manuals. Here is a foolproof pointer for you just for starters [11]. I believe the word programming may also be relevant to NLP, somewhere. Perhaps you could point out where it fits into NLP! I took the clearing phrase away though. I guess it was a remnant that you have only just noticed. I will replace it when I find an NLP manual that talks of clearing. Anyway, the reference is in place now. I hope you find it reassuring! If not, I have a lot of other references to go in its place. They will be a lot more incriminating though. D.Right 04:30, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Well it didn't take long. NLP uses clearing techniques, refers to them as clearing techniques, and sells products that promote the clearing of traumas. So I agree with you that NLP clearing and reprogramming techniques are probably nonsense. Thanks much for the encouragement! D.Right 05:36, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

When one uses NLP to pick-up women or sell goods (the most common uses of NLP), no one is cleared of trauma (or anything else). No one is "reprogrammed." The programming aspect of NLP is a reference to the cultural/linguistic programming and conditioning that we all subtlety receive as we grow up. NLP tools use the knowledge that people have been "programmed" by society to lead them. People are not programmed (or reprogrammed) by some cult programmer. Your strange opinions and paranoia about NLP are funny to me. --Agiantman 14:52, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Well from what I can see, most people who are interested actually get into NLP to learn the technology of excellence and overcome insecurities. They tend to be insecure people, and people who are fooled easily. D.Right 15:32, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Fooled easily? I think people who buy Tony Robbins tapes are just normal everyday people into self-improvement. I was just looking to get an edge on the competition. Don't you think NLP works? If NLP doesn't work, how am I now able to get great looking ladies into the sack? How do those cults turn people into slavish knuckleheads? You can download Ross Jeffries mp3's from limewire, etc. I wish you would give it a shot. --Agiantman 17:53, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Hi Agiantman. My view is that NLP doesn't work. I have evidence from rigorous scientific reviews to support my view. There are other views, which will also be heard. I have read Ross Jeffries' and was quite concerned about his BJ patterns. I have to say, I never got any desire to perform fellatio on him. Why do you feel so compelled to obey his commands? Using covert NLP commands in a feeble attempt to circumvent discerning females' consciousness is both impotent and unethical. And when it falls flat, you must feel very insecure. Why not just behave like a real man? D.Right 05:19, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

It's my understanding that Bandler and Grinder originally developed the idea of NLP because they wanted to determine why certain professionals, notably salespeople, were more successful than others. They were able to narrow down the reason to the communication techniques used by these successful salespeople. They identified many elements, including "embedded commands", "body language", "mimicking" and "pacing". Additional elements that are part of NLP are phonetic ambiguity, and choosing your wording so that not only the explicit and literal meaning of your words conveys your message, but also the tangential connotations help to reach the goal of your communication. NLP maintains that the meaning of your communication is the result (answer) you are getting.

We are not talking about a field that lends itself as easily to the scientific measurement POV as say, physics or chemistry or engineering would. Nevertheless, I'm sure many, many people will vouch that NLP techniques of one kind or another (since there are many - and they have evolved from the original work of Bandler and Grinder) are very useful to help them achieve their goals. From salespeople, to motivational speakers, to substance abuse counselors, and yes, even apparently for men wishing to improve the quality of their relationship with women, there are untold numbers who can vouch for the effectiveness and validity of NLP. NLP basically makes you aware that we communicate on several more levels than the merely verbal, and that if you wish to convey a powerful and congruent message that reaches your audience, and realizes the outcome you wish from the communication, it is wise to learn all these levels, or modes of communication. Intersofia 02:46, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Thank you Intersofia. Yes, there are testimonials and anecdotes all over the web. But the actual research that has been conducted indicates that it does not work in general. I have the source references for evidence. I also know NLP instructors who will say the same thing. They generally do not let science bother them though, and continue to do what they think is beneficial. But for an encyclopedia, the scientific and historical views must be taken into account. Your view is also valid though. Regards EBlack 04:53, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Scientology / Dianetics does not meet NLP criteria (TG, logic or automata)

• Dianetics & Scientology methods do not teach NLP meta model or inductive/deductive logic. Even if an NLP modeler found the best performing Scientologist or Dianetician and successfully modeled the individual patterns via discrete analysis, then coded them formally; this does not put NLP in the same class as Scientology or Dianetics. NLP remains a meta-discipline in that it can be used to model the patterns of individuals from any field (Dianetics, family therapy, physics, ...). --Comaze 00:17, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Comaze. You are not in a position to preach. You are in a position to get on your knees and beg for forgiveness for your rotten behaviour last week and the last few days. EBlack 01:22, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

EBlack, Personal attacks have absolutely no significance in this argument. Please research before reverting editors' contributions, and keep argument to facts only. --Comaze 01:47, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Differences in Schools of NLP

I'm not sure how to go about this. Obviously NLP is trained and approached in different ways by different groups that have branched off, and it would be useful to express that in some way. Should there be a separate section? Should it be integrated with various concepts?

For now, I'm working on some changes to "ecology", and splitting the "mind/body/spiritual" into "mind/body", and "spiritual". I'm also adding something very brief on trainings. I hope it's useful as a start, but I'm very aware that this is not the final way to do it! GregA 00:43, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Hello GregA. I understand you want to show differences and inconsistencies within and between different schools of NLP and that is great. But please do not remove any stated or quoted facts. It is important to allow all points of view to be heard. Regards JPLogan 02:51, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Hi JP! I guess you reverted what I wrote? Could you tell me what you though I removed, and I'll rewrite it to keep that in. Ahh... I see I lost the (Lilienfeld et al 1993) comment! Damn. For the moment I'm more concerned with clearing things up a little but keeping the information intact so we can keep consensus! Is that the only missing info? If so I'll fix it up. Thanks :-) GregA 05:36, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm waiting to resubmit for 24hrs. JPLogan - please let me know if it's just the Lilienfeld thing you say I removed.

On a related note - currently the mind/body/spirit section says: Dilts (1992) states that humans communicate by taking in information through the senses. It is also hypothesised that humans give out communication as a kind of energy, and this can be considered the spiritual side of communication. This kind of energy is considered in various ways. It can be considered metaphorically in terms of the communication sender and recipient's mutual intention to spend energy on sending/receiving, and it can be considered in the sense of a "thought field" similar to that proposed in energy psychology (Gallo 2002).

Dilts and Gallo are reference at both ends. Does anyone know if the information in the middle come from either of them? It seems to imply Gallo, not Dilts, though it's unclear. Note that Gallo is a clinical psychologist who now teaches energy psychology and has taught NLP. His views may not be representative of clinical psychology or NLP. GregA 23:41, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Persuasion research

1. [Donald: A psycholinguistic study of the patterns of persuasion used by successful salespeople. Dissertation Abstracts International 42(5), 2135-B University of Oregon, 271 pp. Order = 8123499, 1981.]

Altering quotes from academic sources to suit the NLP promotion is not persuasive at all. It is called misrepresentation. Why not evangelise the NLP promotion section instead? After all, there seems to be enough hype in the NLP literature to blast Scientology off the stage anyday!D.Right 16:28, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

What misrepresented quotes, specifically? I agree that there is alot of hype in some trainers purporting to use NLP. Find some references and put it in the criticism section, under quality of trainers.

Some NLP trainers / practitioners claim to have a Ph.D or degree from American Pacific University a non-accredited university [12].

Example

For years I have wondered what it is exactly that practitioners of neuro-linguistic programming do. I have searched various sites on the net but most of them want money before they show you anything they really do. Could someone show me at least one common example of an NLP "tool"?

NPOV, Criticism, Reversions, etc.

I reverted the article back to the prior information rich version, because a lot of recent changes look suspiciously like someone is trying to turn a criticism section into a promotion section. Here are some specific points: Psychologist's ethical standards including openness and explication of method, writing that a statement is an "accusation" is pov, removing brief examples will reduce the clarity of the piece, and NLP, Dianetics, etc are not just marketed as tech - but the argument appears throughout the whole texts. Now perhaps you would like to discuss these? Keeping it real Thaumaturge 04:34, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

When you made the reversion you added this paragraph full of POV, "The ever changing and uncertain nature of NLP’s concepts and theory, and the negative results of rigorous research, have led to distrust by conventional fields and the close association with snakeoil. Nevertheless, the use of pseudoscience and anecdotal promotion allows it to operate on a commercial scale with a disregard for objective proof of its efficacy, and the “flavour of the month” trends and fads occurring within the NLP concern suggest that NLP will continue to be directed at customers or anyone willing to believe the buzzwords and claims."

POV constantly being added include, "Ever changing concepts": Which concepts are everchanging you referring to and who opinion is that? When in fact, the NLP modeling methodology has not changed since its inception in 1970s. (see eg. Pattern I, Grinder & Bandler, 1975 and Whispering, Grinder & Bostic 2001).

My intention is to follow the NPOV guidelines. For example, I removed "NLP is strongly associated with modern day cults [13](Langone 1993)" and replaced it with, "Gary Tippet of Sunday Age, Australia found that some cults use NLP and hypnotic techniques that, 'manipulates people through subtle language tricks, subliminal messages and body language tricks'[14]." A direct quote, and only text about NLP in that entire document.

Another unfair POV is continually added citing The Skeptics Dictionary as a source, (not a primary source) "However, NLP’s lack of methodology and current (lack of) scientific research effort and results suggests that this attempt at association with science is highly dubious. To date, NLP advocates and other such interested parties have been unconvincing in their efforts to associate NLP with neuroscience [15]." What if we preface it with skeptics say that... --211.30.48.164 09:34, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

If I may, I believe I have a solution. I have noticed that the whole article needs POV improvement work. The statements about NLP in the above article are simply regurgitations from the promotinal books. The style is very devotional to NLP, in a Tom Cruise kind of way. Why not make them a little less android? The only reason the criticism section has some extreme wording is because NLP fans keep deleting the facts and so neutral parties become anti-devotee. The whole article is improving in the sense that more references are appearing. But the delete/revert war is messing it up. So just work on making your POV more acceptable to wiki, without making other's POV disappear! EBlack 13:49, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Classification of NLP Training as LGAT or Large Group Awareness Training

I am not convinced that NLP can be classified as LGAT. NLP is taught is many different formats. From outdoor "leadership" style courses, small groups to large groups, informal practice groups, one-on-one sessions, apprenticeships, as well as Anthony Robbins style seminars with thousands of participants. Some certifications are attendance based, others have competency assessment. The length of training ranges from hours for an introductory session to 40 days postgraduate study. Classification of all NLP training as LGAT is not accurate. --Comaze 22:31, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Hi all I added my bit about History of NLP. This is taken from many books, including Andreas and Faulkner's NLP books, and my own experiences in the NLP field. Cheers HeadleyDown 12:23, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Organization of the article - Stick to Basics Please

May I suggest that we should keep only basic factual information in the main article and move all the critique (for and against) to the discussion page for the time being till we reach a consensus. The article is a bit too long and is quite difficult to read. I think "Human Potential Movement" is a more neutral and precise term than "New Age".

Suggested Structure

• What is NLP
• History of NLP
  • First Generation 1970s
  • Second Generation 1980s-1990s
  • Third Generation 1990s-Present Time
• Basic Assumptions of NLP
• NLP Models
• NLP Applications

--RichardCLeen 15:35, 18 August 2005 (UTC) (cleaned up above into point form GregA)

Excuse me! When you say factual, do you mean actual history and research, or the promotional buzzwords and hype from the pseudo-academic NLP books by Bandler et al? D.Right 17:38, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

I'd go for what NLP schools share in common, some brief info on the differences, followed by a criticism from psychology GregA 01:16, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

I've been looking at every subheading currently on the main page - and just thinking about how those could be restructured to be more readable. Please note that to start with that means NOT CHANGING the content of any subsection. I'd suggest something like:

• What is NLP (Introduction)
• History of NLP (70s/80s etc later??)
• Principles of NLP (and presuppositions??)
• NLP Modelling (currently called Goals)
• NLP and Therapy
• Early NLP Patterns
• NLP Differences and lack of common voice (critical internal NLP perspective)
• External Criticisms of NLP (critical Science & media perspective)
• Reference, developers, people NLP claims to develop from, external links, etc.

That's my first draft, and at a high level. And so far it's only one guys opinion. This is not something to be done lightly so this discussion will stay around for a while for some good input. It would require consensus and for that reason I'm proposing just a layout change (no change to CONTENT just structure) with the exception of a couple of headings. I've expanded the subheadings below to make it more obvious.GregA 01:16, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Below I've expanded to show subheadings:

• What is NLP (Introduction)
• History of NLP (70s/80s etc later??)
• Principles of NLP (and presuppositions??)
  • Practicality
  • Experimentation, observation and feedback
  • Client centered
  • Structure
  • Multiple perceptual positions (typically triple description)
  • Adaptation and Innovation
  • Mind, body and spirit
  • Subjectivity of experience
  • Empiricism and Idealism
  • Ecology
  • Learning NLP
• NLP Modelling (currently called Goals)
• NLP and Therapy
• Early NLP Patterns
  • Proposed sensory predicates
  • Eye-accessing cues
  • Meta-model and Milton Model
    • Distortion: Semantic Well-formedness
    • Generalizations
    • Deletion
• NLP Differences and lack of common voice (critical internal NLP perspective)
  • Mechanistic toolbox or humanistic?
  • Unethical Use of NLP
  • Issues with Buzzwords and Trademarks
  • this is the place to make obvious the various differences in NLP approaches, and any inconsistencies in teachings - from an NLP perspective - including what's being done about it
• External Criticisms of NLP (Science & media perspective)
  • NLP and Psychology
  • The Ineffectiveness of NLP
  • NLP is not a science
  • NLP as a Pseudoscience
  • Commercialism
  • NLP and dubious new age remedies
  • NLP and Cult Activities
  • Dubious Courses and Accreditation
• Reference, developers, people NLP claims to develop from, external links, etc.

What do you think? Alternative options? etc :) GregA 01:16, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Structure of magic and human potential movement

Structure of Magic Vol.I was obviously regarded as useful by Gregory Bateson who wrote an introduction to the book; and Virginia Satir who wrote the foreword quoting, "they seem to come up with a description of the predictable elements that make change happen..." Milton Erickson also wrote about Structure of Magic Vol.1 saying that is "...a delightful simplification of the infinite complexities of the language I use with patients..." These are all quotes from primary sources.

HeadleyDown,D.Right, Structure of Magic was not transcribed from a seminar. Rather "Structure of Magic, A Book about language and therapy" was written by John Grinder and Richard Bandler after modeling Fritz Perls. It is a technical book and most of the coding of the models is inspired by Transformational Linguistics. , In 1973 John Grinder wrote, A guide to transformational grammar (co-authored with Suzette Elgin, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1973) and On Deletion Phenomena in English (Mouton & Co., 1972) both books formed the ground-work for the initial coding of NLP (see also. Structure of Magic: A book about language and therapy, eg. Appendix B).--211.30.48.164 09:15, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

From my experience, it was. I have evidence to show that Frogs into Princes was a tidied transcription.HeadleyDown 03:41, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Could you please share that evidence Headley, since it's stated as fact in the history section.

HeadleyDown wrote: "The earliest influence on NLP was Alfred Korzybski and general semantics as a new perspective for looking at the world from altered realities and his complex methods of instilling mental hygiene."--211.30.48.164 09:15, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

HeadleyDown may be confusing general semantics, with George Lakoff's Generative Semantics which had a huge influence on the linguistics of John Grinder (see Appendix B, Structure of Magic I, Grinder & Bandler 1975). It is important to note now (2005) cognitive semantics oppose syntactical approaches to meaning in Generative Semantics. Also, Grinder and Bostic (Whispering 2001) challenge and offer refinements to Korzybski's map/territory distinction. And Alfred Korzybski did not influence NLP directly, "the map is not the territory" distinction came into NLP via Batesonian Epistemology (see. eg. Steps to an ecology of mind, Gregory Bateson).--211.30.48.164 09:15, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

I was being congruent with what is written on the page header of the article. Korzybski is quoted as the earliest background origin to NLP. Its undeniable. HeadleyDown 03:41, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

HeadleyDown wrote: "This was a move against the Aristotelian thought of modern science and objective reality, and it influenced notions of programming the mind such as was adopted by the financially successful Dianetics of L Ron Hubbard and led the way to a viable human potential industry during the emerging New Age."

Firstly, what move specifically against Aristotelian logic, science or objectivity? What is your evidence? Grinder suggests frames around when to, and when not to use analysis in NLP modeling. For example, prior knowledge, analysis and logic is to to be avoided during the initial imitation (uptake) stage in NLP modeling. Grinder accepts that other forms of modeling or "knowledge aquisition" are perfectly valid (Grinder 2003). After criteria is met, all the knowledge, tools of analysis and skills learned at university is turned back on. (see eg. Grinder Interview 2003 On Modeling [16])--211.30.48.164 09:15, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

You cannot talk about the human potential industry without talking about new age influences. Objectivity and science are what separates the two. My evidence is the knowledge about general semantics and Aristotelian thought. Read the books! What you are saying is NLP is science. It is not! HeadleyDown 03:41, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

HeadleyDown, This is not human potential movement or industry as you suggest -- this is NLP. When you say, "Read the Books!" what are you referring to? In the Appendix of Structure of Magic I, Grinder provides a linguistic description of the method they use to model Fritz Perls. In it they refer to George Lakoff's Generative Semantics (from Generative Linguistics) as being key. With your knowledge of "general semantics and Aristotelian thought please explain to me the logic behind including Scientology in your account of the history of NLP and why your history does not match the history that John Grinder himself describes in Whispering in the Wind (2001). --Comaze 08:17, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Also, what definition of New Age are we using in this article? Even human potential movement is not appropriate in my opinion, but it is more neutral that undefined term New Age. What would be acceptable to all parties? Maybe human potential movement, Personal development, or epistemology? Some do consider the study of epistemology to be esoteric so this may take into account the opinions of the New Age & occult supporters.--Comaze 00:59, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Acceptability is not the issue. The issue is, does wikipedia cater for those wishing to whitewash the subject. I don't think it does! New age and the HPM and Personal Development, and Self Help, and Inspirational section, are all fact. Listen, I teach NLP, and I don't appreciate the hype and nonsense people use from the marketing bunk. It really detracts from what we are trying to do. NLP has had certain influences, and it is also an improvement on some of those influences. I will make the adjustment in the history section. HeadleyDown 03:41, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

If I am to understand you, you will need to be more specific. Who is trying to whitewash the subject of NLP? What hype and nonsense, specifically? And who / what NLP groups are you referring to? --211.30.48.164 09:15, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

The article is moving along fine in its present condition. It is within a good size, and is very manageable. The views are being well represented, well researched fact is being added concisely, and POV is being reduced, except where people delete without justification. Some more faith in wiki process is needed.EBlack 07:10, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

It may be progressing, but still most of the article is poorly written and needs a major cleanup to remove bias and POV.--211.30.48.164 09:15, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Additionally, There is a postgraduate course in NLP accredited by Australian Government. This NLP course is classified as a Behavioral Science. [17]--211.30.48.164 09:15, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

HeadleyDown has been repeatedly reverting and adding comments about "New Age" and Scientology. The manner in which he is doing this appears to violate NPOV. Please review the policy before putting this material back in the article. User: 211.30.48.164 has done a good job of explaining why Headley's edits are inappropriate, IMO. Sunray 07:15, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

New Age, Psychic Energy, Structural discipline, no value judgements, Scientology

Reference to New Age or Psychic is not appropriate in this article on NLP. NLP has been defined strictly by John Grinder and Carmen Bostic St Clair in Whispering in the Wind (2001). It is definitely not New Age, or psychic, or related to Scientology as one person keeps try to add to the article. Let's keep this article about facts only. Grinder says, in Turtles (1986) that NLP was designed as an epistemology from the beginning. Grinder and Bostic's (2001) description of the coding of NLP is congruent with that found in Structure of Magic Vol.1 (Bander & Grinder, 1975). The personal beliefs of Grinder or Bandler, or even the personal beliefs of people who use NLP or claim to use NLP, are not of the concern of NLP or this article. That is a matter of personal style and is outside the realm of NLP.

NLP is a structural discipline, so it contains no value judgments. You are presupposing that new age is nonsense. NLP has always had an extremely strong spiritual side which is growing in the literature. ALL of the founding members strongly advocate the new age/spiritual aspects of NLP. I have written the facts as they are presented in the source material. Connirae and Tamara Andreas identified five core states: being, inner peace, love, etc. Bandler is a shaman. Grinder constantly uses the word soul in his teachings. Robert Dilts modeled the cognitive patterns of Jesus of Nazareth. So stop making value judgments, the background of NLP is what it is. Just let the facts speak. There is nothing wrong with these associations. NLP takes a non judgmental approach to its own background. Wikipedia is also non judgmental. Learn! HeadleyDown 12:05, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

HeadleyDown, My apologies for just reverting your edit out so quickly. My intention is to clean this document up. My first outcome is to clean out all these New Age references because NLP is not described as New Age by Grinder or Bandler. And the term New Age is so vague almost to be meaningless. Do you think that the term esoteric is more acceptable to all relevant parties? Esoteric also covers "New Age". The esoteric portions of NLP include the "essence" of the model, the artistic portion, the stuff that can only be learned through one-on-one direct contact, this cannot be coded using Transformational Linguistics, Turing machine or automata. We just don't have the language to describe it. Or maybe it cannot be empirically tested because it happens internally or out of conscious attention but is still vital.

HeadleyDown, Connirae and Tamara Andreas naming their core states (love, etc.), Bandler saying he is a shaman or pagan, Grinder using soul or grace in his metaphors, or if Robert Dilts follows Christianity are all examples of the personal beliefs or personal style of the individual trainers. These beliefs and values are totally up to the individual trainers and are not prescribed by NLP one way or the other. What type of spirituality is growing in literature? And in what books specifically and written by whom? Grinder's book Turtles (with Delozier 1986) for example uses lots of metaphors from many different cultures with different spiritual traditions. I cannot find any reference to spirituality in Bandler's latest book, Persuasion Engineering. -Comaze

Hello Comaze You are clearly in denial. It is unhelpful. Your goal is to be strict. Wikipedia is not strict, it is neutral. New age is part of the references as is potential and re-programming and engrams and traumas. The term appears many times. It is in academic references, promotional references, historical references amongst others. You seem to be working with a limited outlook and limited references. Grinder is only one author. I want to be truthful and encyclopedic about NLP. Stop judging, and stop denying. The sources are everywhere! The truth will HELP NLP. HeadleyDown 14:39, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Who do you consider primary sources in NLP?

Who is clearing traumas and how, specifically? And what is your evidence/reference for these claims, specifically? -Comaze

Hi Comaze. Primary sources and resources would be books written by the developers of NLP, and transcripts or recordings from the seminars. Most of the primary sources I have talk of clearing traumas. One example would be the Andreas ref on the article. It is not specific to dianetics or NLP. It is also used in psychology and psychotherapy. It is a very useful and humane application of NLP. So please do not jump to conclusions. I am being non judgmental. Simply stating facts. HeadleyDown 04:52, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Hi HeadleyDown, Could you be more specific so I can check your sources on the History of NLP. What page of Book/Page numbers are you referring to? Andreas may not be a reliable source because he was not part of the original NLP group. What are your sources for your account of the "History of NLP". How do you explain the difference between your accounts and John Grinder's account in Whispering? Grinder's version is the most accurate version. He was there. Also, What is your intention for continually linking to Scientology (or Dianetics)? -Comaze

Hello Comaze. There is the history of NLP in the book in the references section of Andreas. You can find it from the contents section. Andreas is an NLP developer and has been since the mid 70s. He has since improved his view in seminars to include the history to dianetics. Grinder tends to try to appeal more to a business audience, and so will tend to use their frames of reference. However, the soul of NLP notions are easy to see in his explanations of pacing and leading (fairly mystical) and goal orientation (visions and spiritual purpose in life). These are non psychological and very spiritual. Dianetics is simply a historical milestone on the way to realizing NLP. General semantics was the earliest break away from rigor of science, and opened the book to programming. Dianetics use this idea and did it successfully both in terms of treating trauma after the world wars, and also financially successfully in terms of turning people to the idea that they could do something for themselves. NLP made improvements upon these notions especially in improving the hypnotic aspects, and is similarly successful. I do not disparage NLP, but I do disparage of people who want to narrow NLP into a tiny limiting box. NLP is connected to lots of things in a non-judgmental way and will continue in that spirit. If you want to empower your NLP further I suggest you embrace the spiritual aspects of communication. HeadleyDown 04:36, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Good luck User:Comaze in trying to talk sense here. I tried for a couple weeks. Curiously, User:D.Right and User:HeadleyDown make identical silly arguments linking NLP to shamanism and Scientology. Despite User:HeadleyDown's disparaging remarks about NLP, he says he is an NLP teacher on his user page. Pretty strange. I think User:D.Right and User:HeadleyDown are well-meaning, but wrongly believe that NLP is an organized cult. Please let me know if I can be of help.--Agiantman 03:17, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Listen Comaze and Agiantman. If you are ashamed about being thought of as neo-scientologists I fully understand. I have removed the Scientology specifics just so you don't go deleting the actual timeline of NLP background and history. It is what it is. I am neutral here, but I have followed up on HeadleyDown's references and they actually treat the dianetics association very mildly. Both Scientology and dianetics were historically and anthropologically extremely tied in with NLP development. Of course, the NLP developers are definitely going to try to distance themselves from dianetics and Scientology, but the 20th century new age trend is absolutely undeniable. I am certain the specifics will reappear when you pull you fingers out and start to research the actual roots of your beliefs in NLP outside of the hype-ridden and salesy NLP bibles you have been evangelizing. EBlack 07:05, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Neo-scientologists? That's pretty funny. There is no one who is more critical of Scientology than me. Do you have any evidence that Bandler or Grinder is or was a Scientologist? How about Ross Jeffries or Tony Robbins? If you could show me anything, anything, indicating any them support Scientology, I am very, very interested. I just think you are barking up the wrong tree here.--Agiantman 07:24, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

I said that you are thought of as a neo-scientologist; By historians and anthropologists.EBlack 07:55, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

EBlack: Please try to comprehend what people are trying to tell you. In addition to what Agiantman has been explaining, I would add that the following statement violates Wikipedia: Neutral point of view in my opinion:

"According to the NLP presupposition that closely relates to the new age principle of human potential improvement..."

The addition of the words "new age" push a particular point of view. Human potential improvement goes far beyond being a "new age" thing and can be seen as a tradition that, in the western canon, goes back to Socrates. Could you please try to work out an alternative wording and cease with the reverts? Sunray 07:30, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

I understand exactly what people are saying. They are parroting NLP promotional manuals. The human potential movement was specific to only some parts of NLP and the 60s onwards. The new age association links with programming, hypnotic NLP, and general semantics, which goes earlier. Your point about extension to pre-socratic times is valid. I can generate a term that includes new age with the older pagan philosophes. EBlack 07:55, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

I noticed that in general, NLPee-ers are completely pathetic when it comes to fact, both historical and scientific. I think they tend to get into NLPee because it is somehow comforting and woos them into thinking they are capable of miraculous bullshit. NLP is not knowledge, it just a body of excuses. When NLPee-ers don't like reality, they simply take it off their map altogether! Very ostrich behaviour. D.Right 11:44, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes DRight, you are correct, some of the NLP advocates here do stupid things like; revert properly referenced and well researched passages and THEN demand a discussion, which is opposite to NPOV guidelines, and they also revert properly referenced passages which have had "offensive" facts removed. They are not helpful at all and they stupidly shoot themselves and me in the foot. I am going to make a constructive suggestion, and as per NPOV guidelines, and the latest well researched facts will stay unless someone can provide proof and consensus for any deleting action. HeadleyDown 15:45, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

I think it might be useful to have 2 pages for NLP, both linking each other, one against NLP and one for NLP. This will allow users to look at both sides of the argument. I dont think NPOV is helpful in this case. --RichardCLeen 15:57, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

If you read the reverts, and the discussion you will notice that they have been discussed. Have a look at the last two paragraphs of the text that was reverted...

"In sum, NLP promotes methods which are largely verifiable and have so far been found to be largely false, inaccurate or ineffective. From these models it develops techniques which may have nothing to do with either the models or the sources of the "models".

What are the sources for these opinions? Largely false, inaccurate or ineffective, according to whom?--211.30.48.164 00:24, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

I can provide these refs myself HeadleyDown 02:44, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

"NLP makes claims about thinking and perception which do not seem to be supported by neuroscience. "

What claims about thinking and perception are you referring to? Unsupported by neuroscientists, who specifically? --211.30.48.164 00:24, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Neuroscientists do not do NLP, and they do not recognize eye accessing cues etc I will provide evidenceHeadleyDown

"NLP has been marketed to the general public using a broad brush approach to solutions, and adopts conveniently broad and simple terms, popular psychology, and pseudoscience and myths about the brain to promote its claims. "

Who is this referring to? Marketed by all NLP practitioners, all trainers? Who is making the claims? --211.30.48.164 00:24, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

This is very true. You could provide this yourself. Just do a web search. If not I will help out here also.HeadleyDown 02:44, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

"As such it has been widely extended to market an extremely diverse range of products from psychotherapy to breast enlargement and psychic seduction techniques, as it is likely to be used for the sale of other such products in the future."

Again, who's opinion is this? Ebay is used to sell breast enlargement and so is email. Any who is using NLP for these purposes? And how are they doing it? And what NLP concepts or techniques are they using?--211.30.48.164 00:24, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

We do not need to know the details, just the fact that they do use it to sell these products. You seem to be having a tantrum! HeadleyDown 02:44, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

"The ever changing and uncertain nature of NLP’s concepts and theory, and the negative results of rigorous research, have led to distrust by conventional fields and the close association with snakeoil. "

What techniques are "ever changing" and how are they changing? The modeling methodology has not changed since it began in 1970s. (See eg. Whispering. 2001 and Patterns Vol.1 1975).--Comaze 23:56, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Concepts and theory can be changed to buzzwords and associated claims HeadleyDown 02:44, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Additionally, who classifies NLP with "snakeoil", and what is your evidence for this statement? --211.30.48.164 01:14, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Who's opinion is it that NLP concepts and theory are not trusted by conventional fields. Which fields specifically? Who distrusts NLP concepts and theory, specifcally? What is the evidence for this?

Its in the main body of the criticismsHeadleyDown 02:44, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

"Nevertheless, the use of pseudoscience and anecdotal promotion allows it to operate on a commercial scale with a disregard for objective proof of its efficacy, and the “flavour of the month” trends and fads occurring within the NLP concern suggest that...

Who classified NLP as a pseudoscience? Who uses anecdotal promotion? What "flavour of the month trends", and who's opinion is that? --Comaze 23:56, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Look at the definition of pseudoscienceHeadleyDown 02:44, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

"NLP will continue to be directed at customers or anyone willing to believe the buzzwords and claims."

Who's opinion is that? What is the source? Please provide Source with page numbers so I can check you sources. Otherwise I will continue to revert this POV.--Comaze 23:56, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

If you require sources with page numbers then all of the NLP explanation sections will require the same. Anybody would be able to remove it while you hunt page numbers etc. You are being very destructive and acting against wikipedia process. If you want to remove POV, then do it without the mass bombing effort. When people take time to add sentences to paragraphs that are backed up with references and scientific research you can question those particular parts and look for consensus to change them or improve them to NPOV. Otherwise it is simple. If you mass delete, you will simply get a mass reversion. So if you demand all of the references to each statement on the criticism section, you must reference all of the prior NLP explanation section first.HeadleyDown 02:44, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

No problem, I have the references at hand. They can only be reverted strictly against wikipedia regulations and process.EBlack 04:55, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

NLP is New Age by categorization and by central presuppositions/outlook, and by chronological position. NLP is described in detail in the New Age Encyclopedia: A Mind Body Spirit Reference Guide

by Belinda Whitworth (2003)

NLP and New Age has some attributes of a new, emerging religion but is currently a loose network of spiritual seekers, teachers, healers and other participants. THis describes NLP advocates and promoters exactly.

Central to both NLP and New Age is that all life, everything in the universe—is spiritually interconnected, and that the human mind has deep levels and vast powers, which may even be capable even of overriding physical reality. “You create your own reality.”

The name "New Age" also refers to the market segment in which goods and services are sold to people in the movement. NLP falls within that segment.

Hello Comaze. By your blanket and non-consensus deletions, you have earned yourself a zero credibility reputation. People here (including those who hold your views) are working through good research to clarify points, and remove pov. You on the other hand are surreptitiously deleting whole passages that do not agree with your agenda, whilst claiming that you are removing bias and pov. I believe that contributors here are being very tolerant. If you would like gain respect and trust then you would do well to have a look at or remind yourself of the NPOV guidelines. EBlack 05:39, 23 August 2005 (UTC)\

In writing an article on any topic one must first explain what it is (in its own terms). One provides sources, but where the description is generally accepted, there is no need to cite page numbers. Anyone who does not understand the subject is welcome to read up on it. If, on the other hand, one is writing critical commentary it is absolutely necessary to cite chapter and verse. Referring to something as "new age" is not acceptable unless included as a critique (with appropriate citation). The term "new age" is so vapid as to be virtually meaningless. Moreover, when used in this context, it is completely POV. It only belongs in an encyclopedia in a section on "criticism" with its source identified. There are many critiques of NLP and they should be included with cites. The point about mass deletions is well taken, so I will start an edit to remove the blatantly POV statements (and there are many). Please work with me on this. Sunray 06:35, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Thank you Sunray. I believe the new age association with nlp will have to stay. As EBlack has already pointed out and referenced, NLP is categorically new age in a commercial sense, it's spiritual center corresponds directly with the principles of new age thought, and NLP was intrinsically linked with the Esalen institute which developed new age notions, and NLP's originators and developers (including myself) work very closely with new age practices. So in theory, practice, and reality, NLP is a new age notion. BTW, removal of POV is usually not recommended. Altering POV to NPOV is the way to go. Cheers HeadleyDown 07:10, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

I do agree that altering POV to NPOV is the way to go. Can you give me some references that show that NLP is referred to as "new age?" I know that there are many Christian sites that say this, but I wasn't aware that NLP originators and developers referred to it this way. The vagueness of the term doesn't really add much to the meaning of the article, IMO (except as a slur). However, if that's the way NLP practitioners like to refer to it, far be it for us to quibble. Esalen certainly did develop many new age notions, however, that isn't all it did, nor perhaps, even the main thing it did. Sunray 07:24, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

I believe New Age is a benediction rather than a slur. When you look at the dogmatic attitudes of many mainstay religions, even among scientists, NLP and New Age give off quite a guiding light. They both remain eclectic and non-judgmental. Spirituality is at the center of NLP. It manifests in terms of realising the resourcefulness of the mind, the good in everyone, and the connectivity between all things and our goals and visions. Esalen was a central meeting point for all this new thinking, and a point where the dogma of religion and sciences has no power. They were all new thinkers in this respect. There are some inherent dangers in being so open minded and non judgmental, but they are minimal. For references here, I see no better evidence than the commercial Web, but also the definitions of New Age. But I can easily supply book references also. Regards HeadleyDown 09:04, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Are you saying that the heading "NLP and Dubious New Age Remedies" is NPOV? Sunray 07:29, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Yes. I am also saying that NLP is actually classed as a dubious new age remedy. I have the ref also. HeadleyDown 09:04, 23 August 2005 (UTC) Here is the ref; Jack Raso (2002) AUTISM AND VOODOO SCIENCE TREATMENTS American Council on Science and Health

NLP is not science in a Kuhnian (The structure of Scientific Revolution) sense. The entire field of psychotherapy is still at a pre-scientific stage as there is no consensus paradigm. One should not confused psychotherapy with psychology, as you cannot reduce one subject to the other. The relation between psychotherapy and psychology is like the relation between medicine and biology. The former is about "what is working" while the latter is about "seeking a consistent view". Therefore, at this stage ethics and "evidence-based practice" are far more important criteria in evaluating psychotherapy than "falsibility criteria".

I think seriously we should reformat this article into 2 POV pages, NLP (For POV), NLP (Against POV). I will do this later on today. --RichardCLeen 13:16, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

No I have noticed that throughout the reversion war there has been a general desire to merge concepts (mostly by those historians and scientists). As a rigorous researcher myself, I am quite happy to let those prone to zealous tantrums get on with their thing, while I delve for truth. There has always been a desire here to make a meeting of the minds. We seem to be closer to that now than any other time. Best to stick with the present reality. RegardsEBlack 16:17, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Relating to pre-kuhnian claptrap, the information systems research community also does not have a unifying paradigm, but it also does not have Tony Robbins or whoever, claiming miracles and 10 minute cures for phobias or whatever. NLP is seriously not even going anywhere near attempting a unifying paradigm. But it is important as an entity. It is also quite obvious and identifiable. It is not elusive like philosophy. So it is really very easy for any non-gullible person to handle conceptually. Keep up the good work! EBlack 16:22, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

HeadleyDown and EBlack: You have laid out your credentials, let me tell you mine. I have degrees in psychology and sociology but no particular experience with NLP (though I do know a bit about it). I come here as someone who has editing skills (having earned my bread doing that at various times in my life).

Headley said: "I believe New Age is a benediction rather than a slur. When you look at the dogmatic attitudes of many mainstay religions, even among scientists, NLP and New Age give off quite a guiding light..."

OK, I read you. Perhaps, then, it would be best to distinguish between the term "New Age" when used in its actual meaning (say as defined in the Wikipedia article on New Age) and "New Age" when used by groups for whom it is a slur. However, I would tend to opt for minimizing its use because of this divergence of interpretation. That tends, I think, to make certain sentences vague (and, as we have seen, easily misunderstood).

As to Raso: That is a great reference! I definitely think that it should be included in the article--and discussed along the lines you have done, with reference to Kuhn. I also think that quotation marks should be added judiciously to clarify who is saying what.

RichardCLeen suggested creating two articles. It would be far superior, IMO, to do what he is suggesting within one article. If we were to succeed, it could be a candidate for Featured Article status. As EBlack has said, "we seem to be closer now than at any other time." Thanks EB, for the constructive and positive comments, BTW. It helps. Sunray 19:24, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

I have removed the last two paragraphs. On checking the sources did not back up the attributed text. It seems that the citations where just slapped onto the end of sentances without proper checking. I will check the rest of the document.--Comaze 22:03, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Korzybski (General Semantics) v. Lakoff (Generative Semantics)

General Semantics' "the map is not the territory" influence entered NLP via Gregory Bateson. Korzybski did not have a direct influence either co-creators. General Semantics should not be confused with Generative Semantics (Generative Linguistics) which had an influence on John Grinder (see Appendix A. Bandler & Grinder, Structure of Magic Vol.1 (1975), & Grinder & Bostic, Whispering in the Wind (2001)). John Grinder was assistant professor of linguistics at University of California, Santa Cruz, when George Lakoff, the founder of Generative Semantics was professor University of California, Berkeley campus. In 1972, the year before Grinder and Bandler began collaborating, George Lakoff (with Mark Johnson) published "Metaphors we live by", which is required reading for NLP training. George Lakoff later in his career taught Transformational Grammar which was developed by MIT professor Noam Chomsky. It is important to note that Generative Linguistics has been since replaced by Cognitive Linguistics. It is also important to note that Korzybski's "the map is not the territory" distinction has also been challenged and refinement offered in Grinder & Bostic in Whispering in the Wind (2001). Grinder now even says "The territory is not the territory" referring to the fact that information coming from our senses is already subject the limitations of what range of frequency of sound, light, or pressure the sensory system can detect. Any information that can "represented" is already subject to Neurological (f1) and Linguistic Transforms (f2). – Comaze

Yes, even Grinder is changing his tune on that one. But really, all of the NLP books I have, and some of the non-partisan sources I have my hand on say that Korzybski’s map is not the territory is the earliest and strongest influence. Grinder’s idea of the territory is not the territory is him moving further away from reality to the “soul” of NLP. This moves NLP even further away from science to the more spiritual dimension of NLP. So Korzybski really did have a direct influence. The generative semantics link is far weaker though. He seems to have only tacked it on recently as an influence. Best not to rely on only one source here.

EBlack, Firstly, according to Grinder the primary contributor to NLP methodology was Noam Chomsky's Transformation Grammar (the competency/performance criteria), intuition as a legitimate methodology, and as Grinder summarizes Chomsky's work, "in pursuit of explicit representations of the patterning that characterizes regularities in natural language, the only relevant reference point is the source of the patterning itself - the human being". -Comaze

Secondly, Grinder has not changed his tune. Grinder is simply attempting to remove ambiguity and vagueness in the description saying, "This significantly broadens and deepens the representation of "Korzybski's territory" (actually NOT the territory but rather the already transformed representations of First Access)" (Whispering, Grinder & Bostic (2001), pg.131). IMO, this actually brings NLP in line with research from Neuropsychology. ie. We have a our 5 sense organs (eyes, ears, nose, skin, tongue), and the information coming into our mind/body via those sense organs are subject to transformation before the input reaches the cortex, and before the input is available for representation. Freud used the term "primary experience" to describe the product of neurological transforms, what in NLP we name First Access (FA) or previously known as 4-tuple. There is no attempt to appeal to mysticism here. - Comaze

This is an interesting quote from George Lakoff wiki entry... "A number of thinkers other than Lakoff have also considered the mind to be "embodied." Physicist David Bohm made a similar argument for embodiment in Thought As A System. John Grinder and Richard Bandler articulated this view in Neuro-linguistic programming. Similar ideas can also be found in the work of Julian Jaynes." – Comaze

Yes, Lakoff is a metaphor researcher and may deserve a mention. There may even be an opportunity to mention image schemas as a way to explain some aspects of NLP (providing you can find a source).

Yes, Lakoff was very important in developing Conceptual Metaphor and Conceptual blending used today in Cognitive Linguistics, see quote below. The fact that Lakoff was professor of linguistics when Grinder was assistant professor of linguistics, at University of Californian, albeit at a different campus, is significant for NLP history and the intellectual antecedents. Grinder & Bandler use metaphor extensively in seminars. Basically anything that is not coded using formal logic, is considered poetic or metaphoric. Also, thanks for the pointer with image schemas, I will find some sources for that. -Comaze

Here's another interesting quote from Cognitive Linguistics wiki...

1. "Conceptual metaphor and conceptual blending, heavily influenced by George Lakoff and Mark Johnson, Mark Turner, Gilles Fauconnier" src:Cognitive Linguistics - Comaze

This is all interesting, but it will need some triangulation with other less partisan sources in order to make the qualitative research more rigorous. Presently it seems a little too conflicting with the original books by Bandler, Grinder, Dilts, and other more critical books that say the primary historical/philosophical change is Korzybski etc. EBlack 05:13, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

In Structure of Magic Vol.1, Korzybski is acknowledge for his contribution to the human modeling methodology including the map is not the territory, and intensional/extensional distinctions. Lakoff is acknowledged for his contribution to Transformational Grammar. Both Lakoff, Linguistics and Natural Logic (1970) and Korzybski, Science and Sanity (1973) are referenced by Bandler & Grinder.

My evidence for saying Korzybski map/territory distinction entered NLP via Gregory Bateson is based on...

# Korzybski map/territory distinction is often referred to by Bateson for example in "Steps to an Ecology of Mind: Collected Essays in Anthropology, Psychiatry, Evolution, and Epistemology"

# Bateson personally mentored Grinder and Bandler during the early stages of NLP. And as far as I know, Grinder or Bandler did not meet Korzybski personally because he died in 1950.

# Gregory Bateson is listed as a memorial lecturer for the Institute of General Semantics (1970) [18]

# In "Mapping Knowledge to Boolean Dynamic Systems in Bateson’s Epistemology" by Thomas E. Malloy, Gary C. Jensen (Department of Psychology, University of Utah) and Timothy Song (School of Computing, University of Utah)[19] the authors outline the fundamentals of the Bateson epistemology these include: Korzybski's Map/territory distinction, Multiple description, "mental process as the transformation of difference".

# Gregory Bateson's wiki entry lists Korzybski's map/territory distinction as one of the common epigrams Bateson referred to. --Comaze 11:16, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Thats fine Comaze, but I can put my hand on a score of books that put Korzybski map/territory at the top of the list of NLP influences. BTW, Science and Sanity was a 1933 publication and not 1973. Also, Bateson's contribution was quite different from Korzybsky's by most people's assessment. EBlack 14:32, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Here is a another interesting quote from an interview with George Lakoff[George Lakoff]: "During that period, I was attempting to unify Chomsky's transformational grammar with formal logic. I had helped work out a lot of the early details of Chomsky's theory of grammar. Noam claimed then — and still does, so far as I can tell — that syntax is independent of meaning, context, background knowledge, memory, cognitive processing, communicative intent, and every aspect of the body...In working through the details of his early theory, I found quite a few cases where semantics, context, and other such factors entered into rules governing the syntactic occurrences of phrases and morphemes. I came up with the beginnings of an alternative theory in 1963 and, along with wonderful collaborators like Haj Ross and Jim McCawley, developed it through the sixties." --211.30.48.164 02:08, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

That’s fine User:211.30.48.164/Comaze. If you can weave it into the article in a concise way it should be fine. EBlack 03:02, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Also, at the time of writing Structure of Magic Vol.1 (1975), and the time of the original coding of NLP meta-model using Transformational Grammar (TG), there was a split in the field of TG - Extended Standard Theorists and Generative Semanticists. The authors say that it wasn't relevant at the time, but the recent advances made by Generative Semanticists would be useful for expanding the meta-model. (Bandler & Grinder, "Structure", 1975, p.38) --Comaze 23:01, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

What is, and what is not NLP. Is Grinder, other developers valid references?

The developers of NLP have consistently written that their ways will enhance productivity and basically be the bees knees to everything and everyone. Their writing is unreliable. Take the most "quotable"; Grinder: He has to persuade the business community that his methods are scientific - kind of, if you make sure you never get around to disproving it. Relying on his version of things is like quoting an advert. He uses extremely biased statements! D.Right 04:15, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Even peer reviewed journals cannot be taken at face-value. When searching for literature, one has to take into consideration research funding bias, publication bias, researcher knowledge of NLP, researcher hidden conflict of interest, source of funding, methodology etc. That is why critical journal review is hard work. It is tempting to be skeptical without doing all the hard work of learning the subject. --RichardCLeen 18:04, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I think we know that. Just take a look at the bias twisted into Grinder's writings though. He presupposes and makes unwarranted assumptions everywhere. He wants to make money out of everything he writes. D.Right 04:15, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

The more reliable researchers are those who publish in peer reviewed journals, because they get published according to how valid their statements are in relation to empirical evidence, and cross refered literature. Anecdotes and testimonials get chucked straight away, and out of context quotes from Bateson etc are generally thought of as marginalia and rhetoric. D.Right 05:15, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

It is bad practice to make generalizations about peer reviewed vs non-peer review when doing critical review, even though you may more likely to find unsubstantiated claims in non-peer reviewed publications. There is no substitute for studying the subject matter yourself and critically review each publication on its on right. --RichardCLeen 15:56, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Grinder, Bostic and Malloy's paper titled "Steps to an ecology of emergence" has been accepted for publication in "Cybernetics & Human Knowing". Bateson's epistemology has heavily influenced NLP epistemology. Malloy who published in press: Nonlinear Dynamics, Psychology, and Life Sciences, "Mapping Knowledge to Boolean Dynamic Systems in Bateson's Epistemology " acknowledges Grinder & Bostic for their work on Bateson-Grinder epistemology which forms part of their overarching framework.[20]

Posting his CV is completely unconvincing. If Malloy is writing with Grinder, then s/he is biased. D.Right 04:15, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Grinder & Bandler (1975) acknowledge "Steps to Ecology of Mind" for Bateson's contribution to NLP epistemology ( Structure of Magic Vol.1, 1975), and Turtles, 1987). " Also, see Tom Malloy's latest paper, "Mapping Knowledge to Boolean Dynamic Systems in Bateson's Epistemology" [21]. where Bateson-Grinder epistemology is used as an overarching framework for mapping knowledge to dynamic systems.

This is irrelevent to the NLP articleD.Right 04:15, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Based on that fact that Bateson has had a great deal of influence personally and intellectually on both developers of NLP, quoting Bateson in relation to NLP epistemology is not "out of context" at all. IMO, it is perfectly relevant.

Well that would depend on the quote. If the quote suggested that Bateson was the primary influencer with Map/Reality, then it is wrong according to all the other published sources. In short, the quote is unreliable.D.Right 04:15, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

ALL other published sources, D.Right? I can think of quite a few counter examples to that bald statement. And according to NLP modeling methodology, the model must be alive in order to model effectively. I'm talking direct sensory experience. In NLP it is not possible to model someone by reading their work. How could they possibly model Korzybski if he died in 1950? It is not disputed that Bateson commonly quoted "the map is not the territory".

Again, Structure of Magic Vol.1 (1975) references Bateson epistemology and references "Steps to Ecology of Mind". /Comaze

Thats really funny. Then how did Dilts manage to model "Jesus of Nazareth"? Did he go to a Jesus Christ Superstar show? Did he watch Ben Hur? And you still cannot scratch the fact that Korzybski is quoted as having a direct and primary influence in almost all of the NLP books that exist, and most of the non-NLP biased books also. Really, anyone who swallows NLP gunk and spews it so nausiatingly over wikipedia is going to look a bit rough. You should try to learn from the real researchers here. D.Right 07:26, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

I just found a great book with all the quack new age scams like scientology, NLP, rebirthing etc. Its called "Crazy Therapies" by Singer and Lalich. Its very funny! I'll add quotes wherever they are the most relevant. Cheers D.Right 08:45, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Dilts may have examined the language patterns in the Bible. I don't know. NLP modeling requires direct sensory experience, therefore what Dilts was doing was not strictly NLP modeling. This is a necessary distinction for anyone researching NLP. See Whispering by Grinder and Bostic, 2001 for a definition of NLP modeling. /Comaze

Most NLPers think that modelling requires direct sensory experience. However modelling in general can be done without direct sensory experience, as long as you understand the limitation of your source material and the limitation of your model.

--RichardCLeen 15:56, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

RichardCLeen, NLP's preference for imitation via direct sensory experience and observation is what makes NLP modeling distinct from other forms of knowledge acquisition (or modeling). Formal mathematical models are only built after the modeler can imitate the model with some consistency. (src: Grinder, 2003)

References

• Bradley E,J. Heinz joachim. B (1985) Bandler and Grinder's Neurolinguistic Programming, Its Historical Context and Contribution. Psychotherapy 22, 59-62
  

I have so far been unable to track this paper down on-line. I have replaced it with the following which I believe is correct though I still cannot trace any journal archives: Bradley, E J & Heinz J Biedermann (1985). "Bandler and Grinder's Communication Analysis: Its historical context and contribution". Psychotherapy, Theory and Research. 22: 59–62. [22] Retrieved 25 Aug 2005 --GreyHead 08:01, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes, they sometimes cite the reference in different ways, depending upon which journal they submit to, and depending on the database you use to search. Anyway its probably clearer your way, thanks much HeadleyDown 07:42, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

• I also removed the Reference numbers as they are not referenced in the text and may be confused with the Wikipedia external reference autonumbering and instead sorted the references by author. --GreyHead 08:01, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

• I removed the Grinder 2003 reference Grinder, John (2003) Interview in London on New Code of NLP. I don't doubt the idea of 'interviews not being NLP' but when I played the video file I found that I could hear the interviewer but not make out a word that Grinder was saying. I've left the point in though I don't think it adds greatly in the intro paragraph. --GreyHead 13:05, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Greyhead. You are a star! EBlack 17:53, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

I have put this reference back in. Some people, even those purporting to teach NLP, think that interview style questioning is part of NLP modeling. This is an important distinction and needs to be referenced.

No Problem with this - I just found the interview inaudible. --GreyHead 05:21, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

GreyHead, From memory the audio of Grinder is louder in one channel (either left or right speaker).

• I have moved the 'New Age Langone' 1993 reference What is 'New Age'? to [New Age] where it more properly belongs (it makes no reference to NLP); and have replaced it in the text with a Wiki link to this article. --GreyHead 05:21, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

GreyHead, Thanks for cleaning up the sources and formating them properly. /Comaze

• Sathnam Sanghera's article in the Financial Times for 26 August 2005 ["Look into my eyes and tell me I'm learning not to be a loser") is of interest.

See [[23]] --GreyHead 13:11, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Greyhead. Its a very truthful account. It reminds me of this one by Dave Barry http://www.lynxfeather.net/nest/humor/2002/alteredstates.html

The more human traits you adopt when looking at NLP the less like a zealous nazi you will become. It seems that NLP is about becoming a superman of the fatherland. This degrades the notion of normality. Normal human life is sacred to me. Some think of it as a kind of disease to cure. The final solution! I feel that humour is the best defense when the NLP snakes rear their slimy heads. NLP is a kind of fundamentalism. D.Right 18:06, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Not mine (I just added the article link) Mark O'Sullivan posted the item --GreyHead 19:07, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

What Satham Sanghera is describing in that article is not strictly NLP. The study of "Body Language" is a paralanguage (not a formal language, except if it is Sign Language) and cannot be formally described with Transformational Linguistics (and is therefore not part of NLP). She even quotes percentages implied quanititive analysis which again, is not part of TG or NLP.

Also, NLP does not assign people to any "types". The visual, auditory and kinesthetic the author is referring to is most likely something to do with internal thought process. The latest research has found that we are contantly using all representational systems. Properly trained NLP practitioner will observe the client in the moment and find out what representational systems they are using for a certain strategy at that time. Personality typing is more likely from psychology (not NLP training).

• I created a Neuro-linguistic programming: Bibliography page and copied all the NLP references there. I've linked the new page to the References section and have removed the additional comments from this page (they are still there on the Bibliography page). --GreyHead 14:08, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

• re: Hall& Belnap 1999 : I just scanned through 'SourceBook of Magic and, apart from the title and a few section headers can find no references to 'occult or 'large group trainings'. Is the source wrong or have I missed the reference? --GreyHead 10:22, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

• I removed the reference to [[24]] (Retrieved 29 Aug 2005) and the sentence that linked to it. Reading the article it appears to be a response to an message from someone else who is concerned that 'NLP is a Cult?'. Nothing in Carmine Baffa's posted response - or elsewhere in her articles - suggests that NLP is a cult. --GreyHead 10:25, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

• I have just cleaned up the Michie et al reference, reading the article it does not especially support the point in the NLP article: "Psychological modeling makes considerable effort to empirically and statistically measure the existence and strength of the parts of the model for distinguishable constructs or factors, and takes great care to measure the distinct association between each proposed construct" though it is in part an example of this approach albeit at a very high level - the 'domains' Michie et al elicited include 'knowledge', 'skills', 'Beliefs about own capabilities', 'emotion', etc. I propose to remove this reference, does anyone have a better source? --GreyHead 07:32, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Really, Comaze. You are not doing anybody any good by doctoring and evasively hiding information. Behaving so suspicously is very unconvincing and sustains the belief that NLP promoters are just duplicitous and mealy mouthed pseudos. It is unconvincing and you are likely to provoke a reversion war. You WERE told before! HeadleyDown 05:36, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Hello again Comaze. If you do not answer directly, you will simply be reverted. You do have a history you know! HeadleyDown 03:29, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

• Headleydown has reverted sections claiming that it is not balanced to reference Grinder. In defining the intellectual portions of NLP, it is best to quote Structure of Magic Vol.1, Structure of Magic Vol.2, Patterns of Milton Erickson Vol.1, Turtles all the way down and Whispering in the Wind. Turtles and Whispering simply provide an ecological frame around the original patterns coded in those first two books. Attempting to include applications of NLP or modifications of existing NLP patterns, except briefly, would make it difficult to make the distinction between what is, and what is not strictly NLP. I consider Grinder and Bandler to primary references for NLP and together they defined NLP. Grinder and Bandler should be reference properly when defining NLP. I don't think this is in dispute. If it is then I can provide many references to back this fact. Let's keep this article clean. --Comaze 03:55, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Comaze. You may address me directly. You are posting an advertisement and claiming it is a definition. Grinder is completely biased. If you quote it as a definition, it is just Grinder promoting NLP. It is inappropriate. The prior definition gave a balanced overview from a set of far less biased sources. It is balanced. Yours is part of the hype. It is completely unacceptable as a definition. HeadleyDown 05:32, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

• Hi HeadleyDown, Many people have difficulty defining NLP. There are variation from the originators. However, it is generally accepted that NLP was defined by Grinder & Bandler in the 1970s. Both Grinder and Bandler have refined their definitions over time but in essence NLP methodology has not really changed. The views of others in the original group, (Cameron-Bandler, Delozier, Gilligan, ...) should also be represented, in a lesser way. The views of critics should also be represented, although I think this should be under separate headlines (Criticism from psychologists, Criticism from scientists, Criticism of NLP modeling, Criticism of research methods,...) so that it does not confuse people. --Comaze 10:19, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Here is another definition of NLP, http://www.sueknight.co.uk/Publications/Articles/RealNLP.htm. This one is quite close to Grinder & Bandler's definition, but not as precise. "The study of subjective experience" does not really have much meaning outside of NLP. Whereas epistemology, "the study of how we know what we know" is a branch of philosophy and was part of NLP from the very beginning (see eg. Appendix Grinder & Bandler, 1975). Epistemology also brings the terminology in line with other fields so that NLP researchers can work alongside researchers in other fields. --Comaze 10:36, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

• The first properly definitive book about NLP was by Dilts et al, and it was about the study of subjective experience. We need to put the definition into an historical/psychological perspective because that is what people relate to. Philosopy has just about nothing to do with NLP. Your Grinder mentality is totally biased. Really, do you read anything other than your favourite guru? Wikipedia is not about worship. This article should be balanced. NLP advocates should remain staunchly balanced to be convincing! Integrity is everything. HeadleyDown 14:30, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

• HeadleyDown, I ask you to compare the definition offered by Dilts, "subjective experience encompasses the full spectrum of sensations, emotions , knowledge and beliefs" [25] and that offered by Gregory Bateson, "There is no objective experience." which is part of Bateson Epistemology and was published in Mind and Nature, the two relevant chapters are available online [26]. Given that Grinder, Bandler and Bateson lived on the same plot of land in the early 1970s, and Grinder & Bateson had many intellectual discussions while Bateson was writing Mind and Nature, you can make your own conclusions. To me it is quite obvious. --Comaze 23:39, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

• HeadleyDown, Additionally, the term "Subjective Experience" is also derived from Philosophy, see Subject (philosophy). Thomas Nagel wrote an article, "What is it like to be a bat?" ... "The article's title question, though often attributed to Nagel, was originally posed by Timothy L.S. Sprigge. This article was originally published in 1974 in The Philosophical Review" src: Thomas Nagel. Timothy L.S. Sprigge is considered an absolute idealist...

• "The hold of British idealism in the UK weakened when Bertrand Russell and G.E. Moore turned against it, and their education in the tradition. At that point British philosophy in general revolted once more against metaphysics in general. The later work of R.G. Collingwood was a turning back, if relatively isolated. Among present-day UK philosophers the best-known exponent of absolute idealism is probably Timothy L.S. Sprigge." [src: British idealism --Comaze 01:49, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Bertrand Russell's logical positivism (later referred to as logical empiricism) is considered to be the foundation of NLP theories of language and thought (Dilts & Delozier, Encyclopedia of Systemic NLP and NLP New Coding, 2000) [27]

George A. Miller

Here is another important reference for NLP is George A. Miller's famous article, "The Magic Number 7+-2"...

• Wiki article, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Magical_Number_Seven%2C_Plus_or_Minus_Two
• Full article, http://www.well.com/user/smalin/miller.html

Subjective Experience

Oconnor, etc. may have got his idea of Subjective experience from Dilts' title...

• Neuro-Linguistic Programming: Volume I (The Study of the Structure of Subjective Experience) (Hardcover) by Robert Dilts (Meta Publications; Limited 1st ed edition (June 1, 1980))

Balanced, Contextual Encyclopedic Definition

Hello Comaze. Your actions are consistent with your previous unjustified reversions. This wikipedia article is not an NLP promotion venture. It is an encyclopedia. Your above argument is almost completely irrelevant. We have an article, it must explain what NLP is. You are clearly trying to remove balanced and well cited passages in order to hide the facts and blazenly promote NLP. Turning a cited example in the critics section (boyfriend with knife and ethics) to a promotion of NLP "kindliness" it utterly futile and transparently deceptive. You may be cunning, but you clearly are displaying Mr Bean cunning. Your statements (eg From the beginning, Grinder & Bandler designed NLP to an epistemology) are both highly arguable and argumentative. I noticed previously that people were correctly citing connections between NLP and scientology. To appease the terminally insecure, those correct citations were adjusted to remove the scientology association. There is absolutely nothing stopping those associations and links from coming back throughout the article. They will also be in keeping with a balanced article. If you continue with your Mr Bean act, I will replace those correct and quotable scientology cult links myself. EBlack 06:52, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

User:EBlack wrote: This wikipedia article is not an NLP promotion venture. It is an encyclopedia.

• I agree totally, I am familiar with wikipedia policy and I am attempting to clean up this article to bring it up to the standard of other documents. I am a supporter of NPOV. A technical/precise definition is required to bring it in line with other relevant articles, ie. Transformational Linguistics, Turing Machine, Automata, etc.

User:EBlack wrote: Your above argument is almost completely irrelevant.

• I am not sure what part of my statements you are referring to. You will need to be specific.

User:EBlack wrote: We have an article, it must explain what NLP is.

• Now, this is something I agree with. NLP is defined by Grinder & Bandler. I don't think you disputing this fact. Any criticism of NLP should be labelled as such, and quoted with page numbers. The co-founders have every right to define the field in their own terms. This must be absolutely precise. Especially given that some of the criticism in this article is false and misleading.

User:EBlack wrote: You are clearly trying to remove balanced and well cited passages in order to hide the facts and blazenly promote NLP.

• No, I am trying to remove blatant POV and replace with NPOV. This article is currently needs to be cleaned up. Any criticism should be labelled and referenced to the relevant groups, ie. Psychologists, Scientists, Ethicists, Linguists, Orthodoxy, etc.

User:EBlack wrote: Turning a cited example in the critics section (boyfriend with knife and ethics) to a promotion of NLP "kindliness" it utterly futile and transparently deceptive.

• What kindliness? The knife example was kept and an example of a NLP pattern was added. I fail to see the relevancy of the boyfriend/knife example.

User:EBlack wrote: You may be cunning, but you clearly are displaying Mr Bean cunning.

• I invite you to lift the level of argumentation to that of epistemology.

User:EBlack wrote: Your statements (eg From the beginning, Grinder & Bandler designed NLP to an epistemology) are both highly arguable and argumentative.

• This was properly referenced to Grinder & Bandler. See below.

User:EBlack wrote: I noticed previously that people were correctly citing connections between NLP and scientology. To appease the terminally insecure, those correct citations were adjusted to remove the scientology association.

• Nobody was able to link this to NLP to Grinder & Bandler, the co-founders of NLP. Besides, personal preferences are not part of NLP. In line with logical positivism, NLP epistemology is to be studied separated from mysticism, spiritualism or religion. For an example see, Bertrand Russell's Epistemological preference for sense-data, and theory of grammar/logical types.

User:EBlack wrote: There is absolutely nothing stopping those associations and links from coming back throughout the article.

• What about proof, ie. sensory based evidence? How about logical positivism? These are highly valued criteria in NLP.

User:EBlack wrote: They will also be in keeping with a balanced article. If you continue with your Mr Bean act, I will replace those correct and quotable scientology cult links myself.

• How about you lift the quality of your argumentation? What is your positive intention here?

• EBack, Bandler & Grinder are considered the co-founders/co-creators of NLP. This is not disputed. The facts that "Bandler & Grinder designed NLP to be an epistemology from the beginning" is backed up by Structure of Magic Vol.1 (Bandler & Grinder, 1975), Turtles all the way down (Grinder & Delozier, 1986), and Whispering in the wind (Grinder & Bostic, 2001). There are also many external sources which back up this claim (Gregory Bateson, Noam Chomsky, Bertrand Russell, ...). If you have counter examples to this, I'd be very interested. Please be specific with references. --Comaze 14:34, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Eblack. The before version is far better and gives a much clearer balanced idea of exactly what NLP is about (the Oconnor stuff). I reckon there is no point going through multiple edits (more than 3 per day) simply to get reverted because the direction of change is towards a promotion of NLP. Basically, Comaze is bent on unbalancing the whole piece towards NLP promotion. I don't trust him either. So it just gets reverted. Sorry! 16:15, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

• Thaumaturge, Please lift the level of your argument to discussion of NLP epistemology.

Thaumaturge says: The before version is far better and gives a much clearer balanced idea of exactly what NLP is about (the Oconnor stuff).

• O'Connor is not a primary source for the origin and definition of NLP. Again, this is not disputed, Bandler & Grinder are well-known as the co-founders/co-creators of NLP. Other trainers/developers can be quoted, but only in a minor way.

Thaumaturge says: I reckon there is no point going through multiple edits (more than 3 per day) simply to get reverted because the direction of change is towards a promotion of NLP. Basically, Comaze is bent on unbalancing the whole piece towards NLP promotion. I don't trust him either. So it just gets reverted. Sorry!

• Thaumaturge, EBlack, & HeadleyDown seems to be intent on mixing metaphysics with NLP definition. --Comaze 23:14, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Hello again Comaze. You are indeed trying to narrow NLP down to a very biased version of a single epistemology. Firstly, it is arguable that NLP is an epistemology. Secondly, NLP epistemology is narrow and often spurious in its attributions. Thirdly, other NLP advocates know that it is narrow and have other views (OConnor takes this into account). Fourthly, anthropologists, historians, and even more importantly, encyclopedists have far more in-context, unbiased, and balanced views. So by insisting on NLP epistemology as the core source, you are lowering the argument to that of a cheap marketing campaign. Now, the article will be raised from the extremely blinkered hole of NLP epistemology to include the neutral and unbiased views of the rest of the world. HeadleyDown 04:08, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

To HeadleyDown, I ask you to compare the difference between "spurious attributions" and attributions of logical empiricism. There is a great deal of difference between the two. Logical positivism (later known as logical empiricism) is the type of logic that had a great deal of influence on John Grinder & Richard Bandler in creating the field of NLP. What "anthropologists", "historians" and "encyclopedia editors", are you referring to above? And what specifically are their balanced views? These views may be valid in context. Please provide proper references. --Comaze 08:06, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Comaze. By anthropologists, historians, an encyclopedia editors, I am refering to the people who contribute here. You are removing their views in favour of a single NLP promotional view. "the difference that makes the difference" is an NLP promotion. You may aswell write "Buy this, it will make you go beyond what you ever thought possible, NOW!". I have no interest in you logical positivism argument, because it is simply a distraction technique you are using to delete and NLP and NLP promote the rest of the page without having to discuss each point in turn. Therefore, your NLP sales promotion will be reverted! The more you continue with distraction techniques, the more you adopt the image of untrustworthiness. HeadleyDown 08:41, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

• HeadleyDown, The "difference that makes the difference" is actually from Gregory Bateson see eg. "Steps to an ecology of mind". I invite you to become interested in logic, especially if you wish to contribute to this discussion. The logical positivism or logical empiricism argument is properly referenced and attributed to the co-creators of the field of NLP, and their intellectual antecedants (see above, eg. Bertrand Russell). If you find counter-examples to this, please report them with references. Until you become interested in logic, I have no interest in continuing any conversation with you. Goodbye. --Comaze 09:16, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Hello Comaze. In NLP terms, your map does not match reality. The previous version is closer to reality in that it takes into account more realistic views, and more widely accepted definitions. Your version is clearly biased. You are also being extremely unconvincing. The more you delete and revert without justified reason, and try to justify one part of your change without justifying the rest, the more unconvincing you will seem to people. If you continue to revert, and then decide later to come back to discussion, people will automatically see your arguments as weaker than they do now, and they will see you as more untrustworthy than they do now. Consider the consequences of your actions.HeadleyDown 12:41, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

• HeadleyDown, I am not willing to continue a dialogue with you unless you provide logic or evidence. --Comaze 12:55, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Comaze! There is no need to find counter examples because the subject matter is irrelevant. This is not an article about logic. I have references that predate your references that show the previous version is more correct. Furthermore, Grinder may have claimed to have intended an epistemology, but he actually failed. Grinder has claimed all kinds of things over the decades, and his books prove to be largely inconsistent and his claims are not to be trusted. Look at the definition of epistemology. NLP is not part of a branch of philosophy. It is not taught at any philosophy department I know of. EBlack 10:49, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

• see below for my responses --Comaze
• I'm attempting to be as precise as possible with my language. Please ask me questions on any specifics you are not sure about. --Comaze 12:45, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

To EBlack: Firstly I do appreciate your attempt to raise the levels of this discussion. I will repond to each point you made. / Comaze

EBlack says: "There is no need to find counter examples because the subject matter is irrelevant."

• What subject matter specifically is not relevant? And how is it not relevant. Please provide details of your relevancy challenge.--Comaze 12:45, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

EBlack says: "This is not an article about logic."

• Logic has deep epistemological consequences in NLP, see for example Bertrand Russell's contributions (see Dilts & Delozier's Encyclopedia [28]).

EBlack says: "I have references that predate your references that show the previous version is more correct. "

• What parts of the previous version are more correct, specifically? Please provide your references and any evidence linking them to the co-founders of the field. I was quoting the first book published on NLP (Structure of Magic, Vol.1, 1975). Or are you referring to the Dilts' & Delozier (2000) reference regarding Bertrand Russell's logical positivism contributions to NLP fundamentals?--Comaze 12:45, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

EBlack says: "Furthermore, Grinder may have claimed to have intended an epistemology, but he actually failed. Grinder has claimed all kinds of things over the decades, and his books prove to be largely inconsistent and his claims are not to be trusted. Look at the definition of epistemology. "

• I invite read the definitions of NLP epistemology offered by John Grinder & Judith Delozier in Turtles (1986) and also, the NLP epistemology is explicated (and refinements offered) in Whispering in the Wind (2001). John Grinder took his Ph.D in Transformational Grammar which also has deep epistemological consequences with NLP modeling/formal systems/epistemology. Grinder studied with the founder of this field of Transformational Linguistics, Noam Chomsky. Grinder considers Chomsky's work to be the single biggest intellectual contributor to NLP. This dates back to NLP's earliest book Struture vol.1 (1975) and even earlier to John Grinder's, A Guide to Transformational Grammar (co-authored with Suzette Elgin, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1973).--Comaze 12:45, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

EBlack says: "NLP is not part of a branch of philosophy. It is not taught at any philosophy department I know of."

• Tom Malloy, University of Utah, (Psychology Deptarment), is currently the only one I know of that to include NLP (Bateson-Grinder) epistemology in their "Epistemology, Knowledge, & Perception" coursework. There have also been some published papers on the subject. [29]

History

Created a new Discussion topic to keep the references conversation clean

Lee Lady's account of the history of NLP. Includes updated notes. See [30] Comaze

• Comaze, I'm curious that you've re-edited Bandler as a psychology student? Dilts & DeLozier(2003) and McClendon (The Wilds Days) both have him as a mathematics student. McClendon says "Richard graduated from Freemont High School and entered Foothills College in the Los Altos Hills. After two years he transferred to the university as Santa Cruz where he became a major in mathematics and computer science, later transferring his interest to the behavioural sciences." and "During his student days, Richard was parading around from class to class, taking philosophy, logic, computer science and mathematics." p4-5. I don't doubt his interest in therapy and in psychology but I have never seen him referred to as a 'psychology student' in any formal sense? (Nice article by Lee Lady but it is silent on this point.) --GreyHead 08:56, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
• I checked my sources and it is not as clear as I thought, there are many different views on Bandler's history.
• Even this quote from Dilts, is still a little unclear, "At UC Santa Cruz Grinder met Richard Bandler, who was a student of psychology.". http://www.nlpu.com/grindbio.htm
• According to Grinder, when they met, Bandler was a 4th year undergraduate student at UC Santa Cruz, (Grinder & Bostic 2001 "Whispering" p.142).
• I propose that we change it to "undergraduate student" or "forth year undergraduate student" until we can confirm it with UC Santa Cruz officially. --Comaze 15:51, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
• I don't think it matters too much what qualifications they had when they were drumming up cocaine induced NLP. The fact is they have both not done one single piece of research to test NLP empirically, even after 30 years. The core of NLP contains zero credible science, yet promoters still refer to them as scientists. Bandler is even called Dr Bandler even though he does not even remotely possess a PhD.D.Right 00:45, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
• Thankyou D.Right, You raised some interesting points and questions... What is the Science that supports the NLP epistemology? What type of Scientists are Bandler & Grinder being promoted as, by whom? And where did Bandler get his doctorate? Is it an honorary doctorate, or not? I'm sure these are interesting points worth exploring. / Comaze
• Thankyou. Its all sham and flim flam. Grinder makes the most ridiculous assertion by associating Einstein into his dubious excuse for a justification. Its pathetic. And Bandler likes to be called a Dr, but of course he has always been full of it. D.Right 08:33, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
  • D.Right, You will find that the intuitive side of NLP is firmly grounded with formal mathematics. This is best represented by the work presented in Structure of Magic Vol.1 and Patterns of Milton Erickson Vol.1 by Grinder and Bandler. /Comaze
• John Grinder was assistant professor of linguistics while Gregory Bateson was professor, both at Kresge College when they met. (Whispering in the Wind, p.117)

Dr. Grinder's - Linguistics 101 Santa Cruz

Anyone wonders why there is little mainstream academic recognition of NLP given that Dr. John Grinder was an associate professor at Santa Cruz should read Lee Lady's account of the history of NLP.

http://www2.hawaii.edu/~lady/archive/history-3.html

--RichardCLeen 16:28, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

According to Lee Lady, Grinder was experimenting with trances in a Linguistics 101 class, and was refused tenure by University of California, Santa Cruz. Does anyone have any other evidence to back up these claims? Robert Dilts told a story in the "Sleight of Mouth" seminar in 1987 that John Grinder taught the NLP meta-model to an introductory linguistics class. I would not be surprised if he also taught the milton model (Ericksonian Hypnosis) to the Linguistics 101 class after modeling Milton H. Erickson.--Comaze 22:15, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Hi I reattached the last two paragraphs because they are correct, and I have added some more rigorous references. HeadleyDown 02:11, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Any history in "History of Neuro-linguistic programming"?

I've read the history over a few times now. I'm seriously not finding much info on the history of NLP there!

The first paragraph says that Korzybski was one of the earliest influences - which is fine - but the rest of the paragraph is about Korzybski and other things developed from his ideas (not about NLP).

Then it talks about human potential seminars which the earliest models of NLP were involved in though it doesn't mention their relationship to NLP. It jumps straight into who studied NLP first, and says NLP seminars became popular because of a popular book. In the last few lines "NLP continues to be promoted ..." that sounds more like what it currently is, not the history.

As far as NLP history goes, it could almost be reduced to:

• One of the earliest influences on NLP was the work of Alfred Korzybski and the use of general semantics as a new perspective for looking at the world. The practice of NLP attracted mostly therapists at first, then sales (etc). Other people became involved and a book was written which attracted many people to their seminars".

I'm not saying it should be reduced like that! Just that we need to differentiate "offshoots of Korzybski" from "NLP" (and decide what's useful), what influenced NLP and in what way, and include how NLP started.

I'm interested in your thoughts - there'll obviously be some history to changes in this section. I'm happy to _start_ by simply making it clear that the "zeitgeist" (the mood of the time) was related to the Esalen Institute.

(oops, apologies - I have to get in the habit of adding my name and edit summary) GregA 23:26, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Good point GregA. This section has undergone quite a few changes during reversion over the last few weeks as far as I remember. I believe it was originally intended as a historical background rather than the history per se. Actually, the scientific reference that Headley posted really does look appropriate as a way to abstract everything and make it clearer to all. As it is only short, I will paste it up in the appropriate place. JPLogan 03:42, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, I've shuffled the history section - keeping all the info on Esalen and dianetics etc since I know this is considered very important for many people. I have added info on Grinder and Bandler modelling perls/satir/erickson (it was actually accidentally hidden in the previous source). I've also made it clear that we're not saying EST created NLP, just that EST was around at that time. I've removed reference to mental_hygiene - early scientific efforts to solve social problems in schools didn't seem relevant. Your thoughts? (ps. if wiki says to give more priority to science can you give me a page ref?) GregA 05:01, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Keep language neutral / non-judgemental

HeadleyD - I see you've made some changes to the history section and they raise some REALLY important points about the choice of words, and the accuracy of references! You changed:

• who coined the NLP phrases "The map is not the territory" and "the difference that makes the difference".... to
• who coined the NLP catchphrases "The map is not the territory" and ....

I wouldn't call them catchphrases, you obviously would. Can you give a reason for the change? Catchphrase to me has connotations of advertising and pop culture - so it'd be an implied negative. I'm open to other opinions please.

You also changed

• Frogs into Princes...became an NLP best-seller and the popularity for the seminars increased, which in turn became successful human potential attractions (Dilts, 1991)
• Frogs into Princes...became a popular NLP inspiration and the popularity for the seminars increased, which in turn became successful human potential attractions (Dilts, 1991)

Just what did Dilts say? Best seller is easily measured. An "inspiration" requires certain judgements. Where did you get those judgements?

Oh, not in this section, but I just read this latest change

• some attempt by NLP co-creator John Grinder to promote the view of NLP as an epistemology.
• some attempt by NLP co-creator John Grinder to divert attention by relabeling NLP as an epistemology.

Are you seriously pretending to be neutral? Who judged it as diverting attention? Our language reflects our beliefs and preconceptions. Lets keep it neutral. Comments? GregA 15:17, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Another change (you've been busy!)

• You changed "They believe it is ineffective, ethically questionable...." etc
• to: "The criticisms range from the fact that it is ineffective, ethically questionable,..." etc

That's quite a jump. I've heard scientists say there are no facts - just hypotheses which are either supported or unsupported from the gathered evidence. Let us be scientific - to do that we need to gather and lay out the evidence. Are you willing to be impartial? GregA 16:02, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Hello GregA. Sure. I am actually paraphrasing from the book (Oconnor and McDermot). Also, catchphrase fits more with the NPOV science weighting. The inspirational part also seems to fit more with the Esalen influence. Of course I can give you a more quotation type of line if I hunt around for a few days. I have a good library. Again, the attention diversion was to explain more clearly the view that it is towards cycling or the avoidance of peer review scrutiny (in the pseudoscience sense). As far as I can tell this is all neutral language and fitting with the priorities of NPOV. We could work on it with actual quotable refs though. I will place the appropriate refs when I have hold of them. I notice the explanatory sections of NLP also need a lot more citations and a lot less vague obscurantic language. Perhaps you could work on that also. RegardsHeadleyDown 16:53, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Hello GregA. Any surreptitious deletion of well researched and quoted facts will most likely result in reversion. You should know this by now.HeadleyDown 17:11, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Headley,

24hr discussion: I reverted the whole Historical section to what I wrote a few days ago and requested you to discuss 24hrs what you want to add and gain consensus. I did this manually (I'm yet to learn the automated method!). I have just checked and noticed you added the pseudoscience stuff as well. I'll need to look at the entire thing as I thought that comment was in a different section and maybe it is (which is the problem with what you're doing, so many places with little changes that it's hard to control). You requested the same of me yesterday when I moved a subsection without any other changes - I expect the same standards of you as you expect of others.

Relevant quotes: You have said several times that you have relevant quotes backing you up, and you can get around to finding them soon. It's time for you to get around to it. It doesn't matter how good your library is if it's not effectively used. Remember, NPOV doesn't work with a random quote - the issues behind it need to be representative.

All sections of this document require work. While you are adding references and breaking things apart it IS distracting that work.

a "popular NLP inspiration": NPOV can easily say that a book sold well. Changing that to say the book was an inspiration is a judgement call and I'm sure some people were inspired. The reword adds nothing of use to the article, and the change requires extensive research of what everyone who read the book thought about it.

Grinder's intention: Grinder makes many recommendations for the improvement of NLP (Whispering in the Wind, p348-357)

• A peer review process be setup
• he suggests a method for encoding patterns more clearly
• "stabilizing the fundamental terms of discussion around which research and application in the field of NLP revolves"
• A central peer review group be formed

You can't substantiate changing "promote the view" to "divert attention by relabeling".

Do other editors have opinions here? GregA 23:13, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

"unfortunately"

Thanks for catching that 211.26.245.35. I wrote "Unfortunately, NLP is taught in different ways". Nice change removing the judgement, much better. GregA 01:21, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Opening paragraph

The opening paragraph doesn't say what NLP is. The second paragraph kind of does, but its reference to 'modeling' doesn't mean much to me. Also, what on earth does NLP have to do with Turing Machines?! (I know almost nothing about NLP but references such as this sound like pure cultish pseudo-science to me.) Ben Finn 12:51, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Ben Finn: Turing Machine and Automata theory actually back NLP up with formal mathematics. These theories are well-accepted in mainstream science. Turing Machine for example is a basis theory of computer science and cognitive science which is certainly not pseudoscience or cultish.

Ben Finn. As a truthful NLP advocate, I submit to you that you are completely correct. It is a clear sign of a pseudoscience to claim scientific or technological background, but not to support this with scientific evidence. I am desperately trying to create an atmosphere where NLP does not seem too cultish, but Comaze seems to be against me every step of the way. HeadleyDown 13:31, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Comaze! The page you keep reverting unjustifiably is unacceptable. You are to tackle each point in turn in discussion. I fully expect you will not though. The OConnor paragraph is commonly acceptable and understandable and of encyclopedic standard. Yours is not. The outcomes information is not unique to nlp. Psychologists are only one party with criticisms about effectiveness, cults, etc. The Bateson is irrelevant to new age because people do not consider him when they promote NLP new age associations. You are still turning the knife example into a non criticism. You cannon delete cited information on cults. Scientists are not the only ones making criticisms about NLP not being scientific. EBlack 01:08, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

I suspect that EBlack and HeadleyDown are Wikipedia:Sock_puppets. Please prove otherwise.

EBlack says: "The OConnor paragraph is commonly acceptable and understandable and of encyclopedic standard."

• OConnor is not a co-founder of the field. His opinions may be represented in a minor way. Primary sources for (ie. Grinder & Bandler) are preferred.

Good! Comaze you are back! Now, Grinder and Bandler have stated in primary sources and in their editors capacity the same statement written by OConnor. They accept it, now you accept it!HeadleyDown 04:03, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

EBlack says: "The outcomes information is not unique to nlp."

• Outcomes may be not unique to NLP but they are required for every NLP intervention. What NLP have you been reading about?

Comaze! EBlack is right. Outcomes formation is a confusing example. Eye accessing cues, would be more appropriate. They are core NLP. HeadleyDown 04:03, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

EBlack says: "Psychologists are only one party with criticisms about effectiveness, cults, etc."

• What other groups criticise NLP. If they are significant, they should be represented also. For example, Transformational Grammar, the foundation of most of NLP modeling, etc. has been criticised by various groups with Linguistics. Other foundational ideas have also been criticised.

Comaze, the criticisms come from a wide variety of sources including the public at large. They include psychologists, psychotherapists, amateur skeptics, professional skeptics, medical practitioners, hypnotherapists, consumer protection bodies etc. HeadleyDown 04:03, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

EBlack says: "The Bateson is irrelevant to new age because people do not consider him when they promote NLP new age associations. "

• How did you make that leap of logic? What are you references for this opinion?

Hi Comaze. Bateson is not relevant because although Grinder uses Bateson as a persuasion strategy to attract new agers, he is only a minor consideration, and is largely irellevant.HeadleyDown 04:03, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

EBlack says: "You are still turning the knife example into a non criticism. You cannon delete cited information on cults."

• I did not delete any information about cults, I simply referenced the cult stuff to Orthodoxy. Do you have evidence otherwise?

Comaze. I will check on this myself. You presently do not deserve trust. HeadleyDown 04:03, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

EBlack says: "Scientists are not the only ones making criticisms about NLP not being scientific."

• Good. Ofcourse, not all scientists criticise NLP. Cognitive Science for example uses methods that congruent with NLP methods. Which is very exciting for the NLP community. --Comaze 03:47, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

No Comaze! NLP took cognitive therapy ideas and has placed pseudoscience principles onto them to make them attractive to new agers. The NLP parts do not work. You misunderstood EBlack, there are others making criticisms that NLP is pseudoscientific. HeadleyDown 04:03, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Hello Comaze. You cannot delete large portions of a page based on a single and erroneous objection (hall). You are behaving deceptively for the umpteenth time. Your reputation is one of deception. The cult section has a link to cults. It does not need an explanation here. HeadleyDown 04:48, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

• EBlack and HeadleyDown have continually reverted any attempts to clean up this document adding sentences such as "NLP has expanded to include applications to a variety of contexts including psychotherapy, business, sports performance, and the development of psychic abilities, and covert seduction techniques." Please provide demonstrable evidnce of psychic abilities for example. Without evidence -- this is misleading. --Comaze 04:53, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Comaze! That will be dealt with as soon as you stop your deceptive and untrustworthy behaviour. I already have the evidence. You are simply stalling the development of this page by ignoring continued discussion and sustaining a reversion war. Now, deal with all the other points on this discussion page before you even think about reverting. Otherwise you will continue to be treated with all the contempt you deserve. HeadleyDown 05:02, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

• HeadleyDown claims to have demonstrable evidence for psychic abilities. Very interesting. I would like to see the evidence and references. And formal mathematics to back it up, if you want to attribute it to NLP. --Comaze 05:08, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Oi! Comaze. Wake up! Nobody trusts you any more! Nobody here believes in psychic abilities. but I have a whole load of refs that show NLPee being sold to do voodoo nonsense though. You are deliberately misleading discussion. You are also misusing primary sources. They are not there to promote NLP. You are indeed pittifully unconvincing! Everyone can see you are changing the whole article and then claiming it is because of one single point. You are acting pittifully. But I have no pitty for you:) D.Right 05:21, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

• To EBlack, D.Right, HeadleyDown -- I will group you three together because you are using the same vague, non-specific arguments. I ask you to lift the your quality. And ask me specifying question, rather than shout names. And, yes I am rewriting the entire article so that it matches the primary sources of Bandler & Grinder. This is inline with Wiki policy. There have been alot of people trying to claim NLP as their own, and have attempted to change the definition of NLP for their own interests. So you must be very strict on what sources are used. eg. Hall and O'Connor is not a primary source for defining NLP. There view may be represented, but in a minor way. It is well accepted to use primary sources when writing for wikipedia. Critics views should be represented if properly referenced and balanced with counter-examples from the primary sources. --Comaze 05:58, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Hi D.Right and all. Yes, I have also noticed comaze trying to pull a fast one. I am doing a project on NLP, and Oconnor is using Grinder's and just about everyone elses definition of NLP. So if comaze has bad refs he is wrong, but I just believe that he knows Grinder uses that definition, but denies it so he can boost NLP. The other thing is, comaze's explanations etc are not understandable at all. The oconnor definition really does explain things better. The psychic stuff is also true (it doesn't work, but people use NLP to sell and do psychic activities. Cheers 144.214.228.136 06:03, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

• To 144.214.228.136 says: What are you not able to understand? --Comaze 06:22, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

NO comaze. I understand you fully. I will clarify to you what I mean. Your writing is bad and the statements you use are either misleading, irrelevant, or they do a very bad job of explaining what NLP IS, and is about. I vote for the non-comaze Oconnor version. Fred Lydon. 144.214.228.136 06:33, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

• Please be more specific. What statements specifically? Bad, compared to what? --Comaze 22:42, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Oi Comaze. You have just admitted to rewriting the entire articles to match that of Bandler and Grinder. EVERYBODY REMEMBER THAT! Who are ALL OF the developers of NLP? Should the developers be the critics? You have crumby logic in both your actions and your statements. Firstly we should have consensus on who are the primary sources. So before you make any changes or reversions. YOU MUST GET CONSENSUS FIRST! Fat chance! D.Right 06:17, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

NLP is and has been defined by John Grinder and Richard Bandler. Anything else is a modification, or at best a paraphrase of the original work. The best source s for the definitions are technical books, Structure of Magic Vol.1 & 2 (1975a,1975b), Patterns 1 & 2, Whispering (Grinder & Bostic, 2001). Those first four books are backed by mathematic formal systems (Finite state automata). Turtles all the way down (1986) and Frogs into Princes are transcribed from seminars so they are not as precise. I will continue to rewrite and revert any changes that deviates from NLP as defined by Grinder & Bandler. --Comaze 22:42, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

References / Reliable Primary sources for NLP (see NPOV)

Primary sources (co-creators): NLP modeling/formal systems/epistemology

• Richard Bandler*
• John Grinder*

Primary sources (developers): new patterns, applications and testing

• Richard Bandler*
• John Grinder*
• Robert Dilts
• Christina Hall
• Leslie Cameron-Bandler
• Judith DeLozier
• Stephen Gilligan (left NLP group to do PhD Psych.)
• Steve and Connirae Andreas
• David Gordon
• Carmen Bostic St Clair
• ...

Other intellectual antecedants

• Noam Chomsky (see eg. Transformational-Generative Grammar and cognitive science).
• Gregory Bateson (systems theory and cybernetics. Bateson's take on these fields centers upon their relationship to epistemology)
• Milton H. Erickson (founding president of the American Society for Clinical Hypnosis and a fellow of the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, and the American Psychopathological Association)
• Jay Haley (see eg. family therapy and Milton H. Erickson)
• Alan Turing (see eg. automata, Turing Machines & finite state machines)
• George A. Miller (see eg. The Magical Number Seven, Plus or Minus Two)
• Virginia Satir (see eg. Family therapy)
• Fritz Perls (see eg. Gestalt therapy)
• Bertrand Russell (see eg. Principia Mathematica & Type theory)
• George Lakoff (see eg. metaphors and cognitive science).
• William Ross Ashby (see eg. law of requisite variety, cybernetics, systems theory and, more recently, complex systems)
• Ronald Langacker (founder of cognitive linguistics movement and the creator of Cognitive Grammar, a type of construction grammar)
• ...

Critics of NLP

• Bleimeister, 1988 - german psychologist studied NLP eye accessing cues published (Magazine for clinical psychology, research and practice)
• Morgan, 1993 - Primarily studies PRS in NLP. (Journal of the National Council for Psychotherapy & Hypnotherapy Register, Spring 1993.)
• Platt, 2001 - see reply (Sue Knight) [31]
• Carroll, 2005 -
• Platt, 2001
• Druckman & Swets, 1988
• Bertelsen, 1987
• Bradley & Biedermann, 1985
• von Bergen et al, 1997
• Hall & Belnap, 1999
• Shupe & Darnell, 2000
• Tippet, 1994
• Michael Langone, 1993
• Bleimeister, 1988
• Thaler Singer & Lalich, 1996
• Morgan, 1993
• Platt, 2001
• Bertelsen, 1987
• Druckman & Swets, 1988
• ...

Internal Critics of NLP

• Andreas & Faulkner, 1994*
• Grinder & Bostic, Whispering 2001* (criticism of Robert Dilts for modeling dead people (Jesus, Disney, Einstein) and for confusing "Dilts' Neuro-Logical levels", "Logical Levels" which is not to be confused with Logical Levels/Logical Types) (see Type theory or Mathematics Set theory).

Discussion of References

Oi Comaze. Now you are dictating to us that we need to use primary sources. Where does it state we need primary sources in the NPOV article? Now you are promoting a fringe view of NPOV. You will never attain consensus that way.

Anybody of sufficient repute, whether it be a critic or a promoter who states anything about NLP. Cited articles from peer reviewed journal research will carry the greatest weight. :The trick is to find the best and most reputable source you can. Try the library for good books and journal articles, and look for the most reliable online resources" (according to NPOV guidelines) Promotional books that are concocted for the purpose of a marketing campaign by those trying to get rich by selling snakeoil (ie Grinder etc) will be taken as untrustworthy, and their comments can be used to infer they are hyping. D.Right 07:00, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

D.Right, Primary source is a requirement of Copyright Law (Fair Use) for critical review. Secondary Sources are fine with me, so are Teriary Sources (such as journals articles). I'm very skeptical of some NLP people claiming to "cure a phobia in 5 minutes". Yes, we should not any accept promotional material unless it is referenced as such. Any NLP definitions backed up with formal systems is also highly preferred. --Comaze 08:37, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Hello Comaze. As I said; Nobody trusts you. Because you have spent days changing and reverting large amounts of passages and quotes without sufficient discussion or consensus when requested. And because you clearly and obviously have an NLP promotion agenda. As the editors do not trust you and revert anything you write whether it is write or wrong (its mostly wrong), I suggest you adopt an incremental tiny tiny step approach to editing. One small step each day. Otherwise the other editors will treat you as you have been treating them for days on end and they will completely ignore YOUR discussion and revert. D.Right 08:59, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

• D.Right I invite you to raise the level of your argument. Otherwise may I suggest we get a neutral third party in to mediate this discussion and the various revisions? I will continue to edit my contributions in an attempt to improve the quality of this document. This document should not be promotional as you suggest. It should be fair and balanced. I will review my contributions in this light. I suggest improve the quality of your work (and references) also. The criticism section needs alot of work. --Comaze 11:07, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Greetings Comaze. In a situation like this I can mediate. Your position is already negative at least 1 to 5 in favour of the OConnor definition, therefore the consensus is to OConnor, and you may actually also find that they will all vote that you have been acting in an extremely uncooperative manner in not working with consensus or discussion. I suggest that I put up a version of the page that is reasonable and fits the consensus level of recent discussions. I will balance it. If you do continue as before, then I will simply not help you again. I believe consensus here will be in favour of my suggestion after viewing my version of the article. Regards DoctorDog 11:33, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

DoctorDog Thankyou, I appreciate your contributions. I will review my entire collection of pending contributions before submiting them for your mediation. I will take into account all major, (and minor) views. --Comaze 12:37, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

DoctorDog. Good solution. Comaze does not deserve such good treatement. I am still in half a mind to remove all of his contributions. DoctorDog, I believe you managed to wisely accept Comaze's coverup-truths, while reasonably excluding Comaze's propaganda. However, I believe we should all keep a watchful eye over the next few months for recidivism from Comaze. EBlack 13:21, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Hi! Yes I agree it is reasonable. But it is very obvious from the history page that Comaze was requested to produce this result on over a score of occasions over the past days, and Comaze simply ignored the requests and tried to walk all over the other editors here. That disregard and disrespect will be remembered for a very long time. I also will stay vigilant. Well done for extremely tolerantly and beyond the level of reasonability, doing Comaze's job for him DoctorDog. HeadleyDown 15:44, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Yup! Looks better to me. But I'm sure we will have to keep a steady eye when developments come in. Cheers D.Right 04:31, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

• D.Right, You accusation that, "trying to get rich by selling snakeoil (ie Grinder etc)" is bordering on libel. Please withdraw your accusation, otherwise this will be reported to wikipedia admin. --Comaze 23:37, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

No Comaze. You remove it. You started, sustained and escalated the reversion war, so you are culpable. Besides, bordering on libel is not libel at all is it! D.Right 02:12, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

NLP an epistemology or "Study of the structure of subjective experience"

NLP epistemolgy: extremes of idealist and empiricism without appealing to mysticism

"...like my response to the notion of so-called psychic powers, I wouldn't bloody know because I have not yet refined my own sensory apparatus the five channels that I already know about. I have worlds upon worlds yet to discover within what I know to be available to me as part of my heritage as a human being." (John Grinder, (1986), Turtles all the way down, page 16) - Comaze

So he uses occult notions in his NLP seminars to say we have boundless potential and may be capable of magical amazing fluffy feats of mystery. Yes I know! I wonder when he will start claiming it is all part of his NLP epistemology! D.Right 07:57, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

In NLP we tread the fine line of synthesizing the two classical polar opposites of empiricism and idealist traditions ... "without appealing to mysticism" (Grinder & Delozier, Turtles 1986) - Comaze

Further, in Turtles Grinder says, "The transforms of Bateson; the process tools of the 4-tuple, representation systems, synesthesia patterns, Meta-models of language: all are cornerstones in the exploration of this mapping between sense impression and concepts." (Grinder & Delozier, Turtles 1986) - Comaze

Actually, I find this interesting. He is treating the two traditions as polar. However, most of Empiricism ideals stemmed from idealist traditions and the philosophies that ensued. Also, NLP has slipped so far into mysticism that it would take an army of towtrucks to haul it only halfway out. The sense impression and concepts really is just metaphor though. Which basically means it is rhetoric. Science, to date, has found that you cannot even convincingly or usefully separate visuo and spatial as separate factors or constructs in the visuospatial thinking of humans. So his views may be worth posting, but they are extreme to the point of hyperbole. D.Right 12:25, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Firstly, Grinder is not saying that the two traditions are polar. He is really saying the two extremes best represented by Kant and Hume, are polar opposites. - Comaze.

The "mapping sense impressions to concepts" idea also is supported by Albert Einstein talking about the difference between reality and the representations of reality. (Albert Einstein, Autobiographical notes p.13, see also, Physics and Reality, p.292). Also, the quote from Grinder should have read, "without appealing to mysticism". This was influenced by Bateson's who typically would start with Empiricism and attempt rebalance it. In describing the NLP epistemology Grinder found that the typical westerner would consider epistemology (study of our values, beliefs and perceptions) as esoteric. (Turtles, 1986) - Comaze

OK, now you are saying that NLP was inspired by Einsteinian thought? I believe you will need a great deal more support than what is there already. The other information looks great. D.Right 05:19, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

What is your source for saying that NLP was inspired by Einsteinian thought? Dilts did some study Einstein and published his findings in Structure of Genius series. --Comaze 01:10, 17 August 2005 (UTC)- Comaze

NLP epistemology influence: the extremes of Hume and Kant

Grinder and Delozier drew on work from what was available from western epistemology, when designing describing the NLP epistemology in Turtles (1986). One extreme is Hume's the problem of causation, and the problem of using inductive reasoning to justify induction (Circular arguments are valid, but do not provide a satisfactory justification for the supposition they claim to support). Also, Bertrand Russell that have dismissed the notion of causation altogether as something akin to superstition. On the other extreme is Kant, who advocated the absence of passion in favour of logic. The key doctrine of Kant's philosophy, called transcendental idealism, is that the mind knows objects in the world only by means of sensible forms, space and time, which it produces itself. Without these forms, Kant argues, knowledge would not be possible because the mind would have no way to order or structure the data given to it by the senses. Kant therefore claims that we know objects only as they "appear" in space and time (rather than as "things in themselves"). (src: Grinder & Delozier, Turtles (1986), ch.1, Kant, Hume, the problem of causation)

Ecology, Emergence and Psychology

Grinder and Bostic (2003) have published a paper about Epistemology, Knowledge, & Perception with Tom Malloy of University of Utah, Psych Department. [32]

Their paper is titled Steps to an Ecology of Emergence and is available online... [33]

First Paragraph: references to epistemology or not

OConnor is quoting directly from Grinder. That is completely acceptible. Dilts etal includes Bandler and Grinder. That is quotable and the book is entitled, the structure of subjective experience.

• Dilts book you are referring to titled "Neuro-Linguistic Programming: Volume I (The Study of the Structure of Subjective Experience)". Agreed?

You have an extremely narrow view. It is unacceptable for the first paragraph! EBlack 07:39, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

• My view that NLP is an epistemology is supported by what is published in Structure of Magic Vol.1 (Grinder & Bandler, 1975), Patterns of Milton Erickson Vol.1 (Grinder & Bandler, 1975) and Whispering in the Wind (Grinder & Bostic, 2001). It also ties this article in with what's related Wikipedia articles, if people want to further their knowledge of NLP and it's foundational ideas.

Comaze. I said I would revert all of the page if you altered the first para. I meant it. Nobody trusts you, and you have just demonstrated why you are narrow minded and cannot be trusted! EBlack 07:45, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

• Thanks EBlack, I have a good idea of your position. I do not agree with it, but I'm happy to ride it out. I would prefer that you actually did some research before reverting. I certainly have done alot of research for this document, including researching the foundational bibliography of Grinder & Bandler to check out their sources. If you have objections please ask for clarificaton, I am happy to clarify any point for you. My main issue here is that in defining NLP we must make distinct what NLP is (definition, epistemology, methods) and it's uses (applications, training, etc.). These are necessary distinctions, I don't know what NLP you've been exposed to, but it's quite obvious based on what you said above that you do not have the necessary distinctions yet. You are confusing logical types.

Comaze's objections first paragraph

"NLP is claimed to be a study of the structure of subjective experience. How do we do what we do? How do we think? How do we learn? And how do we connect with each other and our world on a physical and spiritual level? (O'Connor & McDermott, 1996) (Dilts et al 1980)(Milliner 1988). NLP teachings state that the mind is programmed, and that we all tend to be mis-programmed by negative input in some way. The methods of neurolinguistic programing involve reprogramming, processes of removing traumas (Andreas & Faulkner, 1994) and treating engrams (Bandler & Grinder, 1975). NLP has expanded to include applications to a variety of contexts including psychotherapy, business, sports performance, and the development of psychic abilities, and covert seduction techniques."

"line 2: How do we do what we do?"

• line 2: This actually should be, "How do we know what we know".

"And how do we connect with each other and our world on a physical and spiritual level?"

• I can hear Gregory Bateson shouting, "Shoddy epistemology!". Mysticism, connection, spirituality is to be studied separate from epistemology.
• The sources (O'Connor & McDermott, 1996) (Dilts et al 1980)(Milliner 1988) are not primary sources for defining NLP. Grinder & Bandler are the primary sources for defining NLP. (O'Connor & McDermott, 1996) (Dilts et al 1980) have made modifications.

"line 4: NLP teachings state that the mind is programmed, and that we all tend to be mis-programmed by negative input in some way."

• line 4: What teaching state this? What is the source for this comment?

This idea of our mind is "mis-programmed by negative input in some way" is vague, and poorly written.

• line 6: (Andreas & Faulkner, 1994) is not a primary source
• line 6: "reducing" traumas is just one application of NLP.
• line 6: "treating engrams" is a term from Scientology, not NLP.
• line 7: Psychotherapy, business, sports, and relationships are all popular applications of NLP. These applications of must be made distinct from NLP epistemology. What psychic abilities, specifically? And how do you know that they are psychic? What is your evidence for making these claims? Keep in mind that NLP models must be backed by formal systems. Otherwise they are not NLP.

Hello Comaze! The first paragraph must be understandable, and must reflect the wider views of the whole page. Your behavior will simply cause the page to be reverted. Your version is blinkered and seems more fitting for marketing speel. DoctorDog 00:58, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Comaze. Your objections are unfounded. The OConnor statement is exactly taken from his book. Know what we know can be used and it will be included somewhere. Your master Bateson worship shows in part your NLP promotion agenda. Again, the line is quoted exactly and it is fitting with Dilt's logical levels. The Dilts and Oconnor definitions are the most widely accepted (I do not wish to point this out to you again) and they come before your reference. And again, your demand for primary resource is unfounded. Go back to the NPOV page and re-read it. Traumas and engrams are psychological labels and high level enough to allow readers to understand what NLP is about in psychology terms. Again, they are exact quotes. The claims to psychic abilities are not the editors' claims. They are the claims of some NLP proponents. They will be represented. Your questions are answered. Now leave the introduction section alone, and leave the criticism section alone. People do not trust you. You have only just finished your last reversionfest against discussion and against consensus. Your questions have been answered, your agenda is clear. Any interference by you to the introduction section or the criticism section will result in immediate reversion of the whole article by me or by other editors of this article. EBlack 03:20, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

EBlack, says: "The claims to psychic abilities are not the editors' claims."

What NLP proponents are claiming that psychic abilities are relevant to NLP? So let's flesh it out a bit. What is "psychic abilities" referring to and how does it relate to NLP? There is no formal description of "psychic abilities" in NLP terms, therefore it is not valid NLP model.

Well let's get down to facts here.

1. Bateson mentored Grinder, Bandler and Delozier when they were creating NLP. He also introduced them to Milton H. Erickson.
2. Dilts' Neuro logical levels are not valid NLP models (see Whispering) - it fails Bertrand Russell's rules for Logical Types
3. OConnor is not a primary source for defining NLP. So he could be quoted elsewhere, as alternative definitions of NLP if properly reference and attributed. But in a minor way.

Comaze. Read more carefully:

NLP has expanded to include applications to a variety of contexts including psychotherapy, business, sports performance, and the development of psychic abilities, and covert seduction techniques."

• The psychic abilities and convert seduction is just wrong logical type. What class do psychic abilities and convert seduction techniques belong to? For me they fit under language patterns, this view is shared by most NLPers and transformational grammarians.

NLP is sold for the development of psychic abilities/remote viewing/remote seduction etc.

• NLP is not sold for any such applications (psychic abilities/remote viewing/remote seduction). What is your reference? Besides you are failing to make the distinction between definition of NLP and its use (application).

Comaze's proposed introduction: in epistemology terms

I'm re-opening this discussing because I have found some earlier references by Dilts that support that NLP was designed to be an epistemology from the beginning. In Roots of Neuro-Linguistic Programming (Dilts, 1976) the definitions of NLP is outlined and this includes (a) the forms of experience and (b) the structure of physiological and behavioral epistemology. Dilts considers Meta Models and Epistemologies to be at the same logical level (pp.14-19, Dilts, 1976). This use of the epistemology and associated terms allows us to work alongside other wikipedia editors. --Comaze 04:29, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Neuro-linguistic programming (NLP) is an epistemology, "the study of how we know what we know" (Grinder & Bandler et al) or "the study of the structure of subjective experience" (Dilts et al) with the primary focus on studying the difference between the average performers and high performers in the same niche (Grinder 2003). NLP is considered a meta-discipline (originally applied to psychotherapy) in that it can be used to model individuals via discrete analysis from any field, (business, sports, physics, ...). The co-founders, John Grinder and Richard Bandler intellectual antecedents include Noam Chomsky's transformational linguistics, Gregory Bateson, Milton H. Erickson, automata theory, Turing machine, and logic (Grinder & Bandler, 1975a) (Grinder & Bostic, 2001).--Comaze 04:32, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Deductive/inductive Logic in NLP training/modeling/epistemology

Classic example from the Greeks and NLP training (deductive logic):

   All men are mortal.
   Socrates is a man.
   Therefore Socrates is mortal.

See also inductive reasoning.

Clarity and illustration

Hi all. I decided the NLP page needed to be a bit clearer in terms of description. I feel it will be better if the page actually tells people what it is about rather than bang on about high fallutin' epistemologies etc. Best regardsOliver Y 13:57, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes Oliver. Its a fine visual explanation. EBlack 02:23, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Oliver Y, NLP is largely esoteric so it is necessary to describe it in terms of its epistemology. This is actually what defines NLP.

Eye Accessing Cues / Representational Systems

Oliver Y, I've rewritten the eye accessing cues and merged it with a description of the sensory system model that is in line with NLP "representation systems" use and definitions. Also, what is the source for the current eye accessing cues image? It seems to be different to what is taught in NLP (See p.24 Frogs into princes). regards, Comaze.

EBlack revered my changes to the eye accessing cues / representation system paragraph without justification. This was properly researched and referenced. I have restored this but will need support if this happens again. --Comaze 11:57, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

No Comaze. EBlack reverted as a natural response to your deliberately and persistenly deceptive behaviour. I will also revert on those grounds. It is justified based on your persistent desire to push your NLP promotional agenda against consensus, and even after remedy from other tolerant editors. I myself will revert all of your nonsense. If I have the energy and patience I will include some of your less NLP promotional information. That depends on how many reversions you dare to try over the next few days. You have just earned yet another large negative point. DoctorDog 12:31, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Hello all. I added the image on critical view of NLP. It is a common criticism, that NLP is simply an extension of Dianetics and Scientology. It matches and illustrates the criticism section. Regards DRCoren 13:52, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

• If it is a simple extension, please explain your logic. This is not coherent argument without evidence, see logic below.

DRCoren: You have failed to explain your logic assign NLP as a "simple extension" of Dianetics and Scientology.

Representational Systems Research

• Robert Dilts published EEG research on NLP eye accessing cues (published 1983, in Roots of NLP).
• ...

Eye Accessing / Eye Tracking Research

I'm digging up references for research into the supporting eye Accessing cues and representational systems. This is a start,

1. Eye Tracking (cognitive science), [34]
2. [Lee F.: An investigation of eye movements and representational systems. Dissertation Abstracts International 38(10), 4992-B Ball State University, 158 pp. Order = 7803828, 197]
3. [M . J.: Stability and inter rater reliability of visual accessing cues. Winteler, A. UnivBW Fak SOWI, Dissertation, 1983.]
4. There has been some studies of Eye Accessing Cues using PET technology. Can someone find the sources?
5. Robert Dilts did EEG research on Eye Accessing Cues at University of California, Santa Cruz.
6. In 1983, Krim found that Eye Accessing cues does have statistical significance (for visual and auditory) but, kinesthetic was not found to be significant, see abstract... (Krim, M . J.: Stability and inter rater reliability of visual accessing cues. Winteler, A. UnivBW Fak SOWI, Dissertation, 1983.)
7. Another study tested sensory predicate matching using electromyography (Yapko. M., "The Effects of Matching Primary Representational System Predicates on Hypnotic Relaxation." in the American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis, 23, p169-175, 1981)
8. research of Eye Accessing Cues using PET technology?
9. [35]

Yes, I have sources, and they are reviews and overviews of the research. They indicate that eye accessing cues is not effective and tells you nothing useful.D.Right 16:22, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Please cite your sources here. --Comaze 01:45, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Hello Comaze. You are working with some extremely narrow and outdated research here. If you want to paste it up thats ok. But you are going to end up with a conclusion from more recent reviews. In short, if you mention all of the single studies you will end up with a huge article. And the conclusion will be that: Empirical research shows that the assumptions and claimed efficacy of NLP methods it completely and conclusively unsupported. If you can provide a recent review or overview of research conducted by independent scientific research bodies then that may be helpful.JPLogan 02:48, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

New Age concept of "communication energy" breaks first law of thermodynamics

User EBlack just added this sentance, "Humans communicate by taking in information through the senses, but they also give out communication as energy, and this can be considered the spiritual side of communication." In NLP we refer to collatoral energy (each cell has its own energy source that is powered by our breakfast). According to John Grinder, energy has no significance in communication, for example, it breaks the first law of thermodynamics (conservation of energy)... "The first law of thermodynamics says that the total inflow of energy into a system must equal the total outflow of energy from the system, plus the change in the energy contained within the system." src: energy --Comaze 11:45, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Grinder split with the others. His view is narrow. Just like your's. D.Right 13:58, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

This view is not narrow, it is used in all branches of physics. ie. "This law is used in all branches of physics, but frequently violated by quantum mechanics (see off shell). Noether's theorem relates the conservation of energy to the time invariance of physical laws." src: energy --Comaze 22:37, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

The common example use in NLP training is: "If I kick my dog named spirit (a natural system), I cannot predict (from measuring the energy) where my the dog will end up." --Comaze 22:55, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Mind, body and spirit paragraph to be rewritten NOT REMOVED.

The following paragraph needs to be rewritten. I will remove it for now. For example it claims that "[people] give out communication as energy, and this can be considered the spiritual side of communication." Apart from being false, misleading and lacking in evidence; this is outside the domain of NLP. See for example Bateson's criteria of mental process (p.92, Mind and Nature, Gregory Bateson, 1979). --Comaze 01:36, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Version that was removed... "Similar to Scientology and Dianetics and other New Age notions, NLP practitioners consider the mind, spirit and physical body as a system; that is, each influences the other. There are several important implications:

• The way that the body is moving and held can hold emotion, states and patterns in place. Also some memories are locked in place physiologically.
• Therefore some changes can be easier to make by working at a physical (body) level (letting the body inform the mind), as well as by dialog (mind informing emotions).
• Humans communicate by taking in information through the senses, but they also give out communication as energy, and this can be considered the spiritual side of communication. The connectivity between living beings makes communication more real, and this allows NLP to be used to enhance human potential far beyond the psychological level."

No Comaze! You will either adhere to cooperative wikipedia convention, such as discussing and attaining consensus ON EACH AND EVERY ONE OF YOUR CHANGES before you change anything at all! Otherwise you will be reverted. We're waiting! EBlack 02:25, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

You are correct EBlack! Comaze is continuing with his sneaky tricks (Claiming one objection, then changing several other points, none of which has consensus). Comaze is persistently uncooperative. I agree with none of Comaze's proposed changes DoctorDog 11:48, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

I also agree with you, EBlack and DocDog. Comaze is just the most ridiculously transparent NLPee-er and he is bent. Bent on narrowing the scope of NLP to that of a single promoter (grinder). He really doesn't like people to know that friz Perls was ran a dianetics clinic in the 50s and promoted the whole cult, that Virginia Satir was really into occult, and that Bandler and Grinder got most of everything from them. The other guys (erickson) etc had just about no time for them. Satir also contributed to the positive-negative energies BS that they sucked up and wrote about. The "energy therapists" that have been debunked also use other pseudosciences such as NLP within energy therapy because it has the same background--unwarranted BS! Therefore, we have consensus on keeping the present page. I doubt whether Comaze will ever be able to keep his hand off the revert button long enough to recover any trust. Looks like he is in for immediate reversion no matter what. D.Right 15:25, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

• D.Right suggests above that the background of the person beliefs of Virginia Satir and background of Perls has some influence on NLP. This is simply false. NLP studies the "structure", or "patterns", NOT the idiosyncratic content or beliefs of top performers (Perls, Satir, ...). This separation is known as the form/content distinction in NLP, which excludes superfluous personal beliefs and idiosyncracies. Fritz Perls & Virginia Satir were regarded as the leaders in the fields of family therapy and gestalt at the time when Grinder and Bandler, analysed the language (and non-verbal) patterns that Virginia Satir (note: this has nothing to do with flakey ideas of "positive/negative energy" as D.Right suggests).

• D.Right's suggestion that Milton H. Erickson had no time for Grinder & Bandler is not well-founded. Rather, Gregory Bateson who was good friends with Milton Erickson, introduced Grinder & Bandler to Erickson. Milton granted Grinder & Bandler full access to his work (see eg. p.83 Whispering, Grinder & Bostic, 2001), and also wrote the preface for Patterns I (Grinder & Bandler, 1975) and wrote a review for the back page: "Patterns of the Hypnotic Techniques of Milton H. Erickson MD, is a delightful simplification of the infinite complexities of the language that I use with patients..." Milton H. Erickson, M.D.

Communication Energy, New Age, Spiritual Energy, Mystical Energy, energy (physics)

• DoctorDog, Firstly the paragraph, "[people] give out communication as energy" above is the one that was removed. EBlack added it again, and now D.Right, immediately, and you accuse me of being uncooperative? Please be more specific with which points you are referring to. I have researched, discussed and referenced every major change that I have made. --Comaze 12:30, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree with the other editors here. Comaze has not had the ability to attain any kind of consensus on these point. So he gets reverted. HeadleyDown 04:02, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

User EBlack just added this sentance, "Humans communicate by taking in information through the senses, but they also give out communication as energy, and this can be considered the spiritual side of communication." In NLP we refer mental process requires collatoral energy (p.92, Mind and Nature, Gregory Bateson, 1979) in that each cell has its own energy source that is powered by our breakfast. According to John Grinder, energy has no significance in communication (Turtles all the way down, Grinder & Delozier, 1986), for example, it breaks the first law of thermodynamics (conservation of energy)... "The first law of thermodynamics says that the total inflow of energy into a system must equal the total outflow of energy from the system, plus the change in the energy contained within the system." src: energy --Comaze 11:45, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

I originally added this communication energy notion. It is quoted directly from Dilts. It will remain. Comaze has not in any way attained any consensus. HeadleyDown 04:02, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Grinder split with the others. His view is narrow. Just like your's. D.Right 13:58, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

This view is not narrow, it is used in all branches of physics. ie. "This law is used in all branches of physics, but frequently violated by quantum mechanics (see off shell). Noether's theorem relates the conservation of energy to the time invariance of physical laws." src: energy --Comaze 22:37, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Physics is not the subject of the article. Comaze is narrow and has not attained any consensus. HeadleyDown 04:02, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

• We are discussing human communication, are we not? This is not some magical thinking / New Age article. --Comaze 05:01, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

The common example (given in NLP training) used to demonstrate that "conservation of energy" does not apply to living systems is: "If I kick my dog named spirit (a natural system), I cannot predict (from measuring the energy) where my the dog will end up." --Comaze 22:55, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Where is your evidence Comaze? And where is consensus? HeadleyDown 04:02, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

• HeadleyDown et al. has failed on multiple occasions to provide any evidence for HeadleyDown (or Dilts?) magical thinking about "communication energy". Instead HeadleyDown simply shout names, reverts and ask for evidence when it has already been referenced (or well-formed logic). The claim that there is some sort of "communicaton energy" has no support in formal logic or physics at all. HeadleyDown, D.Right, et al. would benefit from familiarising themselves with energy (physics) before making spurious claims about significance of energy in human communication. You could even start by reading this, "the total inflow of energy into a system must equal the total outflow of energy from the system, plus the change in the energy contained within the system. In other words, energy can be converted from one form to another, but it cannot be created or destroyed." src: article on Conservation of energy. If you measure the energy of the sound waves that travel from one speaker to another, the energy it takes to process and respond is greater than that of the sounds waves (there is no conservation of energy across the interface). Also, each cell in a human carries its own energy source, therefore energy has no significant in mental process or human communication. --Comaze 05:01, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Comaze, your argument is facile. I am not claiming about energy, Dilts is. You will be reverted simply for being uncooperative and deliberately thick and crass. HeadleyDown 13:42, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

• I have a factual dispute with HeadleyDown. See above. He keeps adding the statement that "Humans communicate by taking in information through the senses, but they also give out communication as energy, and this can be considered the spiritual side of communication." HeadleyDown has since attributed this statement to Robert Dilts and claimed it was a direct quote (but failed to use proper references with quotations marks and page numbers). Could someone please check this reference because I doubt that Dilts would use such flakey epistemology. --Comaze 14:31, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

• All of the regular editors here seem to have a dispute with Comaze. Comaze is not attempting to attain any consensus, and even now after weeks of warnings, is still losing large amounts of trust by complaining about well researched passages, then making changes to lots of other parts of the article which are outside the complaint. Here are some of the complaints against Comaze:

• Reverting immediately without discussion
• Reverting immediately without consensus
• Promoting a very narrow bias of NLP through Grinder worship and biased definitions.
• Continuing this behaviour for weeks even after weeks of *complaints from the other editors, and even after *complaints from moderate NLP advocates.

Conclusion: Comaze is a fundamentalist NLP zealot! D.Right 16:49, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

1. I have made a clear and distinct separation between that magical thinking study of energy (faith, new age, spiritism, ...) and what is NLP (epistemology, formal systems, nlp modeling) (see eg. Bertrand Russell, logical positivism and theory of logical types).
2. (HeadleyDown,EBlack,D.Right) claim that Dilts' uses this idea of "communicaton energy" yet Dilts himself says, "The principles of logical positivism are one of the fundamentals of the NLP view of thought and language" (Dilts & Delozier, 2000, [36]). Logical positivism also separates the study of (faith, etc.) from epistemology.
3. In NLP, an individual's beliefs do not belong in NLP, and never have, these beliefs are to be studied separate to NLP.
4. I give more weight to Bandler & Grinder definition is because they are the co-founders of the field (This is not disputed).
5. Additionally, Grinder provides the most recent and explicit form definition of NLP in Whispering so that has equal weight to the early books (eg. Structure of Magic Vol.1 by Bandler & Grinder). --Comaze 00:27, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

First Paragraph and Frequent Reversions / Consensus

Comaze. You did not discuss to consensus yet again. Because, your Bandler grinder mentality will not work, because no matter how we define spirituality, you will try to delete it, your efforts have been against wikipedia conventions and balance and neutrality, and because you are simply being evasive as you have been as long as you have been here. You have lost another sizeable chunk of trust. EBlack 00:50, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

EBlack says, "Because, your Bandler & Grinder mentality will not work... ". Am I to assume from this that you are disputing that John Grinder and Richard Bandler co-founded NLP and given extra weight in defining NLP? --Comaze 01:39, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Comaze. Read the NLP references that include the subject of sprituality. EG, the ones you keep deleting (Dilts, OConnor) etc. EBlack 01:43, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Comaze:

• Keeps pasting an NLP biased introduction that does not take into account the whole *article (and removes well researched fact)
• Removes the background history to NLP (and removes well researched fact)
• Replaces a clear and neutral diagram of eye accessing cues with a tacky and less descriptive one
• Removes anything to do with the spirit of NLP (and removes well researched fact)
• Removes an image that illustrates the criticism section.
• Removes key and useful references from the reference section
• Removes important links

Comaze persists with this uncooperative behavior without sufficient discussion, in a surreptitious way, and without ANY consensus.

Evidence http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Neuro-linguistic_programming&oldid=23192935

Until Comaze stops this behavior, trust towards Comaze will be zero and this article will not be developed. EBlack 01:43, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Mmm! Yes, EBlack that checks out. I'll see what I can do about Comaze. Best regards HazelFarnham 01:53, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Sure, Comaze is extremely biased and definitely doing dodgy stuff. I would see Comaze as just a clitch in the system though. Don't feed the troll. There are at least 7 regular and relatively neutral contributors here so I would keep on developing and just revert Comaze's deletions. Cheers HazelFarnham 02:32, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

• HazelFarnham Thankyou for your contribution. I assure you I am not doing dodgy stuff, I am simply sticking to facts and logic. I urge you to challenge my logic or facts, especially "communication energy" that EBlack, HeadleyDown, D.Right et al is pushing onto this article and then using it to criticise NLP. And you accuse me of being dodgy?--Comaze 02:56, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

In reponse to EBlack's accusations:

• EBlack says: Keeps pasting an NLP biased introduction that does not take into account the whole *article (and removes well researched fact)

Excuse me, I use well-researched balance NLP definition (that is weighted toward Bandler & Grinder) that separates spirtuality / scientology references to engrams, & magical thinking "communication energy" from the study of NLP. I explain clearly why the Scientology engrams and magical thinking statements were edited out. EBlack, HeadleyDown, D.Right continually add this non-sense back in.

• EBlack says: Removes the background history to NLP (and removes well researched fact)

The history I removed was disputed beause it pushed some a New Age/spirituality bias. This was replaced by a generally accepted history of NLP without the New Age references.

• Replaces a clear and neutral diagram of eye accessing cues with a tacky and less descriptive one

That eye accessing cues diagram I removed had frowns, had a volcano with NLP power (another Scientology reference) and was poorly draw. The replaced image also had factual inaccuracies (Kinesthetic construct). The replacement has a smile and is based on Grinder and Bandler's original diagram in Frogs into princes (p.24) - The first time this diagram was published.

• EBlack says: Removes anything to do with the spirit of NLP (and removes well researched fact)

NLP strictly separates study of (faith, spirituality, etc.) from the study of NLP. In NLP we simply don't know about these things. I have referenced this (ie. any personal / idiosyncratic beliefs are not part of NLP, see eg. logical positivism).

• EBlack says: Removes an image that illustrates the criticism section.

This image references "Scientology" which has nothing to do with NLP epistemolgy/modeling or formal systems. There is no justification for having this image on an NLP article.

• EBlack says: Removes key and useful references from the reference section

What key are useful references are you referring to?

• EBlack says: Removes important links

What important links? Important to whom? --Comaze 02:56, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

I completely agree with EBlack, and HazelFarnham's additions are fine. HeadleyDown 03:51, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

HazelFarnham adds this statement, "It is assumed that the expressions of the body can hold emotion, states and patterns in place. It is also assumed that some memories are locked in place physiologically which facilitates time line therapy and past life therapy." and HeadleyDown has no objection. hmmm. Very interesting. Please explain how "past life therapy" is relevant to NLP article. --Comaze 04:12, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Well done HazelFarnham. Bandler himself taught me how to conduct past life therapy, and yes, physiological state is a part of that. Past life therapy is an extension of time line therapy, inspired by Satir amongst others. It relates also to resourcefulness. I also trained with this guy: http://www.hypno-analysis.co.uk/past-life.htm. So I agree with Hazel, and EBlack, and DRight on maintaining these points. HeadleyDown 10:46, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes, past life therapy really is flakey. Funny what you NLP chaps get up to. I understand that Satir used to be into this kind of thing. Also, Perls used to use it in his dianetics centre to regress people to past lives and past planets:) Bandler is doing the same thing now with his NLP shamanism workshops globally. And who knows what that Castaneda motorcycle maintenance stuff was about? Perhaps Grinder can add add a few more occult ideas! Funny old subject. Still, live and let live:) Tell it as it is. EBlack 17:14, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

• HeadleyDown, EBlack. Please cite your sources. In NLP if a client already believed in "past lives" then this would be treated as a metaphor. "This idea and detailed examination of the underlying processes was first explored in detail by George Lakoff and Mark Johnson in Metaphors We Live By" src:Conceptual metaphor --Comaze 00:18, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

RfC (Energy)

I came to this article through RfC, and though not immediately familiar with the subject, I can see that this debate is exceptionally complicated and difficult to follow regardless. The issue presented, however, is regarding the use of the word "energy" to apply to human communication, and I think from going over the article that this is just one of many serious problems of equivocation present in this article. Clearly something is meant here by "energy" that is different from the common definition; if it's included, it should be made clear what is meant. Similarly, "performance" and "excellence" need to be clearly defined in order to be meaningful. I also removed Category:Psychotherapy from the article as the introduction states that NLP is a "study", whereas psychotherapy is a therapy and not a study (the analogous study to psychotherapy is psychology, or clinical psychology). If I have time later I can at least try and copyedit this a bit, as it's seriously in need. siafu 00:41, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Thankyou siafu. This document is in need of a copyedit. If you have time it would be greatly appreciated.

1. In regards to your comment about the psychtherapy category, NLP co-founder, John Grinder Ph.D (linguistics) recommends that, when discussing NLP, we separate it into NLP^modeling (the "study"), NLP ^training (learning to "study", detect and use NLP patterns) and NLP ^application (Grinder & Bostic, 2001). One popular application of NLP is to psychotherapy (another is to business consulting).
2. "Performance" and "excellence" generally refers to the top %5 of performers in a niche. The criteria for selection is assigned on an individual basis depending on the outcome. I'll find some references for this.
3. I'll let the other editors here comment on "energy". --Comaze 01:22, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

That definition of performance is no more satisfying than the previous; what is meant by "top performers"? Is this a purely subjective measure as it appears to be so far, or is there something more specific and rigorous being referenced? The article for niche that's referenced has specific definitions for architecture, ecology, and industry, but nothing for psychology or behavioral science. siafu 01:58, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

The term niche was referring to ecological niche (a broader term than discipline used metaphorically), this could be replaced with discipline.

The selection of "top performers", "genius" or "high performers" (used synonymously) is based on sampled opinions of professionals in the same field. A counter-example for this is Milton H. Erickon who was considered a "genius" by NLP modelers, yet his work was denigrated by some professionals in his discipline. (p.58, Grinder & Bostic, 2001). --Comaze 03:53, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

This is a particularly narrow view when you consider Erickson is generally thought of in extremely various terms within the hypnosis and psychology community. Virginia Satir, Bateson, Perls and Erickson were modeled by NLP developers (a mathematician, and a linguist (Bandler and Grinder)) but they never defined "top performer" or "the difference that makes the difference". It is still debatable whether you can apply these "exemplars'" mental models to anyone else (the general public) because those mental models include all their knowledge, which may not be transferable to others by either mimickry or NLP (according to psychological thinking. Rather, the general view is that mental models of experts are attained by developing expertise (many years of work). HeadleyDown 04:08, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

HeadleyDown You raise some interesting points but you are getting off-topic. The question was simply how does one define "top performer" in NLP terms (see above).

Sorry Saifu. This article is in the middle of a reversion war sustained by Comaze (against everyone else so far). You may have noticed in the article history. I have started to treat comaze simply as a troll due to comaze's inability to keep off the revert for weeks on end, even against overwhelming consensus against comaze. I am for the clear and understandable version that uses a wide collection of balanced sources, instead of Comaze's restriction to epistemology, and dire need to remove good research. Your suggestions are absolutely fine, and your changes will be well received and taken into account in the balanced version. Feel free to make the changes and when Comaze reverts them, we will do a fine job of making them re-appear. Best regardsHeadleyDown 01:33, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

I understand that you and others have been at loggerheads with Comaze, but I would very very strongly reccomend against labelling those who disagree with you as trolls and also assuming disagreement before it has happened. Doing so is vastly more likely to perpetuate a dispute rather than resolve it. Also, do you have a stricter definition for "energy" in regards to NLP? As mentioned above, I'm not an expert on the specific topic. siafu 01:58, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes Saifu. I understand. Easier said than done when a single person is so fanatically disruptive against consensus. I believe your strategy is right though. Actually, "thought energy", from energy therapy would probably do, but I will need to explain that there are no physical correlates between the new age/NLP notion of thought energy. I can provide references also. I understand comaze just wants to delete it because it goes against comaze's agenda. Comaze regularly deletes anything non-NLPpromotional. I am an NLP advocate and prefer to include all views in a balanced way (encyclopedically). Best regards HeadleyDown 02:52, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Ok now we are getting somewhere. HeadleyDown please define "new age notion of thought energy". Also, please define "energy therapy" and explain how you classify it with NLP. At the moment I think this notion of "thought energy" belongs in a different article. Don't forget to cite your sources. --Comaze 04:23, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

No wait HeadleyDown. Firstly Comaze must define the word "OK", then define the word "now", then define the word "we" then define the word "are" etc. In short, Comaze, you will wait for days until people reply to your demands before you go anywhere near reversion and only when you have reached consensus from all regular editors. Do not just look for excuses to revert. Comaze, your trust points must be minus 1000 already. EBlack 11:54, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Seriously, more time working on the article, less time attacking "adversaries". It's not unreasonable to ask for a definition of a word if it's clearly defined differently from normal in this context, as "energy" is (and "mental hygiene", "human potential", etc.). Trust doesn't enter into this, beyond that I trust all editors here are acting in good faith. Sources are still de rigeur for all assertions. siafu 23:55, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Thank you Siafu. The VoiceOfAll version of the page is quite fine, and I am sure consensus will verify that (just take a look at the history). I will revert to that version as the "dubious" tags are simply one person's objections, rather than actual dubious passages. Notice the page was changed to that point after only hours of it being reverted before. HeadleyDown 04:38, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Hello Saifu/Variable. I agree with Headley. The balanced version will definitely take your view into account and will work towards including it. Comaze will simply revert/delete/change your contribution without sufficient (or any) discussion or consensus with you. I added my contribution to the balanced version, and people keep bringing it back for me when comaze deletes it. The page is actually developing well. Just not comaze's narrow version. ATB DRCoren 01:48, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Comaze. Refrain from placing redundant information, bias, and mostly, refrain from reverting before the other editors have had a chance to assess your discussion. Acting against consensus will simply get your changes reverted. Wikipedia conventions should be followed unless you want to continue your change/revert war that you have been conducting for the past four weeks. HeadleyDown 06:13, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

• HeadleyDown, I invite you to put your attention on getting more rigorous sources, firstly to show how "Energy Therapy" and NLP can put in the same class. At the moment you are mixing logical types, see Bertrand Russell's Type Theory. A fundamental concept in NLP theory of language and behavior. There is alot to do on this document. At the moment, most of this document is poorly written, full of evaluation (see criticism section) and needs alot of work. I've marked most of the urgent stuff with 'dubious' tags so that we can work together to clean it up and check the sources. Any reputable secondary or tertiary source are great for critical review and scientific rigor. --Comaze 07:19, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Comaze. I disagree with all of your changes. You have not convinced me or anyone else of your need to make these changes, even after weeks of making more than 3 reversions per day. There is no need for me or anyone else to be clearer than that. We have a page that agrees with the majority (Voice of all) and the only changed from that point will be line by line after consensus, with no more than 3 edits per day unless there is no consensus, in which case reversions will cease until consensus is reached. D.Right 07:40, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

D.Right and HeadleyDown have again removed the 'dubious' and 'dispute' tags that marked evaluative or misleading information. Removal of these tags is bordering on vandalism and arguably simple reversions to revert these changes are probably within wikipedia policy. These tags are necessary for neutral parties to come in and review, and I urge any editors to do research before removing these tags. --203.100.233.178 09:00, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Hello 203.100.233.178. The tags were removed due to Comaze's singular and biased application of those tags. They were applied with no effort to seek consensus, and no consensus. Considering the kneejerk delete/revert history of Comaze, and the disruptive and deceptive actions of Comaze, the tags were removed. Removing the tags is reasonable and consistent with consensus. HeadleyDown 09:57, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

The entire article looks dubious to me. I am unable to make any sense of most of it whatsoever. It appears to be nothing more than a collection of buzzwords thrown together without any coherent structure. --Gorgonzilla 16:40, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

At this point, I'm leaning towards agreeing with this assessment. So far my requests for clarification on said buzzwords have also been rather unsuccessful. siafu 17:19, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Hello again Gorgonzilla and Siafu. I understand that you mean you want the article to say clearly exactly what NLP is (eg, NLP is a method of programming the mind.....etc) using the clearest definitions possible, and then to use clear terms all the way through without assuming the reader will immediately understand the NLP Jargon. This is what I have been trying to do. Is that what you mean? Best regards HeadleyDown 01:41, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Gorgonzilla, saifu, I'm not an expert in Transformational Grammar so we probably need to get this checked by someone who is. But in terms of definition of "performance", Grinder borrows from Transformation Grammar namely Noam Chomsky's competence/performance distinction (which has since between replaced by "E"-Language, "I"-Language). Grinder took his Ph.D in Transformational Grammar and studied with Noam Chomsky at MIT. --Comaze 23:46, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes I believe this is the future of the article. NLP is often criticised for this problem. As an exemplary pseudoscience it often uses obstruse terminology designed to sound scientific, without any proof behind the various notions or constructs. I think we are on the edge of a changeover. The article as it stands has gathered a great deal of information, and relevant fact (more so than any other source I can put my hands on. There has been efforts to clarify these points. For example, the clearest definition I have ever found is the "study of the structure of subjective experience" as all those words are well definable. The epistemology label is very dubious and arguable (it really is not taught as part of a philosophy course).

I believe from the ViewOfAll version it will be possible to determine exactly what NLP uses, and how the terms relate to meaningful psychology terms. Best regards HeadleyDown 18:17, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

We need to make this article more coherent. We need to get in some experts. --Comaze 22:33, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

It is quite obvious that HeadleyDown is submitting his own agenda here. I think alot of these issues would be resolved if we come to agreement on the relevant sources for NLP.

• Primary Sources
• Secondary Sources
• Tertiary Sources

--Comaze 23:46, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Greetings all. I have been surfing this article for quite a while, and decided to offer my help on clarifying things. I am from a psychology background and may even be considered an expert in change and therapies. I believe Gorgonzilla and Siafu's comments are fine, but require a little more specificity to areas of priority in the article. Considering the reversion frequency, and the huge and undiscussed and confusing changes going on, I believe the best start will be from the ViewOfAll recommendation. I understand this was from the authorities of wikipedia. Any changes from that point should be small. They should be discussed, and consensus reached. I am not interested in reverting several times per day, just because somebody wants to promote NLP as a philosophy. I believe there are some very cooperative editors here who should be thanked for supplying so much good information to the page. Their's is a stablizing influence. I do not belive we need multiple definitions. The "study of structure" definition is fine because it actually says something about the subject. However, a simpler line will be useful to introduce the definition "eg NLP is a proposed method of programming the mind". Any adjectives such as pseudoscientific may well be true according to the article, but may predjudice the reader. Of course any vast changes to the page will almost definitely be reverted. This is wikipedia convention as far as I can see. I have come to understand how things work here. I will visit the article about once every day or every few days. So I will appreciate an incremental article that moves slowly enough for people to think about it, research and respond (fewer edits in a day, the better). That will be cooperative. Any vast changes or unwarrented, or undiscussed changes to other parts of the article will be uncooperative. I am a quite strict about uncooperative behaviour. Gorgonzilla and Siafu, you will be very useful as an outside pair of eyes in order to say whether something is clear to readers, or not. ATB JPLogan 04:23, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Thank you JPLogan. I will work cooperatively and incrementally, making small changes and mentioning each of those changes in the summary line of each edit summary. I will strive to make no more than one per day. Any large edits or multiple edits, that are not reversions of other people's uncooperative work, I will open for discussion first to seek confirmation and consensus - as per sensible wikipedia convention and recommendation. Best regards, Headley HeadleyDown 05:12, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Eye Accessing Cues - Image

File:Eye accessing cues.JPG

HeadleyDown/Oliver Y version

(JPLogan, HeadleyDown), you have again added a factually incorrect image of "Eye Accessing Cues" that includes a "Kinesthetic construct". This is not correct. What is your source for this information? I checked p.24 of Frogs into Princes, it should be "Aid" or natural language.

Comaze. You are simply being restrictive in order to paste in your very unclear catface diagram. The multiface diagram is correct according to most of the sources (which are admittedly inconsistent) and it is very clear. HeadleyDown 07:15, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Comaze. I cannot reply specifically to such a vague statement. Which of my additions do you specifically consider nonsense? Do you mean all of the ones that were edited in through consensus? Or just the ones edited in through consensus that you tried for weeks on end to delete? HeadleyDown 07:15, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Comaze version matches p.24 Frogs into Princes, 1979

I thought that the "Eye Accessing Cue" image was a simply factual dispute that would be resolved by placing a reference to the original source and page number. Since this has been ignored I've done a search on google images to prove the point. A quick search on google images proves this (all these appear on the first two pages of google images. All these results link have NLP eye accessing cue charts...

• [37], [38], [39], [40], [41]

For a full list use google image search, for "eye accessing cues" see([42])

Now compare those results with this version from HeadleyDown/Oliver Y. Notice the Kinesthetic construct that does not appear in the NLP literature or on any NLP eye accessing chart on the internet. Now compare these two:

Look, you guys, there is NO STANDARD EYE ACCESSING MAP. Bandler's book merely illustrated ONE POSSIBILITY, and stressed that you don't know ANYBODY'S eye accessing map until you have taken the time to find out by asking the right questions. Therefore, either label the thing properly (as a map which applies to only SOME people), or get rid of it.

Cleanup of talk page.

I've just completed a major cleanup of the talk page. This involved mainly fixing up the headlines and moving topics to bring them under the correct headlines. It still needs some work. It took me a while so I hope it is appreciated. Hopefully this will help get some external editors in to help clean up some of our factual disputes. --Comaze 12:33, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

• Have a look at the index HeadleyDown. I spent hours reorganising this mess of a discussion page. This is an effort to make this discussion page somewhat coherent. --Comaze 22:33, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Removed paragraph "Client Centered"

This paragraph does not make any sense at all. So I deleted it....

Client centered

According to the NLP presupposition that closely relates to human potential improvement, the client has the resources they need. The NLP practitioner leaves it up to the person to subjectively indicate what works and what does not. If they are observed subjectively and carefully, they will actually show it quite clearly in their words and body language, what the problem is, how they experience it, and which ways it will or will not work, or will be blocked. So the NLP practitioner will attempt to use their skills to help the client explore their 'map' (perceptions and preconceptions) of reality. The rest of NLP is then, in effect, an attempt to help the practitioner understand, work and communicate within another person's world view.

Questionable paragraph Dubious courses

What organisations falsely claims to be registered as universities in their own right? I am only aware of one non-accredited university that offers degrees in hypnosis (not NLP), that is American Pacific University.

• Also there are some NLP trainers who claim to have a Ph.D from this university. See paragraph in question below...

Dubious Courses and Accreditation

The sale of private courses is unlikely to change until the subject is taught more widely in more publicly accessible venues, and until the innovators decide inventing gratuitous terminology is superfluous. There are only a few training establishments offering properly accredited courses in NLP, but a large percentage of these claim falsely to be registered as universities in their own right.

The paragraph is not at all questionable. Claimed NLP universities are very questionable: eg

http://www.imagineit.org/

"Michael Bennett is like an enlightened angel who speaks with intuitive grace and imparts wisdom in a way that's just damn fun!" or -  NLP Master Practitioner, Clinical Hypnotherapist, Certified Life Coach and Reiki

Practitioner.

"Where miracles happen & dreams come true".

Now that is a dubious university! HeadleyDown 05:17, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

• That does appear to be dubious! It also claims to be "State approved and licensed campus" in Seattle Washington, Bennett / Stellar University. [43]
• Robert Dilts set up "NLP University"[44]
• Tad James set up (or bought) American Pacific University (non-accredited) [[45]]

These are a few examples, but it does not amount to "large percentage" as the paragraph states. --Comaze 07:51, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Comaze! And your solution is to remove the entire paragraph based on your view of a small inaccuracy? Like you have been doing all along? This is not the way to behave and you will simply get reverted based on your history, and your bias. That is the consensus! HeadleyDown 08:59, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

• Yes, I have a content dispute with you. But, can you stop with the personal attacks? I want this article to be accurate and balanced. Let's get on with it. --Comaze 09:29, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

The multiface eye accessing cues image is perfectly acceptable: http://www.smartdriving.co.uk/Misc_pages/Eye_accessing.htm the image is consistent with many other similar images, and gives a clear idea of what the process is about. HeadleyDown 09:10, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Dude, did you even look at your own link? Your link does not even have "Kinesthetic Construct"! --Comaze 09:25, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Give it time Comaze. Why the rush? How come no other editors persistently attempt to make large and anti-consensus changes, several times a day, apart from you? HeadleyDown 09:50, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

There is no rush. We're getting near a good description of NLP now. We just need clean up the distinction between "New Age" and "NLP". Just because some people who do NLP are also New Agers doesn't mean that the NLP (modeling/formal systems/epistemology) is new age. The term new age is so vague as to be almost meaningless anyway. Such confusion represents a Logical Level/Logical Type error there. (see Bertrand Russell, Type Theory) --Comaze 10:18, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Comaze. You are saying one thing and doing another. No wonder nobody trusts you. The new age label has already been discussed in depth. Consensus found it acceptable, as does good research. HeadleyDown 11:10, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

HeadleyDown This is not about trust. This is about creating a useful resource document that is based on NPOV. I provided 8 references to show that your eye accessing cue image was false and yet you still replace it with your non-sense "Kinesthetic construction" image. Can you please familiarise yourself with Bertrand Russell and Type Theory so you can make valuable contribution to this page. Your personal attacks are getting boring. Please stick to facts and cite your sources.

Comaze. I must remind you of NPOV

Wikipedia policy is that all articles should be written from a neutral point of view, representing all views with significant support fairly and without bias.

For as long as you have been editing here, you have constantly sought to bias the material to that of Bandler and Grinder, and you have even admitted you are commited to that end. That rather dismisses all the other views and is completely against NPOV. You have persistently deleted verifiable facts from the word go, mostly when it goes against your agenda (which seems to be to remove all NLP criticisms (mostly by science)). You are behaving completely against consensus, and completely uncooperatively. There are other editors here. Recommendations have been made by authority wikipedia editors, and those recommendations should see the light of day for more than a few hours. You seem committed to hiding facts away, and removing consensus at every possible opportunity. You make one erroneous objection about one fact, then you determine to remove all the other facts surrounding it. This is unacceptable and will result in your edits being reverted. Its as simple as that. Now you go back to the NPOV page and read it properly. HeadleyDown 17:48, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

NLP and New Age / Critical Evaluation of NLP by Scientists, etc.

HeadleyDown I have no objection to including critical evaluation of NLP (by Scientists, Psychologists, Linguists, etc). As long as NLP is properly defined. If you accept HeadleyDown's 'New Age NLP' definitions, it makes it very difficult for critical evaluation simply because NLP is not an example of New Age. New Age is not an example of NLP. Critical evaluation of New Age belongs in the New Age section. Sure NLP may be popular with some [[New Age]ers but this does not classify NLP as New Age. --Comaze 23:56, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Dubious "Kinesthetic Construct" Eye Accessing Cues Image

HeadleyDown added this dubious "Kinesthetic Construct Eye Accessing Cues" that has never appeared in any NLP literature. See ([46], [47], [48], [49], [50]) Or use google image search for "eye accessing cues" ([51])Notice there is no "kinesthetic construct" in any of those images. --Comaze 23:56, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Comaze. NLP is new age according to scientists and many others. It is classified as such. This was already discussed:

Swets JA, Bjork RA. Enhancing human performance: an evaluation of "New Age" techniques considered by the U.S. Army. Psychol Sci. 1990;1:85-86.

http://skepdic.com/neurolin.html

http://www.watchman.org/na/nlpexpo.htm

http://www.mat.univie.ac.at/~neum/christ/nlp.html

http://www.lifepositive.com/Mind/personal-growth/personal-growth/new-age-therapies.asp

New Age Encyclopedia: A Mind Body Spirit Reference Guide (Paperback) by Belinda Whitworth (2003)

NLP and New Age has some attributes of a new, emerging religion but is currently a loose network of spiritual seekers, teachers, healers and other participants. The name "New Age" also refers to the market segment in which goods and services are sold to people in the movement. NLP falls within that segment.

Central to both NLP and New Age is that all life, everything in the universe—is spiritually interconnected, and that the human mind has deep levels and vast powers, which may even be capable even of overriding physical reality. “You create your own reality.”

Comaze, you wrote:

The neurological sciences teach us to be wary of simplistic pseudoscience claims about brain function, and debunk dubious products and services that are sold using such myths. Nevertheless it is important to stress that there is much about the brain that is not understood by scientists.

That last line is laughably biased. Glad you admit that NLP is pseudoscientific! Wikipedia works primarily with scientific, above pseudoscientific views. You are biasing the other way.

You also desperately want to remove the views that NLP is associated with dianetics and scientology, even though it is a common and stated view. The facts will remain, regardless of your extreme dislike of that fact.

Do not remove the facts, (background history etc) and be sure to use wikipedia NPOV. DRCoren 01:33, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

DRCoren If you think it is laughable then edit it to match NPOV. That paragraph was designed to represent the views of neurological sciences who criticise "left/right" creative/logic claims. I've just rewritten it to be more clear. Please check it out. --Comaze 02:00, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

What is more interesting is that DRCoren claims that scientists classify NLP as new age, yet this is no Scientific classification called "New Age" see wiki New Age article. Rather the term New Age is so vague as to almost meaningless for classification.

Differences in NLP

Hello all. I've been reading this discussion with interest - I use wikipedia regularly but haven't gone 'behind the scenes' before. My first thought is I have to commend you all for putting together a good informative page! It's obviously continuing to evolve, and infact reflects some of the disagreements throughout the whole NLP 'community'. Like everyone, I have both an understanding through, and preference towards, the branch I trained with (in my case New Code), so a page like this helps widen that view. Naturally I do not want NLP to be defined as my 'branch' defines it - the branches do have different approaches and accuracy requires that reflection. I must say that I haven't found ANY resource ANYWHERE that helps someone get a grasp of the basic similarities and differences in the branches of NLP. Maybe one of you does? So I'm reading partially from that angle - how does someone work out not only what NLP is generally, but also some of the substantial differences in approach that have developed from its beginnings (and through this find out which approach they would value and what holds little interest). I don't know if you think that would be useful!? (would it encapsulate the opinions expressed here too?). Anyway I'll read more with interest - I don't understand the editing process etc yet - and hope to be involved in some way. Thanks :) GregA 01:53, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

GregA Your contributions would be most appreciated. Please familiarise yourself with NPOV as we are moving toward that in this document. There are two main competing versions of this document:

• 'Comaze' (Grinder/Bandler epistemology,submodalities) version: [52]
• HeadleyDown etc. (includes New Age, Energy Therapy, Past Lives, Dodge Eye Accessing Cues Chart, Dianetics, Scientology) version [53]

--Comaze 02:35, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

A move towards keeping an all point of view, neutral, and balanced article

Greetings GregA. I also recommend the NPOV article and will take this chance to reiterate this key NPOV statement: Wikipedia policy is that all articles should be written from a neutral point of view, representing all views with significant support fairly and without bias. According to Wikipedia founder Jimbo Wales, NPOV is "absolute and non-negotiable". [1]

I do suggest that you steer well clear of the Comaze direction and actions, as they have consistently proven to be against NPOV, and against cooperative wikipedia activities. Wikipedia strives towards neutrality and representation of all views fairly, using science over pseudoscience as an organizing framework.

The two competing pages really are quite different in direction and history. The Comaze version has proven through its history to be a fact deleting version that has already the stated goal of removing the other science, sociology, history, anthropological views (see above), in favour of promoting a single and strongly pseudoscientific and promotional non-neutral view (Bandler/Grinder). The HeadleyDown version (a seemingly neutral and wikiprocess-friendly version) is a persistently multi-inclusive view with a bias for science as an organising framework.

There is one very easy way you can help. You very honestly state you are an NLP advocate. Similar to the neutral and NPOV adhering NLP advocates who generously apply their knowledge to building a balanced and neutral page, you may also have the chance to prove that some NLP advocates can remain neutral. Like them, if you ever find the Comaze Bandler/grinder NLP promotional soapbox has been posted up, you can simply revert it back to the multi-view and cooperative consensus version (HeadleyDown/Viewofall version). It would be best to do this with a simple statement such as - revert to NPOV all-viewpoint version, and about two hours after the historically narrowing version has appeared (in order to avoid rapid reprisals from non-neutral parties).

This would certainly help editors such as myself who have no home access to the internet, and would like to see an NLP article that is not constantly regressing into pseudoscience and promotional anecdotage, and instead, is moving towards multi-view clear, organized, and cooperative neutrality according to NPOV. Regards JPLogan 04:30, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Hi JPLogan. I am an advocate of NLP and I value NPOV - if I have a personal opinion I'll make it obvious it's opinion (here in talk)... well that's my goal anyway! Oh, I also have criticisms of NLP :)

Thanks for the info on the differences in the 2 articles - I was just wondering about that. I'll assume the consensus article is the one to work on - though I see there's some requests here to suggest changes here first, then integrate them? Is that happening or do we stick to minor changes to the main page? I think I'll simply tread very carefully.

I haven't seen any previous discussion on different branches of NLP, has that been discussed before? On the conceptual level I'm thinking "patterns vs content", "the importance of ecology", "spirituality", "metaprograms" etc. - as different schools put different emphases on these (or disagree totally). GregA 05:51, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Sounds great GregA. Any extra views you discover in the literature about NLP will certainly be well taken into account within the NPOV priority framework by cooperative editors. Remember that the article is about fairly representing what people believe about NLP within NPOV. I'm sure it will progress somehow. The different branches can be represented somehow in relation to the other point of view of scientists etc. Cheers HeadleyDown 06:20, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

It's actually a great opportunity - there are contradictions in NLP trainings and books and the only way to fairly represent those similarities, differences, and criticisms of the field will involve multiple people. What an ideal place to do that! GregA 06:48, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Steven Hassan - Cult Exit-Counselor

I propose to add something like this to the "Criticism - Cult" section...

In, 1980 Steven Hassan attended a seminar with Richard Bandler and John Grinder on hypnosis. Later Steven Hassan moved to Santa Cruz to start an apprenticeship with John Grinder. Steven Hassan is now one of Amercia's leading Exit-Counselor's. Today Steven Hassan uses some of what he learnt from NLP and John Grinder to help people exit and recover from cults mind control. (Stephen Hassan,Combating Cult Mind Control (1988) And merge it with something like this from the "Stephen Hassan" page...

"Hassan contends that cults recruit members through systematic deception, behavior modification, withholding of information, and emotionally intense persuasion techniques, such as the creation of phobias), collectively termed mind control." (src: Stephen Hassan). --Comaze 03:54, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

The Hassan statement will be fine on its own, but you may hear other ideas from the other editors. HeadleyDown 07:32, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Maybe something like this would be better... Steven Hassan studied NLP with Bandler and Grinder in 1980 and moved to Santa Cruz to start an NLP trainer apprenticeship with John Grinder, but ended this early to do his concerns with the NLP's commercial promotion. He began to persue his own study of the NLP foundational models (Milton H. Erickson, Gregory Bateson, Virgnia Satir). NLP (and the models that NLP was based on) allowed Hassan to, "analyze and create a model for the process of change that occurs when a person goes into a cult group and then successfully leaves it." (p.33). Today Steven Hassan is one of Amercia's leading exit-counselors and uses some the methods learned from NLP and John Grinder to help people exit and recover from cults mind control. (Stephen Hassan,Combating Cult Mind Control (1988) --Comaze 08:09, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Stick with a very brief single line version with a link. You seem to be writing a stub about Steven Hassan. Just remember it should fit in with the criticism section. HeadleyDown 10:19, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Proposed Cult paragraph - Comments please

The term cult is sometimes used to describe the field of NLP as it is used as an ideological pigeonhole for contemporary writers because by definition cult depends on contrasts with an established orthodoxy or doctrines.

This explanation is pov and unnecessary as there is already a link that explains it better cults. HeadleyDown 12:39, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

This was an attempt to frame this section with NPOV.

NLP is sometimes associated with modern day cults (Tippet, 1994) (Langone, 1993). NLP and hypnosis is seen as an intrinsic part of modern ritual mind control tactics (Crabtree, 2002) and the field has been monitored by the Cult Awareness Network (Shupe & Darnell, 2000).

Anti-cult activists (Langone, 1993) claim that NLP and hypnotic techniques can be used by both mild cults and very aggressive cults to induce dependence on the cult, and to further provide conditioning to induce compliance within the cult .

NLP trainers and practitioners, in contrast, view the NLP meta-model as one way to develop critical thinking, by asking question such as, "How do you know that?" to ask for sensory based evidence for claims of miracles without demonstrable evidence. Noam Chomsky (anti-doctrination advocate) and linguist is claimed to be the source for much of the NLP methodology, and Steven Hassan, a leading exit counselor used the foundational models of NLP (and the models that NLP was based on Erickson, Bateson, Satir) to, "analyze and create a model for the process of change that occurs when a person goes into a cult group and then successfully leaves it." (p.33, Stephen Hassan, Combating Cult Mind Control (1988)

This para seems to be irellevant to criticisms, and very over the top in terms of length. HeadleyDown 12:39, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes it could edited down. Although it makes some important points about the difference of opinions. NLP can be used for indoctrination, and it can also be used to help people leave cults and promote critical thinking. This summarising point main POVs.

In sharp contrast to Bateson's criteria of mind, some critics regard NLP to be closely associated with new age, shamanic, or pagan spirituality. This may have been influenced by Richard Bandler's use of shamanic metaphors, or John Grinder's stories from Carlos Castenada's Don Juan Matus in his seminars. --Comaze 11:39, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

The sharp contrast you suggest, does it really exist as a critical view? Or is it just your view? HeadleyDown 12:39, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

This is not just my opinion. Gregory Bateson had no time for fuzzy types of thinking that allows people to use energy when talking about the mind or language. See the index of Angels Fear (Bateson & Bateson). Grinder agrees with this view saying that it would be, "mixing the language of poetry with the language of analysis." (Advanced Modeling Seminar Recording, Grinder, 1996). Gregory Bateson and NLP borrowed heavily from Bertrand Russell especially his Logical Type distinction that helps separate spirituality/new age/energy fuzzy thinking (see magical thinking and Theory of Types) from scientific epistemology. --Comaze 00:31, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

First sentence of this article.

One line at at time. What do you all think of having this as the first sentence of this article?

Neuro-linguistic programming (NLP) is most widely defined as "the study of the structure of subjective experience" (Dilts, Grinder, Bandler, Delozier, Cameron-Bandler, 1979).

I believe the priority is moving towards science now. It looks like a science statement about the nature of NLP will be more useful for starters. So the "programming the mind" line will be a better start for now, I believe. HeadleyDown 07:35, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

With all the stuff I've been reading about science/psychology criticism... I'm not sure what you mean by "moving towards science". On a related note.. my NLP training considers the programming idea history - so if a definition can be found that encompasses the field that'd be great. GregA 07:52, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Oh Sorry, I should make myself clearer. I meant that there have been recommendations to fit more closely with the NPOV of Science holding more weight than pseudoscience. So a definition or "description" of NLP from scientists will be primary, and then an NLP defitition of NLP can be secondary. I am sure there will be less definitions by scientists to sift through:)

Here is one for starters:

Science and Pseudoscience in Clinical Psychology. By Scott O. Lilienfeld, Steven Jay Lynn, and Jeffrey M. Lohr (Eds.) Guilford Press, New York. ISBN: 1-57230-282-1, Hardcover, 474 pp.

"Neurolinguistic programming is a pseudoscientific self help development in the same mould as that of Dianetics and EST". HeadleyDown 10:45, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Hi HeadleyDown. This is excellent. On closer examination, it fits the scientific view that has been stated throughout the article, it is succinct, categorical, and well referenced. JPLogan 03:45, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Is HeadleyDown and JPLogan the same person?

Unfortunately the word pseudoscientific is biased in this context. Pseudoscientific refers to something claiming to be scientific yet this is false or fraudulent (see pseudo. To say this necessarily involves a JUDGEMENT of the field, hence it's POV, it doesn't matter if some researcher said it is. The challenge is to present NLP as it stands, include the criticisms, and let the readers come to their own conclusions. GregA 04:07, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Mmm! Nice try, but peudoscientific is a very important term in NPOV. It is also a useful organising point for the article. The article is actually classified with the pseudoscience label also due to the scientific research. It doesn't say "fraudulent", and being pseudoscience it leaves that up to the reader. I have to agree with the editor who placed it, it is entirely warrented on the article and clarifies a great many things in a balanced and representitive way. Notice, it does not mention, the words, scam, fraud or any overtly negative words, even though the science research does point to these probabilities. So I would say it is best to leave it up to actual categorizations and factual statements of scientists, rather than to delete facts. CarlOxford 05:55, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Exactly how many aliases does HedleyDown have? He could at least attempt to disguise his pompous style! (FLINT)

The thing is, I agree that there is some really dodgy NLP going on out there. REALLY DODGY. Mixing NLP and energy therapies, past lives, etc etc. The field has diverged greatly over the years - today it has a great mix of quality, and probably few that are really good. We'll have to address that range more clearly somehow in this page. Even once that's done, we're going to have to make the introduction more globally relevant to NLP rather than talk about both extremes. look up Pseudoscience - on wiki it's defined as false/fraudulent/pretending. Online dictionary says it's "mistakenly"... either is a judgement, and belongs fairly under CRITICISMS.

Now, there are some NLP practitioners who don't call it a science at all. There are some who do call it a science, but back up what they do with data that is not valid. There are some who are doing good research. Personally, I'm also interested in the difference between SCIENCE, and SCIENTIFIC METHOD

• science is the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment
• scientific method is the systematic observation, measurement, and experiment - and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

The reason for my interest is the lack of hypotheses used in NLP modelling, though it's certainly systematic.

Please define pseudoscience from multiple sources and explain how it isn't a criticism GregA 08:24, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Hi GregA. Pseudoscience is a social phenomenon. It doesn't have to be a criticism, although you can take it as such. Whether NLP teachers or developers claim to be teaching science of excellence or not, they are proposing observations, proposals, and hypotheses about structure. Cause and effect. Those hypotheses have been tested by scientists in rigorous scientific studies. They were found to be false. But NLP developers continue to claim that they are not false (or that they work). That is only one key characteristic of a pseudoscience. NLP displays many more of these pseudoscientific characters.

Hi. A few points. Firstly - you are saying there are experiments and the experiments are false, thus it's a pseudoscience. CarlOxford says the word is neutral but you just explained your reasoning and it's not a neutral word! So lets be quite clear that you are saying, in the first line "NLP DOES NOT WORK".

Secondly, I have read some of the hypotheses of experiments done by psychologists, and they removed crucial parts of the pattern in order to "control the variables". There was previously a focus on making sure there were only a few independent variables in any study from which to measure the dependent variables - this has changed in the last 10 years or so with outcome-based research, see http://www.scienceboard.net/community/perspectives.87.html It's only since CBT became popular recently that outcome-based research has become more common in Psychology. Note also that there are studies showing the efficacy of certain NLP patterns.

Ok, The overviews and reviews, and meta-analyses of the whole range of reliable studies indicate that the hypotheses and proposals of NLP developers do not follow significantly enough to say that they work. They are unsupported. HeadleyDown 13:01, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Thirdly I think it's important that whatever NLP pattern that Psychologists are converting for study be endorsed by a school of NLP. This links to point 2 - in that when presented with the psychologists' hypotheses (based on their understanding of the NLP model and controls for experiment), an NLP practitioner might EXPECT a failure of the experiment.

It is not your job to critique the studies conducted. Go back and have a look at NPOV. Nobody want's your or my opinion. We write it using NPOV policy. Please do so. HeadleyDown 13:01, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

There was some discussion on here about CONSENSUS. If you want that then lets stick to what we agree on - AND ensure that every criticism of NLP is clearly stated. Otherwise delete the whole page, write "NLP doesn't work", and then have a "criticisms of this definition" page. (alternatively, write "NLP is considered by some psychologists to be a pseudoscientific...."

Please be constructive. If you can find any views (apart from your own) that say NLP is not pseudoscientific, then go ahead and introduce them. HeadleyDown 13:01, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

I reverted this once to a more neutral description. I request someone else reverts it this time. Come on... we have a chance to make it clear what NLP says (and doesn't say), and show the criticisms. As it stands, anyone wondering about NLP will see this POV and either agree or disagree - lets let them read and work it out. GregA 10:59, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree with you CarlOxford. It is a very neutral line. Some descriptions of NLP tend to include words such as scam etc and in the other extreme, you have "the difference that makes the difference" etc. The scientific definition is true to type. Science is generally very neutral. Looks fine as a beginning line. I can link it to the relevant pages to give it even better descriptive power. HeadleyDown 08:36, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Hedleydown, could you please respond to points made above. Your inability to respond to evidence that contradicts your own POV is undermining any credibility that your arguments may have. The research database does not unanimously support your conclusions as you claim. Lets be clear, you cannot claim to speak for 'science' as a whole as you frequently do. You can cite scientists who support your position (although you frequently don't). Please refrain from making claims that are designed to appear as though they represent the entire scientific establishment, when in fact they only represent your POV. (Lee 13.23 20 Sept2005)

Please be patient. Responding over and over again to the same old stuff is really not what editors should be doing. Just stick with NPOV policy, and edit. So far, science gets the priority over pseudoscience (for good NPOV reason), and the statements show that scientists believe NLP is pseudoscientific.

Various Definitions by NLP Trainers

Just putting together a list of definitions of NLP from NLP trainers, please assist...

Direct quote from Joseph O'Connor and John Seymour, when defining NLP: "NLP is the study of how people excel in any field and how to teach these patterns to others. This process is called modeling" (p.25, Traning with NLP, Neuro-Linguistic Programming: Skills for mangers trainers and communicators", 1994)

NLP is more than modeling, so this and the line below are quite restricted definitions.HeadleyDown 08:36, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

"NLP is the study of how people excel in any field and how to teach these patterns to others. This process is called modeling" ,when defining NLP - Joseph O'Connor and John Seymour (p.25, Traning with NLP: Neuro-Linguistic Programming: Skills for mangers trainers and communicators", 1994):

"NLP is a behavioural science that provides:

1. An Epistemology - A system of knowledge and values
2. A Methodology - Processes and prodecures for applying knowledge and values
3. A Technology - Tools to aid in the applications of knowledge and values" Robert Dilts defining NLP (p.2, Modelling with NLP, Meta Publications, 1998)

some may claim that it is a behavioural science. Science says that it is pseudoscientific.HeadleyDown 08:36, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

No HeadleyDown 'science' does not say NLP is pseudoscientific. You say NLP is pseudoscientific by selectively choosing your sources and choosing to ignore others. You have no justification for claiming to speak for the field of science as a whole. You are trying to appropriate an authority that you do not have. Some scientific sources have claimed aspects of NLP (or purporting to be NLP) to be pseudoscientific, other scientific sources do not support this view (Lee 11.38 20 September 2005)

• I agree with Lee. There are many Scientific studies that support NLP foundational models and ideas. To be neutral here, Eye Accessing Cues has been found to be effective by Robert Dilts in his EEG studies at UC Santa Cruz (Roots of NLP, 1983). Other studies were not conclusive. John Grinder & Bostic (2001) propose a Scientific method for testing Eye Accessing Cues in Whispering in the Wind, and this actually includes some discrete analysis and statistical modeling.

In this context, single studies are unhelpful. The present information is down to reviews of many peer reviewed and published studies by the most independent sources. Dilts is hardly independent, and Grinder has not done anything to test his proposals. Just read the article properly. There is no evidence for either the background theories or the efficacy of the main techniques of NLP. HeadleyDown 12:39, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

If you want consensus you are not going to get it. You have to fairly present the facts to be neutral, not present a judgement. The NPOV information says to make very explicit who says something, and not to take single sources as definitive (as you say). Wikipedia's preference of scientifically validated studies vs unvalidated is a great idea (note that you haven't told me where it says this still, though it's a good idea) since it brings us closer to the source of research. There is psychological research for and against NLP - but note the goal of wiki is to present an unbiased representation of the topic, including divergent views where these are apparent. So lets find common ground, list what we agree NLP is. Anyone who wants to write "NLP is scientifically accepted" is biased as much as "pseudoscience" (though _some_ branches of NLP do make wild claims). I think it's unproductive for me to revert your comment, we need to work together - otherwise we need an external arbiter (how do we do that?). GregA 13:16, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Hi Greg. I'm glad you have been reading the NPOV policy. The point about judgment is simply not to state your own judgment, but to say what other's believe about a subject. I never stated what I think about NLP. I simply represented what other people state. Its a good rule. We already have more than one source supporting the fact that NLP is pseudoscientific. I will add the other refs when appropriate. So far, I would say that the common ground is that NLP is not specifically a scam, not specifically a cult, and not specifically a religion. As GreyHead said, the intro should briefly represent the whole article in a balanced way according to NPOV. Presently it seems to do so. As wikipedia has an actual category "pseudoscience" I see absolutely no reason whatsoever not to have this article well within that category. It is a neutral label of wikipedia. I have already listed the characteristics of a pseudoscience, and there is more than a few scientific sources who show solid factual evidence for their belief that NLP is pseudoscientific. I would like to add, that NLP has a nice non judgmental spirit, for those willing to reach that level. It comes mostly from Perl's notions of Zen spirituality in therapy. I suggest you stay non judgmental towards pseudoscience. Any objection to that rather neutral wiki word can well be construed as a desire to promote NLP. Its very telling. Regards HeadleyDown 13:47, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

HeadleyDown 11:18, 20 September 2005 (UTC)Hello Lee. OK, I will clarify. This article needs organizing and clarifying. Science over pseudoscience is the best way to do this according to NPOV. The beginning line gives the strongest yet most neutral way of doing this ie Pseudoscience, and then going further to clarify which kind of things belong in that category. The whole article points that way. It is a very helpful line and completely agreeable with NPOV. Regards HeadleyDown 11:18, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

While I agree the article needs organising and clarifying, could you explain how you believe refering to NLP as a pseudoscience would do that? You don't seem to be judging NLP on its own merit - you are merging it with scientology, energy healings, etc - and as such it makes the waters murkier rather than clearer. GregA 11:27, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

OK, again, I am not judging NLP at all. The source I added believes that NLP is pseudoscientific. I will add more sources in time as requested and as is reasonable by cooperative wikipedia standards. I'm sure you understand that. HeadleyDown 15:13, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

HeadleyD - I hate to be repetitive - but could you please explain how you think refering to NLP as pseudoscientific would help to organise the article more clearly. ps. I am happy to accept that the source you added believes NLP is pseudoscientific, that is not in question. GregA 15:26, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

The logic HeadleyDown appears to be using goes something like this 'If something is claimed to be NLP, then it must in fact be part of the body of knowledge of NLP and therefore must be represented here as such', by the same logic then anything claiming to be science must in fact be science and must be treated as such. A point of view I scarcely think HeadleyDown would agree with. So, a clear case of double standards. Furthermore, it is clear Headleydown that you are not going to change your opinions. Reasonable attempts to provide counter examples have constantly been dismissed, contra-evidence not considered. Furthermore, you engage in slandering, patronising and/or insulting contributors rather than respond to points made in good faith. Good, neutral arbitration would seem to me to be the only way to get a fair and representative article. What is so disappointing to me is that you evidence none of the authentic hallmarks of a truly scientific approach which you spuriously claim to represent (Lee 20 Sept 2005)

Hello Lee. I'm glad you are trying to work this out. Really I do not need any kind of logic to write someone's belief that NLP is pseudoscientific. If it is a scientist's view, then it takes priority over a pseudoscience view, as per NPOV policy. If I have insulted anyone, then I am sorry. But people should stick to NPOV. So far the only intention I can see from you is to bannish the fact. Am I right? I do understand the scientific method as I have conducted experiments myself to PhD qualifications standard and beyond. Other people here may not have reached the same level of understanding. However, I remain non-judgmental. You really only need to read the research carefuly, and see what conclusions the literature review, and research reviews came to, and then state those conclusive remarks in the article. My and your views about science do not come into it. Simply follow NPOV and we will be fine. HeadleyDown 15:13, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Hi HeadleyD. Do you hold a PhD? Please note that it's not just the word pseudoscience I object to - you also claim NLP is a "self help development" (doesn't quite make sense), and related to EST & Dianetics. Surely you're not claiming that all scientific research agrees on that and these are NPOV? GregA 15:26, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

"If Neuro-Linguistic Programming is the study of the structure of subjective experience, and the study of how we know, then it is an epistemology. It can also be described as a methodology, or a meta-model ( a model of a model). Using NLP, we can isolate and describe patterns of thinking and awareness used by real people to act in the world with excellence. This is the art of modelling or replicating talent." Chris and Jules Collingwood (p.5, NLP Field Guide, Emergent Publications, Sydney, 2001)

Here you are getting confused. The study of subjective experience is not the definition of an epistemology. Epistemology is a study of how we know. I am thinking that maybe all these definitions or descriptions may go well in the criticism section to describe how inconsistent the subject is. It is a common criticism that NLP is poorly defined in a vain effort to avoid scientific scrutiny. HeadleyDown 08:36, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

A common criticism of who? Please cite sources (Lee 11.44 20 September 2005)

Sure, Sala et al 1999, Thaler Singer et al 1996, Lilienfield 2003, Druckman and Swets 1988, and Carroll 2005 all criticise NLP for this problem.

Actually, he said it's the study of the structure of subjective experience AND the study of how we know. In fact, I'm wondering if it's fair to say in some ways it studies how we know THROUGH our subjective experience. GregA 10:59, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Greg, More specfically NLP can be usefully described as a higher order epistemology that primarily studies the linguistically mediated maps of the world (Grinder & Bostic, 2001). I think that in this definition "linguistically mediated maps" and "subjective experience" are almost synomymous. Grinder also says that these linguistically mediated maps are already subject to neurological transforms. Is this orderly, logical, and aesthetically consistent? :) --Comaze 12:03, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I see the subjective experience and linguistically mediated maps similarity - you mean F2 transforms? It's interesting to note the difference between Psychologies scientific focus (IMO) on more objective evidence, and the contrast with NLP's subjective study. GregA 13:16, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

I do not think this is really a discussion fit for the disussion page here. NLP may well have an epistemology, but they still make assumptions, assertions, and hypotheses about doing such and such will result in a particular effect. Scientists measure this and find overall that they are incorrect. HeadleyDown 15:13, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

GregA, This is how I understand it: The aggregate of the "linguistically mediated maps" are the F2 transforms. The neurological transforms can be usefully notated as F1 transforms (Grinder & Bostic, 2001). When I say, "high order operational epistemology", I am referring to the F2 transforms that are of higher logical level than the F1 transforms. It is important to note that the NLP epistemology is congruent with Cognitive Science, and more interesting that Cognitive Science and Cognitive Linguistics shares many of the intellectual antecedants of NLP (Noam Chomsky, George Lakoff, Gregory Bateson, ...). For example, John Grinder did his Ph.D with Noam Chomsky in Transformational Grammar. And, also George Lakoff was Professor of Linguistics at UC Berekely while Grinder was assistant Professor of Linguistics at UC Santa Cruz. At the time when Structure of Magic Vol.1 was being written there was a split in the field between Cognititive Grammarians and Transformational Grammarians. John Grinder saw the benefits of both, and maintains that Transformational Grammar is still useful today in studying human patterning. Tom Malloy (Psych. Dept University of Utah) seems to agree with this epistemological position of NLP (especially John Grinder Ph.D) and has used the Grinder-Bateson epistemology in recent published papers...

• Citation: Malloy, T. E., Bostic St Clair, C. & Grinder, J. (2005). Steps to an ecology of emergence. Cybernetics & Human Knowing, 12, 102-119.
• Citation: Malloy, T. E., Jensen, G. C., & Song, T. (2005). Mapping knowledge to Boolean dynamic systems in Bateson’s epistemology. Nonlinear Dynamics, Psychology, and Life Sciences, 9 , 37-60.

--Comaze 22:42, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Suggested Category change/addition - Behavioural Science=

1. The "Graduate Certificate in Neuro-Linguistic Programming", a government accredited programme in Australia, this course is classified as by the NTIS.gov.au as a "Behavioural Science" [54]
2. Grinder defines NLP in terms from linguistics, information theory, formal systems, philosophy of science and epistemology (Chomsky, Gregory Bateson, etc) (Turtles, 1986) (Whispering, 2001).
3. NLP definitions are well-defined by the developers including, John Grinder Ph.D (Linguistics).
4. Grinder & Bostic (2001) recommend that the field of NLP familiarise itself with Cognitive Science and Cognitive Linguistics so that the NLP researchers can work alongside researchers in other fields.
5. Robert Dilts (scientist and NLP researcher) defines NLP as a behavioural science. While at University of California, Santa Cruz, Dilts used Electroencephalography to test some of the NLP models, including Eye Accessing Cues and Representation systems. The results were published in "Roots of NLP, 1983". Dilts definitions of NLP (Robert Dilts defining NLP (p.2, Modelling with NLP, Meta Publications, 1998))...

"NLP is a behavioural science that provides:

• An Epistemology - A system of knowledge and values
• A Methodology - Processes and prodecures for applying knowledge and values
• A Technology - Tools to aid in the applications of knowledge and values"

Please comment.. Below here :) --Comaze 10:03, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

None of this contradicts the scientific view that NLP is pseudoscientific.

 HeadleyDown 13:01, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

It seems that Headleydown no longer has the concensus that he previously used to shout down opposing views. When and how will the article be revised?

I've reverted it once. HeadleyD reverted it back. I'm hesitant to get into a reversion fight of 2 opinions - so I'd prefer to let someone else make that change (would you like to?). I'd suggest going back to the definition shortly before the pseudoscience definition was made. GregA 14:54, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Um Greg. Sure your reticence to start a war is fine. However, I am not quite sure what you are trying to do with this statement, but we just got to a point where people had stopped removing facts (after weeks of them deleting facts and valid opinions). You seem to be asking people to remove a fact. That's about the same as doing it yourself. Lets keep to NPOV and sensible cooperative and neutral editing please. HeadleyDown 15:18, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

OK chaps. I have come to a decision. I will remove the line myself in order to appease those who's own biased judgments overcome their desire to work with wikipedia NPOV. Anyway, Lets just get on with good NPOV, Right?HeadleyDown 15:47, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

HeadleyD, it is fairly clear from looking at the NLP research database that mixed results have been obtained in many cases, and negative results in others. No-one is disputing the fact that more and better quality research needs to be conducted, and if hypotheses are consistently unsupported then they must be dropped. It is also true that infortunately NLP has been associated by some purported trainers with things like speed seduction and so-called 'psychic' phenomena. No doubt the blame must lie within the field for its inability to control quality and methodological standards. However, the vociferous challenges put up by many contributors here is because these claims are not recognised by most members of the NLP community as NLP. It is also true that there was a lengthy and unseemly legal court case, and that whilst this as ongoing the field fragmented further and any centralised attempts at organisation impossible. Now this is over, hopefully things will improve. Far from trying to evade scientific scrutiny, there is a large movement within the field to try and establish greater scientific scrutiny and cross disciplinary research. Such efforts are admittedly in their infancy, but you cannot criticise a discipline for trying to implement the scientific standards which you espouse here. Time, better organisation, better standards and better quality research will ultimately decide whether NLP has anything valuable to contribute. (Lee 17.28, 20 sept 2005)

Lee, your view seems to favour NLP as a protoscience (rather than a pseudoscience)., "In philosophy of science, a protoscience is any new area of scientific endeavor in the process of becoming established. Sometimes scientific skeptics refer to these endeavors as pathological sciences. Protoscience is a term sometimes used to describe a hypothesis which has not yet been tested adequately by the scientific method, but which is otherwise consistent with existing science or which, where inconsistent, offers reasonable account of the inconsistency."

* Grinder & Delozier offer "reasonable account of inconsistency in Turtles (1986), and Whispering (2001). Also Dilts offers a congruent account in NLP Vol.1 (Dilts, Grinder, Bandler, Delozier, Cameron Bandler, 1979), & Roots of NLP (Dilts, 1983).

Sorry, I meant to add that perhaps we can continue to create a fair and balanced article by acknowledging controversy where it exists and providing arguments and evidence for both sides. For example, we could acknowledge that NLP has been associated with various 'psychic' phenomena by some but this view is not supported by the mainstream of the community providing the necessary links and citations. We could acknowledge the references to NLP as pseudoscience with the relevant study citations, especially making their specific criticisms explicit, and allow the right to respond to such criticisms, again with quotes and citations as necessary. This would seem a fair way to proceed. No information need be supressed, and no-one would feel unfairly represented. I sincerely hope we can proceed in this manner (Lee 19.04 20 sept 2005)

Thanks HeadleyD. I strongly support NPOV and obviously my opinion and yours differed in how to do that - but I wasn't willing for you and I to get into a change/change-it-back situation, hence my request for other people (and their judgements on the situation) to be involved. I like what Lee has suggested, especially the criticism of NLP for being fragmented and having no central control.

Please note that I still do not find the comment to meet NPOV - though I respect that you've moved it from the first line. We still need to make our agreements apparent, and fairly tell "the story" of NLP. GregA 00:33, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

I also strongly support NPOV. And want all views to be fairly represented within a Logical / Scholarly framework. I think I agree with Lee here. For example, in the Eye Accessing Cues/Modality/Representational systems section, I would like to see a definition as defined by the developers of that model (Grinder & Bandler, 1975a). This can be linked to Sensory system article which is what NLP submodality model is based. This can be followed by research that supports Eye Accessing Cues/Rep. Systems (EEG, etc.) and research that that has mixed results. This type of reporting is consistant with other wikipedia articles. Is this reasonable? --Comaze 23:58, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Hello NLP fans. Well, take a look at your statements over the past few days. They have all been desperately directed towards removing a fact from the article, just as has been done over the past few weeks with other facts. If I had not moved it myself, you would have removed it. So far, I can only see evidence for a disregard for NPOV, and a complete misunderstanding of views and reviews of science. Comaze. The research to date, does not support the eye accessing cues hypothesis at all. Take a while to look up the actual references and read the articles. There is more evidence to come. ----- The US National Committee was asked in 1984 to judge the various techniques, and they used 14 different judges in order to do so. The 1988 report said "Individually, and as a group, these studies fail to provide an empirical base of support for NLP assumptions...or NLP effectiveness. The committee cannot recommend the employment of such an unvalidated technique" (Druckman & Swets, 1988). Since then other objecive and empirical studies have consistently shown NLP to be ineffective and reviews and meta-analyses have given NLP a conclusively negative assessment (Bleimeister, 1988) (Morgan, 1993) (Platt, 2001) (Bertelsen, 1987). You will need to find equally independent overviews and reviews of research in order to controvert these statements.HeadleyDown 01:20, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Well at least we know who the NLPPOV editors are:) JPLogan 02:55, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

• It is important to note that some of the empirical studies of NLP were not properly conducted. For example, Einspruch & Forman (1985) present design & methodological errors found in 36 empirical studies of NLP. This included lack of knowledge of NLP Meta-Model by researchers (Journal of Counseling Psychology, 32(4), 589-596). [See abstract http://www.nlpco.com/research/General/nlp_research_criticism.html]
• I've put some more references for NLP eye accessing cues/representational system research in that area.

That is an old reference and subsequent research will have taken that into account. In fact if you read the research they actually state they took the recommendation into account. That includes the reviews of all the research. JPLogan 02:55, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

The Einspruch & Forman (1985) is still valid because the same design and methodological errors have been repeated in subsequent research. John Grinder Ph.D provides an summary of proper framework for empirical testing of human patterning in Whispering (2001). An interesting place for eye accessing cues research is EMDR. There is also some research using conjugate lateral eye movement CLEM that backs up the Eye Accessing Cues study. Lee Lady has an Biblio for Eye Accessing Cues and Cognitive Style, on his site [55]. But this is probably outside the scope of this article. --Comaze 03:26, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Changes on 21 Sep

Hello 202.67.127.248 Please provide references for his viewpoint : Also NLP practitioners are very keen to stress that some of the most important information is gathered from physiological cues and signals (gestures, posture, eye movement, breathing patterns, facial expressions including mintute facial color and facial micro muscle changes to calibrate a clients emotional, physiological and mental state, etc), RegardsHeadleyDown 04:47, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

202.67.127.248 Please slow down! Actually I don't see any recent posting to Talk from 202. GregA 06:01, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Moving not-a-science next to pseudoscience?

AliceDeGrey - you said you've reverted my fact deletion trick? All I did was cut and paste the whole "NLP is not a science" to higher in the criticisms section. It seemed that the ineffectiveness section and pseudoscience section were related and they were better together. I will ask before moving something like that again. Please tell me why you think it's inappropriate though! GregA 06:01, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Hello GregA. I agree. My apologies. But the comparison view showed that you had cut some of the list. However, I had just reverted something by Comaze that was obviously against NPOV. Your very large change does not really sit right with what the recommendations were when the "view of all" page came into effect (small, few, and incremental changes). atb AliceDeGrey 06:07, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

HI AliceDeGrey - I've only come on here recently so I've read some of the histories of interactions here - the main thing I've got from that is

1. Reversion wars are useless
2. If you rewrite a section - do just the one section and leave it 24 hours for others to comment.

All I did was move a subsection so the not-a-science and pseudoscience could be read together. I deliberately made NO changes to the text so that I was playing fair. If you agree making the scientific/evidence/pseudo stuff clear together is useful, I'll let you move it back. If not, no problem :) GregA

GregA, That makes it alot easier to follow. Those two section could probably be merged (maybe by a third party copyeditor)? --Comaze 06:15, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Hello GregA. You clearly did not remove anything. Though if you associate with Comaze, you will probably end up being associated with Comaze's history considering the "cooperation to delete" episode. There may be some merit in the merging. However, I think the other involved editor may want to comment before any more changes are made there. Regards HeadleyDown 06:19, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Hi headleyD. I won't judge a change based on who did it - it's what they do. I guess over time I'll trust some user's changes more than others. Hi comaze - I think it is easier to follow, thanks. When you said "we are working to merge science and pseudoscience - were you taking a guess at my intentions or do you mean there's some discussion about that I've missed? There is a difference between "not a science" and "pseudoscience" which probably should stay (I'm not sure yet). Some aspects of "not a science" could be moved to "pseudoscience" though I'm sure. At the moment I feel this whole things is a bit of a mess - the layout needs an update, and the POV creeping in from both sides.

Damn - I see there's more reversion happening. HeadleyD, for the record, I was hoping that you'd be involved with which you thought belonged to "not-science" and which belonged to "pseudo science". Lets get some feedback and please lets not move anything until anyone else who cares about where it is has a chance to say something here (24 hours?) GregA 06:36, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Ummm... HeadleyD, AliceDeGrey... you both reverted it but neither has said what you actually think of it :) GregA 06:39, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

There was enough said in the summary. HeadleyDown 06:54, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

My apologies headleyD - I assumed you had an opinion on the subject. I do appreciate you enforcing waiting 24hours for changes that may involve some debate. I wouldn't have done it if I thought it was anything other than quite minor. GregA 07:15, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

• Well basically phrases "NLP is not a science" and "NLP as a pseudoscience" are almost synomomous so I just assumed that was your intention. I think that would tidy the article and make it more easily deciphered . --Comaze 06:44, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Do what Comaze? Where's your logic now? Anything that is not a science is a pseudoscience? You've been reading the wrong logic books. I also believe the "NLP is a pseudoscientific..." line should go right back up to the top. Just because a bunch NLP sucking flakes shake in their boots when they hear the word pseudoscience, it does not mean that you should ignore NPOV policy and put science last. CarlOxford 07:23, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

This is just silly and pointless. Just wait for people to respond before replacing after reversions. Its very simple. HeadleyDown 06:54, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Agreed, let's wait 24 hours. --Comaze 07:07, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Hi Everybody. As per my earlier recommendation, can the section not be revised along the lines of citing the studies that evaluate NLP as inneffective, then allowing any relevant responses to that criticism (as per the discussion here) then a final comment agreeable to all. If you want to have the reference to pseudoscience in the article, it would be balanced to say that 'some scientists have evaluated NLP as pseudoscientific (add relevant cites)' and then allow a response to that statement. Science per se does not make statements, only particular scientists working with particular data at particular times. CarlOxford, I don't see how refering to people working in good faith as 'NLP sucking flakes' helps matters. Lets simply cite the evidence available and let people decide. There also seems to be a fairly robust set of criterion for evaluating a pseudoscience in the relevant section which could form the basis for a similar evaluation. No-one here is saying that NLP should not be subject to scientific scrutiny. Furthermore, no one wants to suppress any of the evidence so far, just allow a reasonable discussion about it. The research database currently is way too small, and primarily centres on eye-accesing cues and primary rep systems. There are many other aspects of NLP which need to be properly evaluated. Input on experimental design would be welcomed. Those aspects of NLP focusing on the analysis of language are especially under-researched currently. (Lee 110.15 21 Sept 205)

Hello Lee. Just the other day you said: "No HeadleyDown 'science' does not say NLP is pseudoscientific. You say NLP is pseudoscientific by selectively choosing your sources and choosing to ignore others. You have no justification for claiming to speak for the field of science as a whole. You are trying to appropriate an authority that you do not have. Some scientific sources have claimed aspects of NLP (or purporting to be NLP) to be pseudoscientific, other scientific sources do not support this view." However, you have not provided any scientific sources that say NLP is not pseudoscientific. I looked for those sources and there are none. On the other hand, the sources that do say it NLP is pseudoscientific refer directly to the whole of the NLP research and the research reviews and meta-analyses. A scientific fact can be presented according to NPOV as long as it is not controverted. Your or my opinion about it does not matter. If another scientist states that NLP is not pseudoscientific, then we will have to balance things. But there is no argument. It is an accepted fact that NLP is pseudoscientific. NPOV states that science comes first, and the most important thing is simply to have a name associated with the quote. Regards.HeadleyDown 09:49, 21

Hi HeadleyD, I assume that these are the sources you refer to. 'Sala et al 1999, Thaler Singer et al 1996, Lilienfield 2003, Druckman and Swets 1988, and Carroll 2005 all criticise NLP for this problem.' Are these all independent analyses or do they refer to each other? Give me some time to look these over and the specific criticisms. Any help from other contibutors would be appreciated in this matter, especially in relation to what aspects of NLP were being tested, methodological design etc. My intention here is not to refute these findings, but to get more specific information into the article. As pointed out, the research databse does not universally support the conclusion that there is no evidence to support some of the hypotheses. Furthermore, why do you consider the published article in the peer reviewed Cybernetics and Human Knowledge by Malloy (Psychology faculty, University of Utah) and Grinder/St Clair inadmissable?

Hi. By NPOV standards they can be considered independent and quotable. Sure there are studies out there that say certain techniques work to some extent. However, the overviews or reviews of these multiple studies have shown that NLP gets a statistically negative result. Of course you may quote NLP advocates stating that it doesn't matter. But these are secondary, because they only have pseudoscientist's flim flam to help them, such as anecdotes, passing the buck, and obscurantism. This is all valid to wikipedia. But we do need to organize it in NPOV terms. There are certain priorities that are helpful and clarifying.HeadleyDown 13:02, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Hi HeadleyD. I'm working on the science part of the parallel page. I was wondering if you could clear up a reference for me?

In the pseudoscience section, you wrote:

The characteristics of pseudoscience have been identified in NLP promotion. These are (Lilienfeld et al 2003) [4]:

*The use of obscurantist language and psycho-babble (eg metaprograms, parapragmatics, sub-modalities etc)

*The absence of connectivity (Levelt 1995) (etc etc)

I see from your reference that Lilienfeld did indeed write a list of pseudoscience characteristics which you've listed in its entirety. Are you saying that Lilienfield related these all to NLP, or are you just listing what a pseudoscience is?

Thanks GregA 23:08, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Hi Greg. Sure, Lilienfeld was relating those points directly to NLP. It it best to be clear about how NLP is pseudoscientific, and although the details are in the links, it would be much clearer to state how nlp is pseudo within the article as long as there are not too many words there.

I agree we should make clear what Lilienfeld says. Could you give us a specific quote of a whole paragraph? GregA 05:10, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes Greg. He said "NLP is a pseudoscientific self help development in the same mould as Dianetics and EST. The list of characteristics are more of a definition of pseudoscience, but he also refers specifically to each characteristic within the text about NLP. In order to keep it neutral, I decided not to quote all of that in the article, it is extremely scathing and takes up too much space. As I believe Druckman and Swets said, if the claims of NLP turn out to be unsubsantiated, the verdict will be a harsh one indeed. So, the verdict IS a harsh one indeed, and has been voiced by far more scientists than just Lilienfeld. For the sake of wikipedia, though, we can try to keep it encyclopedic and neutrally toned.HeadleyDown 06:25, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Excellent, thanks Headley. GregA 10:58, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

So lets have those studies in that do support 'certain techniques' as well as those that do not. We can of course cite and discuss the specific criticisms of the studies you cite. (who?)

Sure! They are already in the article. They have been there for months. They took all studies into account. RegardsHeadleyDown 14:59, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

What is clear is that HeadleyD is clearly pushing a personal POV whilst trying to hide behind NPOV. There is no point in trying to try to get a collaborative effort going here because his mind is fully made up and he believes himself to be fully in possession of all the relevant facts.There is only one version acceptable to HeadlyD and that is his which he equates with the entirety of the scientific establishment. As a self-appointed guardian of truth and science, possibly of the professional'sceptic' variety, it is clear that he is determined to pursue his agenda to associate NLP with cult activity, Scientology and the like, based upon the three citations that he has produced to support his viewpoint which actually they do not - they merely state the research so far has produced mixed results. The only way to proceed at this point as I see it would be to engage some kind of arbitration. This seems unlikely as I can find no such facility on Wikipedia. So,the future seems to be a tedious reversion war, a nitpicking over minor points whilst we try and respect the NPOV whilst he flagrantly flouts it at every turn. By the way, to establish whether sockpuppeting is going on, all contributors could forward relevant e-mail addresses to administration to check if necessary (Lee 23.40 21sept 2005)

HeadleyD, the following quote is from the American Psychological Society- distinguishing science from pseudoscience section. 'Distinguish skepticism from cynicism. One danger of teaching students to distinguish science from pseudoscience is that we can inadvertently produce students who are reflexively dismissive of any claim that appears implausible. Skepticism, which is the proper mental set of the scientist, implies two seemingly contradictory attitudes (Sagan, 1995): an openness to claims combined with a willingness to subject these claims to incisive scrutiny. As space engineer James Oberg (see Sagan, 1995) reminded us, we must keep our minds open but not so open that our brains fall out. In contrast, cynicism implies close-mindedness. I recall being chastised by a prominent skeptic for encouraging researchers to keep an open mind regarding the efficacy of a novel psychotherapy whose rationale struck him as farfetched. However, if we foreclose the possibility that our preexisting beliefs are erroneous, we are behaving unscientifically. Skepticism entails a willingness to entertain novel claims; cynicism does not'

Furthermore, this is the verdict from the meta analysis. Quotes taken from article on sceptics dictionary site

'A few years ago Dr. Heap, Principal Clinical Psychologist for Sheffield Health Authority and lecturer at Sheffield University, did a very careful and thorough study of all the research that has been done into certain claims of NLP, citing 70 papers in all.

'This verdict on NLP is .... an interim one. Einsprech and Forman are probably correct in insisting that the effectiveness of NLP therapy undertaken in authentic clinical contexts of trained practitioners has not yet been properly investigated. If it turns out to be the case that these therapeutic procedures are indeed as rapid and powerful as is claimed, no one will rejoice more than the present author. If however these claims fare no better than the ones already investigated then the final verdict on NLP will be a harsh one indeed."

Hmm, case not closed then HeadlyD? (Lee 00.28, 22nd Sept 2005)

Hello Lee. Thanks for the pointers. RegardsHeadleyDown 04:10, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Hello all editors. I must firstly say that there is a lot of unwarranted objection here concerning HeadleyD's edits. I will go through them, and if I see anything that can be made more neutral, I will. I will not delete any cited facts because that is against NPOV. Concerning your comments, I will focus on what is actually relevant to the article. There are many editors here, not just Lee, GregA and Comaze. Like me, they treat wikipedia in a reasonable way, without posting or deleting vast tracts of objection or editing. They will, as you may have noticed, revert any deletion of facts. Take a look and you will notice this has happened over the past few days by Comaze and GregA. On a positive note, this is happening less than before. The prior weeks involved wholesale deletion of facts with Comaze's stated commitment to change the article to Bandler Grinder viewpoint only. That is completely unacceptable. If you want to write a promotional testimonial to NLP then do it elsewhere. The Carl Sagan suggestion is interesting. I have a link to some of his work that will do well in the Pseudoscience section, but I believe explanatory paragraphs will be unnecessary. The Heap reference shows that NLP is scientifically unsupported although that is almost 20 years old. Thankfully, due to NPOV editor's reversion of deleted facts, and editors peace keeping removal of fact from the first line (after objections from obviously NLP promoting people) this article is actually coming along quite well. Lets keep up the good work. JPLogan 02:26, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

• JPLogan, you've misunderstood me, my intention is to write this article according to NPOV. NLP was defined by Grinder & Bandler, with assistance from Dilts, Delozier, Cameron Bandler (NLP Vol.1, 1979). This is a commonly accepted POV (not just my POV). HeadleyDown's mysticism, fuzzy thinking energy, EST, Scientology, Dianetics, engram bias that has been mixed up with some NLP training that he has been exposed to, is simply not NLP, and does not belong in this article (except in a minor way). Gregory Bateson (NLP's foundational mentor) has no tolerance for fuzzy thinking mystical energy concepts. Energy has little or no significance in human thinking or communication. --Comaze 02:45, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee

I propose that we to move to negotiation or Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee. An alternative is to work on a temporary version of this page and then allow a neutral party to select the version that is scholarly, logical, and best represents NPOV. --Comaze 23:23, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Is it possible to work collaboratively on a temporary version?

I notice the choice is arbitration or mediation. I see a mediator was involved earlier this month - should we do that again first (arbitration page requests mediation first).

Definitely good ideas GregA 23:30, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

The mediator came through RfC (Request for Comment) on use of the term "Energy". The mediator agreed that "energy" was being used in a non-standard way, and asked that it be defined. He also asked that "high performance" and "excellence" be defined. I suggest that we work on an alternative version of the page, and then move for arbitration. --Comaze 00:06, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Here is the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Template.

Hello Comaze. Considering your history and stated commitment to making the article Bandler Grinder viewpoint only, I suggest that you tread more carefully. I will work on defining the energy statement more clearly, although the suggestion to work on alternative versions is completely unnecessary. All that needs to be done is to use NPOV policy to place an appropriate quote for any of those definitions. Lets keep up the NPOV work.JPLogan 02:30, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

JPLogan, Keep in mind that Bateson has no tolerance for "fuzzy" concepts of energy in human language or thinking process (see example in Index of Angels Fear, Bateson). --Comaze 02:50, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Comaze. I seriously don't like being called a sockpuppet. Here's my email strictly for wiki discussion - alicedegrey@yahoo.co.uk. If Bateson stated something relevant to the article then simply place it appropriately according to NPOV. But there are other views that will be represented.AliceDeGrey 03:13, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

I have (edit out/withdrawn) this implied statement. My appologies. --Comaze 03:35, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Due to constant reversions it looks like we have no other choice other than arbitration. In preparation, I have set up a temporary site Talk:Neuro-linguistic programming(Temp) where I am developing an alternate version of this article. Once this alternate is of high enough quality we can seek to merge and replace sections via arbitration. --Comaze 04:46, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Let's cooperatively keep the changes incremental so other editors have a chance to assess them

Hello Comaze. Now I'm going to be polite. Please stop with the large section changes. People are going to see it as a distraction or confusion tactic. If you want to make changes, simply do it incrementally, leaving time for people to assess your first proposed change. Nobody has had a chance to comment on it yet. It is easily accessible from the history page. Personally I will say that it is biased towards Grinder, and it should not have the scientific description of its methods removed. Basically do not remove facts. Keep them there, and work cooperatively.HeadleyDown 04:28, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Yeh for sure, the provisional version is not good at all. Firstly, it removes key facts, and secondly it is no way near as neutral as the "view of all" version.AliceDeGrey 05:30, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Alternate version

The alternate version is not complete yet. I'll ask for comments and opinions from neutral parties and it will be copyedited before an arbitrator is called. --Comaze 05:48, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

The arbitration process has already began. I suggest that you improve the quality of your "version". I will incorporate any of your contributions if they are of high quality and in line with NPOV. --Comaze 04:46, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Hello Comaze. What exactly do you mean by two different versions?HeadleyDown 04:55, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Alternative Version: Neuro-linguistic programming(Temp)

HeadleyDown, May I suggest that you put your attention towards cleaning up your version by removing POV and commentary, and I'll incorporate any high quality changes in the alternate version, an external arbitrator will be called to settle and resolve any NPOV disputes, and replace or merge the two versions. RfCs can also be called as part of a mediation process before arbitration. --Comaze 05:48, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Hi comaze and Headley and other interested editors. I've no idea whether setting up 2 independent pages will resolve differences, but it's an interesting idea and I'm willing to give it a go. In the interests of eventual merging, I hope it's fair for the "supporting faction" to invite the "pseudoscience faction" (is that a fair name?) and others to make comments in the talk section of each other's pages, so that alternative views can be integrated.

Also, I think it's still worth considering the overall layout of the page for either/both - especially in light of eventual merging (I don't think either is in the desired structure yet!) GregA 12:04, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Proposed Brief Article as another option for arbitration

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Neuro-linguistic_programming&oldid=23739724

Hi all. Here is a brief version of the article. This is in response to the other external editor who came a few days ago. My intention is to get the article down to size whilst keeping all the main facts in a readable format. I deliberately cut a lot of the examples as they took up a lot of space and were not really so exemplary. As far as I am aware, I did not cut any referenced material. I took time to explain each of the various parts of NLP (the neuro, the linguistic etc in the overview. I also cut a lot of the critical section down, placing some of the scientific finding in the main article because they are mostly neutral statement of fact, rather than criticisms per se. The article file size is way down.

Oh, I should add, a lot of removal was intended to reduce confusion inherent in NLP, in order for the reader to manage to get through it without having to look up strange NLP obscurantisms. They really do make the language very biased.

Feedback will be appreciated.HeadleyDown 09:16, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Hello Headly. Feedback: The new article is SERIOUSLY biased, concentrating almost entirely on negative claims about NLP but without an intelligent questioning of the validity of those claims. To suggest that this article is unbaised is simply unsupportable.

Hello Lee. I have a chance to be more specific. The views protrayed here are fact. They conform to NPOV.HeadleyDown 11:24, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

For example: A and B say NLP is a cult. OK, now what definition of a "cult" is being used here? How specifically does NLP qualify as a cult within that definition?

Hello again Lee. The defition of cult is clearly spelt out in the literature. It also conforms with wikipedia's article on cults.HeadleyDown 11:24, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Does the fact that the Naziis highjacked the theory of evolution mean that the theory of evolution is an inherently Nazi ideology? No? Then why is NLP to be associated with Scientology and other cults just because those cults use certain techniques which are similar to methods found in NLP, especially when Scientology, for example, pre-dates NLP by around 20 years and so certainly didn't get its ideas FROM NLP.

No, from the article, it is more clear to take a Dianetics-NLP process viewHeadleyDown 11:24, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

If you were to take the time to look at the back of The Structure OF MAGIC l you would wind a lengthy list of the people and books Grinder and Bandler used in developing their ideas. I don't see L. Ron Hubbard in there. Do you?

Hi again Lee. I would restrict your view to the inside of books. Any cover tends to be promotional. Although, I understand that NLP books are about as promotional on the inside as the cover.HeadleyDown 11:24, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

If this version of the article is posted it will be a triumph of pure bigotry, IMHO.

Hello again Lee. I believe your term bigotry is quite biased. Though, I am quite happy to balance it with "scientific" if you like.HeadleyDown 11:24, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

HeadleyD, I note you have been responding to a contributor who has not been signing their ID as Lee. None of these contributions are from me. I take care to sign any contributions. I do not know who the above contributor is, but please do not assume that they from me or respond as if they are. However, assuming that know things when you are mistaken seems to be a strong point of yours Lee1 16:32, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Hello Lee. Actually you have missed signing a few times. Its a little confusing. Doesn't really matter though. As long as you have something factual to contribute within NPOV policy.HeadleyDown 17:30, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Hello HeadleyD. Your version is far better. Very concise and much reduced redundancy. I'll revert it up there myself. I suggest that if anyone wants to add to it, it should be strictly withing NPOV, using very concise language. I will get to work on it straight away. If anyone worries about anything being left out, instead of reverting please paste the passages you think need pasting, and we can get right down to distilling them to encyclopedic status. Great stuff.JPLogan 02:08, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback folks. I have added some things to the article. I gave a concise definition and explanation of principles. A few references were added also. I kept is as clear and well referenced as possible to avoid disputes as much as possible. I did change the order and wording of the research. Actually, I was not the original poster of those pieces of information, so I made the language more neutral and fitting with the actual review/published papers. I removed a few point that were not referenced. Feel free to reference them and paste them back if possible or necessary. regardsHeadleyDown 07:03, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

I also like the brevified/concise version in preference to the longer one.

ps. You may have noticed the other page is largely comaze POV at present. This is not a implicit acceptance of the POV, just my attention is elsewhere for now.

Sure GregA. I understand it is quite hard sometimes to seperate hype from fact. Best thing is to learn as much about NPOV as possible. Your balance has been noted by others also.JPLogan 03:53, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Hi. You have clearly been doing loads of stuff. I'll get my act together and get the linkwords into links to other pages when I have time. TataAliceDeGrey 08:03, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Its extremely good, Headley. It looks much more like an encyclopedia article now. I would say that the principles of NLP do need to be there, or the presuppositions. But they only need to be placed there as a 3 or 4 line paragraph without the NLP hype and boosterisms. I noticed you have removed a lot of redundancy from the whole page. That's great. This is actually the first time I saw you remove anything from the article (unlike other editors). You did it very neutrally as far as my perception goes. I would also like to hear feedback from outside sources. best regardsAliceDeGrey 09:44, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

That version is easier to read and cleans up the critcism section nicely. Good job. I do have a few objection though. Firstly, my concern is that it makes 10 references to Scientology:

• 6 direct references to Dianetics (the original name for Scientology),
• 2 to Scientology.
• 2 to engram (the central concept in Scientology that has been dropped from neuroscience).

Additionally, this version uses Scientology terminology and implied that it is Science terminology (eg. engram, clearing, traumas, ...). References to NLP as a methodology for modeling high performers has also been removed (this is a widely held definition and needs to be represented). Just wanted to bring these issues to your attention so that you can clean it up. But otherwise, a good job in outlining your position. I'll merge it into the alternate version. --Comaze 09:52, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Hey Comaze. The engram is the central concept of anchoring, eye accessing cues, and the mind/body part of NLP. I s'pose its better to be called a sockpuppet than a gurusuckpuppet. C.Oxford@hotmail.comCarlOxford 09:01, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Engram the central concept in anchoring? hmmm, let's see, Pavlov's classical conditioning rings a bell. --211.30.48.164 03:29, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Sure Comaze. I will post in the references to back up the related viewpoints on scientology. From off the top of my head, I believe it was a prof of psycholinguistics who mentioned scientology. BTW, dianetics is still used within scientology. So you could say it was the original name, but it would be more accurate to say they are slightly seperate subjects. Whatever, if a view states the word scientology, then by NPOV, that is the word that will end up in the article. Sure, the reference to engrams and traumas etc was from a Dutch researcher. I will add the reference (if I have not already done so). I can also write, "just as in scientology and dianetics NLP uses the engram concept...etc". But I don't think that will be necessary as it is a widely known concept in psychology (though largely debunked). RegardsHeadleyDown 10:36, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Hi All, I decided to check out further the studies cited by Headlyd as as per his previous quote 'reviews and meta-analyses have given NLP a conclusively negative assessment (Bleimeister, 1988) (Morgan, 1993) (Platt, 2001) (Bertelsen, 1987)'

I started with the most recent. Platt 2001 refers to an article in Tuk magazine, Training Journal, it is not a study - its references are Dylan Morgan as does HeadlyD. So I checked the Morgan reference. Morgan 1993 refers to an article listed in the sceptical dictionary, 'A scientific assessment of NLP'. It is not a study in itself, instead referring to the meta study conducted by Dr Heap quoted above which states that NLP has been insufficiently researched. Contrary to the impression he tries to give, these are articles that all refer to each other! Check this guys refs carefully, he is being misleading in the extreme. In the alternate version for arbitration, I propose we cite the studies such as Dr Heaps VERBATIM (Lee 10.49 Sept 2005)

Hello Lee. If you have been refering to the web versions you will notice that they have been cut short, without the references or the abstract. You will find crossreferencing in some, but that is simply because they are reviews of all prior research. My statements were neutral. Unsupported means that there was no evidence to conclude that NLP's assumptions or efficacy was correct, and if you take time to read what I had written, you will notice that I did write Heap's statement verbatim.HeadleyDown 10:08, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

HeadleyD, from the article... 'For example the conjecture that a person has a primary representational system (PRS) which is observed in the choice of words has been found to be false according to rigorous research reviews (Morgan, 1993) (Platt, 2001). The assertion that a person has a PRS which can be determined by the direction of eye movements found even less support (Morgan, 1993)' - this is a blatant manipulation of the facts. Rigorous research? Morgan is an article referring to the Heap Study, Platt in that bastion of peer review science 'Training Journal UK' referring to the Dylan article selectively misquoting the Heap study to support a misinformed and blatantly biasd POV. You are being deliberately obscurant. Lets submit that sentence to arbitration shall we. (Lee 11.19 22 sept 2005)

For example, I note you left the first half of Heaps quote out -'This verdict on NLP is .... an interim one. Einsprech and Forman are probably correct in insisting that the effectiveness of NLP therapy undertaken in authentic clinical contexts of trained practitioners has not yet been properly investigated' Any particular reason? Not entirely supportive of your POV is it? You should remove all references to Morgan and Platt as being rigorous research and cite their references e.g Heap. (Lee 11.28 22 Sept 2205)

Hi Lee. For the sake of conciseness and precision, scientifically unsupported will do. It is the same thing in science. As I said, of course subsequent reviews will also take into account the prior ones. That is the nature of scientific examination. By NPOV standards they are completely acceptable. RegardsHeadleyDown 10:36, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

'For the sake of conciseness and precision, scientifically unsupported will do' - says who? You, I suppose. The very reason neutral arbitration is required. How is leaving out the one half of the actual verdict precise exactly? 'As I said, of course subsequent reviews will also take into account the prior ones. That is the nature of scientific examination'- nonsense. Neither Platt nor Morgan are scientific reviews in any way as well you know. (Lee 11.50 22 sept 2005)

Hi Lee. I've collected most of the source material from our uni database and library. I don't see any problems yet. The term "scientifically unsupported" is used several times for describing what they conclude about the whole research into NLP. Briefness is absolutely fine to keep the filesize down. I reckon you need to go back to NPOV and also take a proper look through the actual material. Instead of all the silly bickering, why not just work on doing something useful with the NLP page? For example, what do you think needs adding to the provisional page without overstuffing it with hype? I suggest a brief paragraph on principlesAliceDeGrey 10:57, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Hi Alice. Well, we'll just have to agree to disagree about the sources. I'm fine with quoting scientific studies verbatim in a balanced way as per Dr Heap, but to refer to Platt and MOrgan as rigorous scientific research is misleading. I'll incorporate this in the alt version. I will put together a paragraph on principles in coming days as you suggest. (Lee 12.14 22 Sept 2005)

Sounds fine to me, Lee. As long as it is representative. I have a whole bunch more refs coming in BTW. So much to do, so little time!HeadleyDown 12:01, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Great, lets hope they're all of the same high standard as your previous ones. I found this from Druckman Swets report - 'the committee found promise in the importance that NLP attributes to decoding an expert 's behavior as a guide to training a beginner' . More selective editing Headleyd. Really Lee1 15:35, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Hello Lee. I take the view from the latest research. That gives the best overview. From that point it is very easy to see the actual conclusive results of each study. You are quoting from the speculative sections. Really, they were all conclusive studies (No scientific support for the assumptions or efficacy of NLP). This is the general understanding of how published papers are read. The fact is, if it is some significant person's opinion (eg, the views of a scientist), then it will be represented according to NPOV policy.HeadleyDown 16:45, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Great, got some good ones coming up for you. Lee1 18:24, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

HeadleyD - you are right that if a researcher is aggregating research from multiple sources that it is crucial to differentiate between the experimental results and the conclusions generated from those results. Low quality aggregated studies may neglect go back to the source of evidence they're working with. Their conclusions are very important though - they describe how the results fit with other theories and studies, flaws in their procedure and suggestions for further research. If you choose to reinterpret their results with your own conclusions, then you are operating outside of NPOV. GregA 22:46, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Platt

Hi GregA. Just make a simple quote. If someone says, "all the reviews of the studies of NLP indicate that the theory and efficacy are scientifically unsupported", then they can be quoted as such. If you get into "this single study says this and that single study says that", you are going make a 500k page. Also, you are not allowed to come to your own conclusions. It has to be other people's work as per NPOV policy. RegardsHeadleyDown 00:43, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Headley, yes you can quote someone as saying something. Though, until it is checked for validity etc, it's anecdotal.

Of course, a finding in a research paper is different, and holds more weight. If I write a paper and quote a finding, then it is not me who said it - though you could quote me as saying whether I agreed or not - though that's my opinion unless I'm adding some new research findings to the fact.

Anyway... lets take this attribution to Platt (2001)

• Most evidence used by NLP practitioners to promote the use of NLP appears to be “unsubstantiated, uncorroborated or entirely anecdotal”
• However, NLP "models" have been rigorously reviewed and tested by independent scientists but the results show that NLP has “no significant scientific support”
• The assertion that a person has a PRS which can be determined by the direction of eye movements found even less support
• Since then objective and empirical studies and review papers have consistently shown NLP to be ineffective and reviews or meta-analyses have given NLP a conclusively negative assessment
• In sum, NLP promotes methods which are false, inaccurate or ineffective
• etc

Platt actually says

• that 11/32 of studies on matching predicates found that they influenced rapport, 21/32 didn't
• 8/35 studies on eye-accessing cues found that using them had a significant impact when utilised in personal interactions. Yes, that means 27/35 found they did not have a significant impact on the interaction (which is also different to us not having eye-accessing cues).
• 7/36 found evidence supporting the use of rep systems - but 29/36 found no evidence to support the use of rep systems. (Note again, this finding is specifically for using the rep systems giving no advantage)
• 5/9 studies found the phobia cure effective

Personally, I've found when using various predicates that for a lot of people they have no impact at all. And then I meet someone who uses one or 2 systems extensively, and when I've deliberately used the systems they don't use they simply do not understand - until I rephrase in their own predicates. I don't know how you'd test for that kind of effect, or if any of the studies Platt read allowed for that kind of effect. And it doesn't matter here for NPOV

All we can say from that perspective is that NLP proponents have criticised psychological studies for not formulating a hypothesis that correctly reflects the pattern discovered and where it is useful. And that NLP teaches that different patterns are useful only in certain situations, and flexibility to choose a relevant pattern is one of the skills taught during training.

We can play the add-up game, though that's not scientific. My point is that Platt DOES condemn eye-accessing cues (etc), but that that is his opinion when reading the above-mentioned research. Platt's summary itself only conclusively shows that the studies are contradictory and inconclusive, and we need better research.

GregA 02:28, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Sure GregA. Good questions. As an encyclopedia article though a breakdown of results will simply be confusing. I can't see how we can do that within the article without causing a mess. I think you may have a slightly different idea of anecdotal from most people:) There are some people who think NLP is the science of attaining an unfair advantage in business, and others who's view is that it is a pseudoscientific grab bag of banality and second hand opinion. Best to stick to clear descriptions and what people's views are, as in NPOV policy (IMHO).RegardsHeadleyDown 03:48, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Of course you can't give a breakdown of results, it would cause a mess and also would not be helpful.

What you can say is that the research varies widely in its results, and more (and better) research is required. You can say that some people believe the different results prove it's not effective, while others believe it proves the researchers didn't perform the patterns appropriately, and that better research is required.

You mention 2 (of many!) biased descriptions of NLP and then say it's best to stick to clear descriptions - how do you define clear, when the scientific opinion is also divided? GregA 04:00, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Hi Greg. Best way is to stick with concluding comments and then quote a name. I'm actually still working on that. I am not sure about divisions though. There is a division in terms of single studies and reviews. The single studies will say some, none, some, no, a little, weak to no support, and on. The reviews all come to the conclusion that NLP is scientifically unsupported. The books that quote the reviews all come to the same conclusion (nlp assumptions and efficacy are theoretically and scientifically unsupported). RegardsHeadleyDown 05:03, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Another view

I'm afraid I detect potential problems in the proposed re-write.

Firstly, I don't see any awareness of the limitations of trying to apply the scientific method to psychology in general. At the start of his book "The Mind's Past", Michael Gazzaniga makes the specific point that "psychology" is not susceptible to the experimental rigor that can be applied in areas such as neuropsychology, neurophysiology, etc.

Nor do I see any recognition that one cannot prove a negative, which in this case means that failure to prove a spwecific NLP concept in a particular experiment does not *prove* - as is usually claimed - that this *disproves* some claim made by NLPers.

Nor do I see any consideration of the viability of the people being referenced. Skimming through the article I almost immediately spotted one person who I know has a highly personal grudge against one particular NLP trainer which he has projected onto NLP in general (I know because we've excghanged several e-mails with the person concerned). Likewise I have been informed that one online author of material highly critical of NLP has never attended an NLP training or group of any description and is therefore making many totally unfounded allegations entirely out of his own imagination/prejudices/second, third, fourth, fifth-hand reports.

Nor do I see any awareness that there all that carries the label of NLP doesn't necessarily belong within NLP. For example, whilst the current articles make numerous references to the work of Robert Dilts, there is a growing awareness that some of his best known ideas - so-called logical levels being a prime example - don't actually make a whole lot of sense and don't fit in with the basic concepts of "true" NLP - see Grinder's comments in "Whispering in the Wind" for example.

It seems to me that what is needed as a starting point for a genuinely useful article on NLP is a far clearer definition of what will and won't be counted as "NLP". I realise whatever result is arrived at is bound to be somewhat arbitrary, but I don't see any way round that. After all, whatever article is produced, it can still carry pointers to other topics as being allegedly associated with NLP.

Please don't get me wrong. I totally agree that some pretty ludicrous claims have been made in favour of NLP, and some of the criticisms are entirely justified. However, this does NOT invalidate NLP itself. The ill-advised actions of the over-enthusiastic neither validate nor invalidate the object of their enthusiasm. If they did then surely the entire article would consist of nothing but "A says this about NLP, but B, C and D say that". Which gives us great insight into what A thinks, and why B, C and D don't agree - but doesn't actually tell us much about NLP.

Rather than take up a lot more space here, may I invite you to visit this FAQ on my website which deals specifically with experiments on the "eye accessing cues" and relates this to the question of scientific testability of NLP in general.

http://www3.mistral.co.uk/bradburyac/nlpfax09.htm

Andy Bradbury (author of "Develop Your NLP Skills")

OH! Hello again Andy Bradbury. Sorry, do you share the same IP address as Lee?HeadleyDown 11:29, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Hi Andy, Thanks for your comments, they're good to see. There are a few of us here who see HeadleyD and JPLogan as hugely biased in their posting - and a few of us are now posting on the (Temp) site (see the pointer at the top of the article). This has meant our articles have started to differ greatly - which will make it hard to pull back together - though it also means we've got a short opportunity to spell out our takes on the subject. The pseudo-science group has simplified their argument and got down to what they are saying. The proponent group is still in progress (and we could do with input or general comments anyone!) towards simplifying it. In that sense, it's been worthwhile.

However, depending on negotiation/mediation/arbitration, we could end up where we started. Hopefully we'll atleast get some of the site matching together through agreement and reading each other's stuff. More when mediation starts, and if that doesn't make it the arbitration will make the final call. Hopefully we'll start a meaningful dialogue soon and get the ball rolling. Thanks again, GregA 10:03, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Thankyou GregA. You are turning out to be a promising source of balance:) RegardsHeadleyDown 10:47, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Hallo Greg. You seem fair enough, and certainly compared to the nlp zealots who have been trying to turn an encyclopedia into a sales pitch competition. From ABradbury's link, I'd say its pretty obvious he knows absolutely zip about science. His books keep going on about how NLP is the most powerful synthesis of psychology in the biz world etc. The books are just like the other nlp books; Completely without any realistic view of psychology, human nature, or work. He even said psychology is not science. Tell that to psychology students who measure people in studies. The link talks about doing good research and how to do it, and then comes back with stuff about science being inappropriate for testing nlp. Its just a lot of confused and frustrated ranting because the results don't agree with nlpee claims. I learned a lot from nlp: Mostly about deception and self delusion. Sorry mate, you've been duped.CarlOxford 09:12, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Hi Carl, I was just chatting to my father yesterday about the NLP school I studied with. I was saying how lucky I was to have picked one that didn't support some of the crap other schools are known for. It was largely luck for me - I picked the school that was a government-recognised training organisation with government accredited trainers... I didn't know how else to pick between trainings. They made no grand claims in their sales, and in class the grandest claim was that NLP patterns are more effective than what psychologists are teaching for change work. What psychologists are teaching is interesting too, I enjoy the theory and some of it influences how I counsel people. It's also interesting in light of the gap between applied clinical skills and the research area which psychologists continually talk about trying to reduce - the scientific rigours are too difficult to apply in some settings, though outcome-based research is a good step in that direction. Anyway - the skills I learned work well, and in combination with my counselling background. I don't choose to use rep systems or eye-accessing stuff, a lot of what I work with is presuppositions, association/dissociation, state management, the meta-model, and ecology - and a lot of that is similar to CBT and REBT stuff. GregA 03:22, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Hello Andy (81.158.79.60). As a contributor to wikipedia it is not acceptable to submit your own work. Please refer to NPOV policy. Concerning grudges etc: It does not matter what anybody submits as long as it falls within NPOC policy (it has to be not your own work, but a stated view of somebody, preferably with a cited name attached (for verification). We should not be promoting our own views, rather building a balanced article. Admittedly, over the past few weeks there has been a reversion conflict. This has led to some extremism and some extensive deletions of cited fact. The dual page effort has led to a level of improvement that has not been possible over the past two weeks. Statements have been properly attributed, comments and partisan views have been removed, tone has been improved, and fact has had a chance to be heard. Balance remains to be attained, and I can see people are working on it. Neutral definitions have been attained with a NPOV policy towards science rather than pseudoscience as stated in the policy of wikipedia. Today, the page has undergone a large deletion of fact, with no NPOV reasoning for it. Under the circumstances, the only remedy is to revert the page. There are far less destructive solutions when you look through NPOV policy and tutorial. Cooperation is crucial here. We will all benefit by working together. RegardsHeadleyDown 10:16, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Headley

Hello Andy Bradbury. I'm afraid that is correct. Your own work is not admissable. It will be taken into account though. Luckilly the page is currently being converted to neutral language and balance and looks to be making grand progress.JPLogan 06:01, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

My sole reason for referencing my web page is because the FAQ in question is approx. 5,000 words long, and whilst it is all about other people's work - with references - I thought that might be a bit large to dump here.

What I would like to know now is how I may go about submitting a genuinely neutral article on NLP. That is to say, an article which presents the facts of the matter without all the spurious references that are presently included, and without trying to arbitrate on which side is "right" or "wrong." For example, ALL of the current content on "pseudoscience" is a pure red herring. NLP never has been a "science" itself, though it is indeed supported in *some* respects by scientific research. As far as I can see, this, like the utterly false allegations of a connection between NLP and Scientology and/or est and/or the Landmark Forum, have been introduced as an excuse to beat NLP about the head (so to speak), which is why I claim your new version is still unacceptably bigoted - not to say poorly researched.

I know precisely where this twaddle has been copied from, more or less verbatim, and you may care to know that - according to the information I have - the person concerned has made this up out of second, third and fourth hand information plus a mountain of imagination and ignorance of the subject. Which is to say, NONE of it, as far as I know, is based on genuine first-hand experience. So what the heck is the point of referencing this stuff as though it were an informed opinion.

As to my reference to the person with the grudge, are you sure this doesn't matter when it has led to the person in question creating lists which include URLs for sites which allegedly refute some aspect of NLP but which in reality don't even mention "neuro-linguistic programming" because they are about some technical aspect of "natural language processing" which the person who created the list clearly doesn't understand? Again - lots of bigotry and hold the fried facts. Is THAT really the kind of material that Wikipedia is looking for?

Hello again Andy. The work done on this version of the article is in the process of being validated by a lot more than one editor. If there are any erroneous references, then they will be eventually removed. If you know for sure which refs are wrong, then it may be useful for us to know. Presently we do have two pages running together. Previously the NLP biased editors were removing verified fact, and this was causing problems. Even today this was done by a committed narrowly Bandler/Grinder biased editor. The plan is to work on each page in tandem. If you work on the parallel page, it will also give you time to check on any refs from this page that you feel may be wrong. If there is any merging to be done, then we can sort out which refs are actually wrong. Bigotry, grudges, and first hand experience really do not come into it. The article simply follows wikipedia NPOV policy. Follow the link and have a look at the tutorial also. RegardsHeadleyDown 16:41, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Headley, how can you tell Andy that his website is personal opinion and inadmissable and then refer to his website to support your own POV?

Hello. NPOV states that your submissions may not be your own work.JP.JPLogan 06:01, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Dear JPL - I take your point, and accept it as far as I can. What I'm wondering now is where you think there is a single entry on the whole of Wikipedia that ISN'T someone's personal opinion? Even the choice of who to quote and who to leave out is a direct demonstration of the writer's personal opinion.

Take the opening line of the page as it currentlyt stands:

"Neuro-linguistic programming (NLP) is a quasi-spiritual behavior-modification (or "performance psychology") technique"

1. In what sense is NLP "quasi-spiritual"? Who says so? We are given O'Connor and McDermott as references - but apart from having written some books about NLP, what part did they have in creating or developing it? None. They are offering an opinion. We are also offered Dilts as a reference. But much of Dilts' work, thougfh he was there at an early stage in the development, is pure nonsense. John Grinder, in his recent book "Whisperiing in the Wind" specifically questions whether ideas developed by Dilts, in particular so-call logical levels, has anything to do with genuine NLP. Bandler has moved on to the study of some genuinely spiritual areas, such as shamanism. But NLP and Bandler are NOT the same thing. Which is why Bandler has invented new names for the various stages of his progress - DHE(tm), NHR(tm), etc.

2. The term "behaviour-modification" has a specific meaning in psychology and relartes to the work of the behaviourists, and to the work of B.F. Skinner in particular. The underpinnings of NLP, however, are akin to cognitive therapy - which was as much as anything a revolt AGAINST behaviourism.

3. NLP is NOT "a" technique - it IS "modeling." All the techniques and methodologies are tools for carrying out the modeling process (of which there are variation), they are NOT actually NLP. Therefore the VAST majority of the Wikipedia article is NOT about NLP but about techniques (PLURAL) intended to support the model process. Source - John Grinder.

4. On a similar note the article quotes a number of sources who CLAIM that NLP is a cult. Duh! I can find numerous sources, even today, who claim the Earth is flat. Just quoting references is greasy kids' stuff. There are certain basic features of a cult which NLP completely fails to meet, which est only partly met, and which Landmark Forums hardly meets at all. For example:

(a) References are made to Large Groups - but this has nothing to do with NLP itself. **Some** NLP trainers currently provide training for a hundred or more people at a time, but the vast majority go for a dozen or two. (b) Who is the sole figurehead of NLP, as in Sun Mung Moon, Ron L. Hubbard, Werner Erhardt, etc.? In desperation Tony Robbins is wheeled out, BUT Tony Robbins is NOT part of NLP. He may have been on courses headed by Richard Bandler, but he has set up his own organization with it's own title and its own agenda. Robbins has had no part in the creation or development of NLP and does not represent NLP in any way, shape or form.

In reality the current article starts in error and proceeds downhill at a rate of knots - not "despite" the referred to sources, but because so many of the sources are worthless. They may indeed have said and/or written what they are quoted as having said/written - but since they are speaking of that which they know not of - so what?.

NEXT

Thank you to Carl Oxford - your post illustrates exactly the kind of argumentation that stands between us and the creation of a genuine neutral article on NLP:

"From ABradbury's link, I'd say its pretty obvious he knows absolutely zip about science."

Actually I did two years of utterly worthless "experiments" in psychology whilst doing a degree in Social Psychology. Now Carl *could* have asked what, if anything, I know about science – just as the “editors” of the article *could* go out and gather some genuine facts - but instead Carl just jumps to a conclusion that fits with the point he wants to make, without asking any questions at all.

"His books keep going on about how NLP is the most powerful synthesis of psychology in the biz world etc."

This is interesting, since it exactly demonstrates my point about invalid sources. It is undoubytedly true that Carl has made this statement BUT it is a load of codswallop. Firstly most of my books have been about programming computers rather than people – I’ve only had one book on NLP (as in neuro-linguistic programming) published to date, though a previous book on Turbo Prolog did feature various stuff on NLP (natural language processing). Secondly, I make the statement Carl quotes just ONCE. Thirdly, Carl has carefully edited the quote. What I actually wrote was

"NLP has ... become what is probably the most comprehensive synthesis of modern psychological knowledge around today."

Note, not "is" but the qualified "***probably*** is", not ALL psychology but "modern psychology", and NOT "in the biz world" but the deliberately vague "around today" - because who knows when things will change, or whether there's a competitor already that I don't know about.

So, since Carl has obviously read at least that part of that book, why, like the editors of the Wiki article, is he indulging in wild and inaccurate generalisations?

"The books are just like the other nlp books; Completely without any realistic view of psychology, human nature, or work."

Actually, after taking a degree in social psychology I have spent rather more than a quarter of a century as a training and personnel manager, training consultant, training manager, business trainer and (for 8 of those years) tutor and deputy principal in a 6th form college.

Now, if Carl had said something like “in my opinion the books are ...” I might point out that I’ve read and reviewed well over 100 books on NLP, and none of them are “just like” my book, or "just like" each other. But I would also be able to agree that Carl is entitled to his opinion, no matter how misguided I may think it is. The article, likewise, fails time and again to distinguish between opinion and fact.

"He even said psychology is not science. Tell that to psychology students who measure people in studies."

I say it, and Michael Gazzaniga and many others say it. Having been one of those students, I stand by my claim. Part of the problem in Carl’s position is that he uses the label “psychology” as a gigantic generalisation. When I was at university there were four different branches of psychology in four different schools. IMO, of the four, only what was then called “experimental psychology” – which covered stuff like sticking probes into rats brains, which would now be more accurately described as neuropsychology – was susceptible to genuine “scientific” investigation.

"The link talks about doing good research and how to do it, and then comes back with stuff about science being inappropriate for testing nlp."

Yes, and I explain why. It seems *to me* that a further problem here is the assumption that NLP “ought” to be subject to scientific investigation if it is to be valid. To which I can only suggest that we prohibit all psycho-therapy until someone scientifically demonstrates the existence of the “id”, the “ego” and the “super ego” and explains exactly where they are located.

Like I say, this whole topic of NLP as a “pseudoscience” is a complete red herring.

"Its just a lot of confused and frustrated ranting because the results don't agree with nlpee claims."

On the contrary, I explain how, if KH and his associates had understood what they were doing, they would realise that they had, if anything, confirmed the claims of NLP. However, I put that forward as a highly qualified observation specifically BECAUSE - and here I would like to return to the question of "pseudo-science" – in the first place the experiment was a model of bad (ineffective) design, and secondly it is not possible IMO to perform psychology experiments, in the area that NLP occupies, which get consistent results. And replicatability is the key issue in turning a hypothesis into anything stronger, according to the scientific method. As a matter of interest I have discussed the experiments, by e-mail, with two of the three people concerned.

Likewise the Wiki article quotes all sorts of stuff about NLP being “pseudoscience” without bothering to explain what each referenced author means by “pseudoscience” and without addressing the fact that NLP has never claimed to be a “science” in the first place.

Science, Pseudo-science and Non-science

Hell Andy Bradbury. I have to say, you exhibit the most pseudoscientific thinking I have ever seen. You say: "For many people, one of the most attractive features of the genuine NLP techniques, is their essentially pragmatic nature. That is to say, the various techniques are only there because they have worked for someone at some time in the past, and not because someone has theorised that any particular technique ought to work. By the same token, it is recognised that no technique will work every time, or under all circumstances, or for everyone.

"On that basis, firstly it has to be said that this just one of many models in the NLP toolkit. Even if it turned out that the eye accessing cues model is entirely wrong (and there is no evidence to support that assertion), it really wouldn't affect the validity of any other model or technique, or of NLP itself."

This begs the question of what would falsify the validity of NLP? Apparently nothing can according to you. If NLP cannot be falsified then you have just placed it outside the realm of science into pseudoscience because to be scientific, an idea must be testable and falsifiable. According to what you state here, there is no way to do this because they can just come up with another "pragmatic" idea. However, it is testable, because it has been tested (with negative results).

Another big problem here is with the NLP "modeling" procedure itself. You generalize directly from observations without actually doing scientific studies using statistical methods to really see if you have "modeled" correctly. In the case of eye movements, studies showed that their observations did not stand up to the test of properly controlled research.

And yes, you do reverse the burden of proof. If you think this study was so flawed, this still doesn't address the issue of why NLP proponents have not done studies that they would consider fair tests and then submit them to peer reviewed journals.

There is also a dwelling on minutae that are irrelevant to the criticism of the study (e.g., saying that the author used the NLP jargon incorrectly in calling eye accessing cues a "state"). This is a tactic I've seen often used by proponents of pseudoscientific practices. In short, you are a pseudoscientific thinker. If it were up to you to write this article, you would probably end up convincing nobody but Tom Cruise (and the other NLP idiots who constantly try to use their rotten NLPeeing weaselyness to twist the facts to their map of unreality).RWilkinson 10:11, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Wilkinson See my "three propositions below." Invalidate any or all of those propositions and you effectively invalidate NLP.

Apart from that, as I understand it, you believe that the difference between "eye accessing cues" and "state" is "minutae." This suggests to me that you have very little understanding of even the most basic concepts in NLP and on that basis, since I don't intend to try to bring you up to speed in this forum, I cannot answer you adequately - so in fairness to both of us this is all the answer I'm prepared to give.
Andy

Andy. Let me explain: You write a book stating stuff like "NLP is one of the most powerful tools ever made available to the biz community", you say people are categorized as V,A or K in their thinking styles, using scientific sounding terms, you say it is about the brain and neurology, and you say NLP ignores science. Now, I know that NLP uses as much behavioural science as it does cognitive (eg anchoring). I know that you criticise single experiments on PRS using ad hoc hypotheses after the findings in order to explain them away. You use negative results in order to promote nlp. Your view is a pseudoscientific view, and you have demonstrated all the hallmarks of pseudoscientific thinking and argument. There is a significantly represented view that also says nlp is pseudoscientific. These views come from health specialists, scientists, ex NLPers, cult exit people etc. Perhaps communication is the result you get. You explained very clearly and gave a crystal clear image of your pseudoscientific view. So, your arguments place you together with Ron Hubbard and his dianetics concerns. That is not just my view, and I can quote my sources. This is not a posterboard for "NLP the science, technology, attitude, unfair advantage" etc. This is an encylopedia and will follow NPOV policy. I suggest you read up on NPOV.CarlOxford 03:39, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Carl, firstly, thank you for your courteous communication.

Secondly, I'm afraid I do not accept the argument you put forward, because you are discussing the TECHNIQUES not NLP. You also treat the entire subject as though there were only two options: "science" and "pseudo-science." IMO there are very few things in the "real" world which can be divided into just two groups - and this isn't one of them. There are AT LEAST three groupings: "science," "pseudo-science," and "non-scientific." These are *my* definitions of the three groups:

"science" - the study of phenomena which can be investigated using the "scientific method"
"pseudo-science" - studies of, or reports on phenomena which **purport** to be scientific but which are actually either so badly carried out that they don't warrant the description "scientific," or which claim to be scientific but aren't actually using the "scientific method" in any recognisable form.
"non-scientific" - areas of activity and/or investigation where the "scientific method" is not a relevant item or where it *might* be applicable but isn't being used and no attempt is being made to claim that the activity or investigation is "scientific."

Now, if you were to claim that *some* people within the NLP community are making ludicrous claims about the "scientific" validity of their models then I would definitely agree. In fact another of the FAQs on my own website specifically addresses that kind of behaviour, explains why it's a load of rubbish - giving a specific very well-known example - and deprecates such behaviour as being likely to bring NLP itself into disrepute.

And that is exactly the point I am making below.

If we separate NLP from the techniques associated with NLP then we have, IMO, a genuine basis for substantial agreement.
Andy

Hello Andy. You have some points here, but they are only part of the array of the points of view of all. By NPOV standards the article needs to follow NPOV policy. Some people have stated that NLP is pseudoscientific, and those people are scientists. The general view of scientist who know the subject of NLP is that NLP is pseudoscientific, and that must be represented on the page. There is an explanation of that also on the page, with a list of pseudoscientific factors presented. Subjects do not have to claim to be science to be called pseudoscientific. All they need to do is make claims for efficacy etc. Besides, some NLP people do claim that it is a science. NLP is a confusing subject because of the claims people make about it, and the conflicting ideas internal to it. Presently the article does a good job of organizing those claims and ideas within an encyclpedic format. It will continue to improve and add verifiable fact from diverse sources. RegardsHeadleyDown 01:52, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

There is a basic flaw in this comment Headley - you are NOT distinguishing between NLP and the techniques associated with NLP.

I am willing to bet that not a single scientist has actually stated that NLP is "pseudo-science" or "pseudo-scientific" - if they know what "NLP" is.
BUT,
I agree that there are numerous claims that one or other of the techniques associated with NLP don't qualify as "science" or "scientific." And in some cases I'd even agree with them ;-)
Andy

Quote from Bandler re: spiritual, paganism, etc.

"Shaman, philosophers, and prophets alike have intuitively known and used the power of metaphor. From Plato's allegory of the cave right through to Valitaire's Zagdig, from the teaching of Jesus and Buddha to the teachings of Don Juan Matus, metaphor is ever present as a tool for changing ideas and effectiing behavior." (Richard Bandler, foreward - p.xi, Therapeutic Metaphor, David Gordon, 1978). It is quite obvious from this quote that Bandler uses Shamanism as a metaphor. --Comaze 03:29, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Hello Comaze. Sorry, here is some evidence for you. Bandler learned shamanism with many teachers and teaches it himself. It also appears in some of the literature. http://www.meta-nlp.co.uk/ http://www.meta-nlp.co.uk/shamanics.htm Regards.HeadleyDown 07:49, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Headley.D, Those URLs do not prove anything. In NLP, shamanism is a metaphor. It is that simple. --Comaze 01:05, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Comaze, it's woth noting that Bandler is "sharing his knowledge of shamanic states of consciousness". This is one reason people think the spiritual stuff is part of NLP. Of course, NLP as the study of subjective experience could have some good insight into patterns people subjectively experience as shamanic consciousness - but of course it's only a thing that's been modeled and is no more "NLP" than sports are NLP. GregA 01:59, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

GregA. NLP does not study subjective experience. NLP studies the structure of "language & behaviour". Any idiosyncratic beliefs are filtered out in the process of modeling. Therefore there is no mystical beliefs in NLP. --Comaze 02:18, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Dates for submission/arbitration

Hang on! Comaze, what is the supposed timeline for this arbitration business? Like, when did it start, what is supposed to go on, and when is the deadline etc? Also, when are they going to chuck you out for spending over a month deleting well researched facts and qualified points of view in favour of Bandler and Grinder doctrine:)? CheersHeadleyDown 14:46, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

For details on the arbitration process, please see Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee. Due dates for submission have not been set. This will probably take some time because the alternate Neuro-linguistic programming(Temp) still needs a major cleanup. We are in the process of checking references. --Comaze 01:05, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Dave Barry NLP Expert

Hello all. I have added a crucial link to an experiential proponent of state change--Dave Barry. Have a nice weekend.HeadleyDown 14:58, 23 September 2005 (UTC).

Yes, a little humour also helps to make the article even more interesting. Actually, Barry's view is very refreshing and quite valid as a link. I have done quite a big tidyup. I will continue to NPOV the paras as I go along. I noticed that other outside editors are starting to tidy up grammar etc also and that's great.JPLogan 03:56, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

yeh its great to see it without all the hype and jargon. well done guys JC

Suggestions for new version of NLP article

Hello all. I have some suggestions, and others are welcome to contribute.

• Keeping clear about NPOV. Stating facts, or points of view (attributable with a name) is very important for the page. This will help keep the page factual, and will help prevent people from removing facts (if they are in quotes they are verifiable).

• Clarifications. (No explaining psychobabble with psychobabble) I'm sure you've noticed how promotional and vague NLP writing and language is. Lots of unscientific jargon and odd terms and phrases that don't have any relation to science at all. This simply takes too much space to explain for one article (and it will never be explained properly because there is no evidence or research for the concepts). The solution here is to refer to NLP using any theories that have been proposed by NLP practitioners (and there are some).

• Lets not treat the article as a "how to". Some very brief half or single line examples are fine, but lets not go listing processes. Lets stick with NPOV policy.

Hi JPLogan!

Point 1 - Yeah, I think we're going to have to keep showing WHERE we get information from (whether fact or opinion). It looks more like a psych paper and less like an encyclopedia, but is probably necessary for now. Perhaps we can make them "hidden" references later?

Point 2 - I agree totally. No explaining psychobabble with psychobabble (I'd like to invite you to look at and criticise psychobabble on the alternate page once more work has been done). I'm not sure what you mean by the solution is to refer to NLP theories? (how does that help?). Also, you say that you can't explain something unless there is evidence - that's not true, even things we know aren't true like "the Tooth Fairy" can be explained very easily!

Point 3 - Removing the "how to" - I agree. We're not teaching people how to do NLP.

Seeya GregA 04:25, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

• I suggest a slight rephrasing of point 2 (IMHO) (don't explain psychobabble with excess psychobabble) - some terms are fine, but this should be clarified by a connection with what scientists think of it. For example, nominalisations in NLP refer to the assumption that words direct how you cognate (ref). SCi- However, this concept has been debunked by empirical research into linguistic relativism (ref).

There have been actual theories or allusions to theories written in the NLP literature as can be seen from the page. I should say they can be used. Anyway, I'm going to work on balance for a while.HeadleyDown 05:28, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Hi all editors. Re the first paragraph 'NLP involves the programming and reprogramming of engrams). I can find no reference to 'engrams', or re-programming engrams in any NLP literature. Even in the link you provide, the authors are discussing the work of neuroscientist Wilder Penfield, make no specific mention of engrams, and say the following regarding the idea 'His first conclusion was that each memory had a specific location. Current research would suggest this is not the case. The brain seems to be organized along functional lines rather than site specific lines. I do not think this claim is therefore warranted without further/stronger evidence. It is just an obvious attempt to further strengthen the spurious case that NLP is in some way associated with Scientology or Dianetics. Lee1 15:53, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Hello Lee. Simply follow all the references and check them out. I have looked at all the engram literature on the article, and it is completely correct, and more is available for support. Really, if all you want to do is remove facts, you are in the wrong place. I suggest you see if you can improve the other version. As far as I have read from the references other people have contributed, NLP is strongly historically, and theoretically connected with the engram concept that is inextricably linked throughout the human potential movement, cybernetics of Maltz, Perl's promotions through Dianetics, Satir's notions of humanistic psychology, and the unconcious competence ideas that run all the way through NLP, including the theory articles that have been written. RegardsHeadleyDown 16:49, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Hi Headley, hope your weekend's been good! AFAIK, Lee has already looked through your references - and remember the purpose of a reference is to allow the reader to easily find the source if they require, so we have to ensure our references are useful in this sense and make them something easily found (assuming the reader has the book or paper, of course). Even with a reference, there are plenty of NLP trainings that don't use the term Engram.

I think it is quite valid for both sides to make some general comments to each other in order to improve the quality of either. And I invite you to at any time of course :). We're still a work-in-progress, and as we get closer we'll request more input.

For now, for instance, you cite "Carroll, 2005" - do you mean the Carroll, 2003, that is in the references? (As a changeable webpage it probably doesn't have a year. http://skepdic.com/neurolin.html )

You then site "Carroll, 2005, Platt 2001" - But when you read Platt 2001 he is directly quoting Carroll. So it's only one source.

There are many examples of this - if you fall for the trick of making it look scientific when it's not, that'd be pseudoscientific right!? GregA 23:29, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Hello GregA. Thanks. Making the article accurate and verifiable is important. All views can be represented, and as NPOV states, attribution to the people with those views is also important for making it a stated fact. The (Carroll 2005) ref needs updating to (Carroll 2003), which is a longer term solution because it is a book. It has more detail in the text etc. Pseudoscience is more about how knowledge is created: Detached principles or values without a clear theory base are the hallmarks of pseudoscience. If a person has a view, and that view is stated in a verifiable source, then it is valid according to NPOV even if the source includes that of another source. Remember there are differences in the text and information in each source. Garry Platt has a master's in education, and Todd Carroll has a PhD and teaches Logic & Critical Reasoning; Law, Justice, & Punishment at Sacremento university, and Critical Thinking About the Paranormal, his most recent university textbook is Becoming a Critical Thinker (2005). RegardsHeadleyDown 02:35, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

What do you mean "if a person has a view, and that view is stated in a verifiable source, then it is valid according to NPOV"?

You're not saying that as long as you can verify they said it it is unbiased, or representative, are you? GregA 04:57, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Hi GregA. Yes I believe you understand. This is an indication of the breadth of wikipedia. A great deal of encyclopedias will only take the scientific view in matters of psychological explanation. Wikipedia is slightly less strict and will even take into account the pseudoscientific view, albeit at a lower priority and with the provision of a scientific conclusion. RegardsHeadleyDown 05:34, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

That doesn't answer my question. Are you saying that you consider someone's opinion, if referenced, to be a Neutral POV?GregA 06:14, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Hi GregA. All I can say really is that someone's viewpoint, when properly referenced becomes fact, and that is NPOV.HeadleyDown 06:47, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Headley, having proof someone said it constitutes NPOV of whether they said it. This is different to NPOV on whether their viewpoint is valid or representative GregA 09:05, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Sure Greg. Most encyclopedias take only a scientific view of valid or representative. Wikipedia is slightly less strict, as I said. Instead of allowing only scientific views of empirical researchers etc, it allows other views to be heard also. So you can include the viewpoints of other more pseudoscientific parties, albeit with a lower status. RegardsHeadleyDown 09:21, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I see the confusion now. When I asked you about the opinion you were quoting I thought you were saying it was valid and representative - instead you're saying it's okay to include low status opinions.

My only response would be that where we can go back to the actual books and papers behind someone's opinion (assuming they have them), we're quoting from a more encyclopedic position - and I would encourage that. Wiki does too GregA 02:16, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes Greg. Its actually a good learning experience. Especially if you take a critical view of all of the different points of view.HeadleyDown 04:32, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

On another note, have you got any thoughts on how our layouts might come closer together?

For one, I've put eye accessing and meta-model under the major heading "NLP Patterns"

That would leave your science headings out though ... perhaps they could have their own major heading

eg "NLP and Science?" - in which we could place a lot of important stuff - including psych studies and epistemology etc etc.

I see you've got an "Overview" after the opening - isn't the opening an overview too? Should they be the same?GregA 06:14, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Headings and such really only have to be logical and clear. The scientific viewpoint should really be placed throughout the article as it is mostly neutral statements of theory or statements of scientific findings. Perhaps overview could be changed to "conceptual overview" or something similar. If it were in the intro, it would make it too large.RegardsHeadleyDown 06:47, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

You have been working hard:) Its looking even better and I notice the language is even more NPOV. I made a few tidy ups, and I have some more scientific point of view that I can paste in as fact when I have the time. Ta!AliceDeGrey 07:26, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Hi Headley, Alice etc. In accordance with your preference for the opinion of scientists in line with NPOV, I thought you might be interested in this link to an article wtitten by a PhD physicist on NLP and Science http://www.mckergow.com/2003/index.jsp?lnk=503_3 (Lee1 20.50 28th Sept 2005)

Thanks Lee. Actually, I have this ref already. It agrees with the NLP view that nothing is objective, and no matter how much research you do, you will not find anything objective from people's perceptions. Of course there was a very funny reply to that article which basically said he was thinking of physics and the only objective thing to him would be dropping a heavy weight on his toe:) Empiricle studies into psychology take both subjective or perceptive measures (feelings and opinions) plus objective measures (results of success at persuasion, spelling, etc) and place them together with other studies for cross referencing and verification. But of course this also goes towards testing NLP. The books state that such and such will lead to success, and the tests follow the rules, and it turns out to be false. Pretty elementary stuff really.HeadleyDown 04:39, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Didn't expect you to agree,as it doesn't fit with your POV Headley old boy. Just pointing out that it meets your 'quotable' criterion ;-) Want to make the job easier when it comes to arbitration (Lee 7.49 29 Sept 2005)