Talk:Neuro-linguistic programming/FT2

This is a temporary page to thrash out core principles and differences on the NLP article, and give it either a consensus direction, or a summary for a mediator.

The talk page is not doing very well. Like other articles with deep conflict of views, it degenerates into rants, nitpicking, and the people who actually want to work on it get pissed off at the inability of others to focus and the need to engage what they see as tangents and ignorance. So this is a separate page. Here are some draft rules:

If you want to contribute, you can. If you can't, don't. This is not the formal talk page, conciseness and focus are likely to be looked for. This page is for those who can work collaboratively and would otherwise get annoyed at how nothing's being resolved elsewhere.
So... this page is to identify first, and thrash out second, the big issues. Not the small stuff or personal disagreement.
The ideal end product of this page is a schemata, or overview approach, for how we will approach the article, which can then be thrashed out for detail in the normal way once we have more consensus on the major "blocking issues".
Posts on this page should be short and focussed. Long or multiple will get reverted. Again thats not democratic. But long and rambling doesn't achieve much. If it can't be said in summary, it's likely that it isn't being said well. Go away and reword it briefly.
To make it easy to follow, please add all posts at the end, and not "point by point" broken up. Use bullets liberally and keep it short. It helps improve the flow on complex discussion.

I find it incredible that a dozen reasonable and educated people cannot even agree whether NLP is pseudoscience hype crap, or a learning method suitable for olympic teams and top therapists. That to me is incredible.

For example, whether or not engrams are a "part of NLP", they are not core NLP - that is, they are not recognised across the board as part of the field in the same way that (say) meta-model or anchoring are. The question there is, with NLP being open by design, what variations and imports should be mentioned? And my answer is, we mention that it is open, give examples of things that are not core or are controversial, that some include, some don't... and thats that. Thats how wikipedia works, it's an encyclopedia not a pro/anti platform.

Before we discuss or go further, I know this is a very bold step. I've seen similar unsolvable disputes on other pages. Can we check if a focussed approach like this would be acceptable to anyone else? Would it be okay if this page was moderated if necessary, in case of excess verbal? In traditional wikipedia fashion, votes below please....?

Yes FT2 23:51, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yes --Comaze 05:05, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yes == GregA 05:53, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Other (brief!) comments

I think to work, this needs to have the involvement of most editors. GregA 05:53, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

keep it concise & accurate within NPOV, cite your sources and verifiability, other editors will weigh in to reach consensus. --Comaze 07:15, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello FT2. I understand what you are trying to do and you are trying to be constructive. It is much appreciated. I do not agree with your assumptions though. The only people disagreeing with engrams etc are two persistent fact deleters and strongly proNLP editors. Otherwise, there is a great deal of agreement that engrams are a core theoretical aspect of NLP. The reason I do not believe this page is necessary is because so much has been thrashed out, explained, scientifically backed up, and properly cited on the NLP discussion page already. There is so much discussion there that has been re/disorganized by the NLP promoters to suit themselves that it is hard to get through in a few hours. There is no evidence to say engrams are not a core theoretical principle of NLP. Presently, there is a harder line to organize the NLP article using science as the strongest and most neutral organizing principle, with the huge mass of hype that is generated in the NLP books coming far below scientific findings and theory etc. I admit people should have been stricter about that organizing principle before, but there is so much hype in the NLP literature that it gets harder to notice it on the article. I don't wish to waste anyone's time, especially if they are trying to be helpful. I suggest - Science first, scientific explanations of what is going on, historical evidence also, views of scientists, and then try to find something factual and non-promotional in terminology from the mess of hype that is in NLP books. Basically just face facts and get back to NPOVHeadleyDown 08:49, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

(Quick answer to User:HeadleyDown, I picked engrams as an example, that seems relatively easy to deal with whatever side of the fence you are on, but had been made very heavy weather of. And I have two comments on yours. First - science itself is a POV. Science is not NPOV, it has its own views. That doesn't mean it's "wrong". It means that as ever with wikipedia, both views need covering in a manner that makes clear the entirety of the issue to a reader, not just whichever one a specific person feels is more important. The other concern I have is that you are commenting how much is thrashed out... only it isn't. What you are seeing is the complains of others, who may have valid points, saying that they do not feel the article fairly represents the subject. TThat's what this page is for, to see if we can find a balanced approach in overview, that we can all agree on. Will you do the favor of watching and -- if you think it's useful -- responding on this page, as we try to find a balanced approach that includes multiple viewpoints and fairly represents each? Thanks FT2 16:36, 25 October 2005 (UTC))[reply]

Headley Down's comment about engrams is blatantly untrue.
I add my own confirmation on this point, on the following basis:
I have read 150 (approx.) books on NLP, including all of the original texts by Bander and Grinder, both before and after they went their separate ways. And in all those books I haven't seen engrams mentioned anywhere except in the Sinclair book. Moreover Sinclair's book is in no sense an "official" NLP publication, in fact it doesn't even come from an established publisher of any description. It is a private publication, containing numerous errors (see http://www.bradburyac.mistral.co.uk/revs09.html#aabconlp), by someone who has no standing whatever in the NLP community (he isn't a trainer, a developer, a member of the original group, etc.)
As far as the Drenth reference is concerned, I have already asked if anyone has read the original article, and got no reply. In other words, this last remaining source is being used without anyone knowing what the author actually said, or what evidence, if any, he produced to support his claim!!!!
And all this despite the fact that we have a documented claim by someone who is also a Ph.D, is Dutch, and who knows Drenth's work, and who claims that Drenth is, or has been, in the habit of attacking NLP without bothering with niceties such as evidence to support his claims.
Lastly, some moths back I did a web search on the term "engrams." With very few results.
It was notable, however, that the only NLP site which referred to engrams did so, entirely accurately, in reference to the work of Canadian neuro-surgeon Wilder Penfield. There was no suggestion that engrams are, or ever have been, part of NLP.

That a host of people of repeatedly proven hostility to NLP agree about something is utterly irrelevant if there is no viable supporting evidence - as in this case and most (if not all) of the other examples covered on the other discussion pages. This is the total folly that supposes that fact is determined by a majority vote!

This is also the folly that may be about to make Wikipedia alter its guidelines. It gets kinda embarrassing when national newspapers start pointing out that there are pages which include badly written rubbish.

If this is the best that the anti-NLP lobby can come up with no wonder we can't reach any compromise. How do you find a useful compromise between knowledge and unmitigated ignorance - half fact and half trash?
Andy 13:24, October 26, 2005