User talk:Iltaph

Welcome!

Hello, Iltaph, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome!

If you read the material here on reliable sources you will have the answer to your question on the talk page of the NLP article ----Snowded ^TALK 12:07, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Citing text in Talk pages

Howdy and welcome! Might you cite the specific text referenced with tested misconceptions or further your evidence of "balanced"? azwaldo (talk)

Hi, yes indeed I'll be very happy to. I'm now retired from a 30 year career in banking and finance - I'm an MBA Accountant and as a retirement hobby, I train trainers in NLP with John Grinder, having studied NLP with Bandler, Grinder, Pucelik (who is little known and not often spoken about) and Stephen Gilligan (Milton Erickson's foremost protégé) pretty much daily for the last 7 years and am now initiating a free international clinic in Switzerland.

I'm really quite baffled at the vigour with which NLP is denounced in this entry and the several misconceptions, compared with say; the Wikipedia entry on public speaking or, the Wikipedia entry on osteopathy, or indeed the Wikipedia entry on bungee jumping.

They are all quite informative. Given that NLP in one respect is simply a linguistic structure for "having a chat", or in John's assertion "a modelling technology", which can be otherwise described as a technique for mimicking people, I fail to see the justification for the "hostile witness" position that Wikipedia is taking.

Once I've got my head around the rules of Wikipedia, I'll be very happy to suggest some changes.

I don't see many texts referenced for public speaking or bungee jumping and given that (as I have previously stated) this is a philosophical art, focussed on each individual's uniqueness, I suspect it will upset a number of "auditory digital" statisticians.

I look forward to them explaining to me the scientific evidence for getting upset, as well as providing me with a definition or formula for happiness...