Talk:Neuro-linguistic programming/Archive 23

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

→

Archive 27

Rewriting soon

Hello, I would like to announce a rewrite of this article is taken from the French article, which will be partially translated. The work starts soon. The work page is on the French Wikipedia, at : this personal work page. For any questions, please contact the user Ath200 or I (please leave me a message on mine french page). Thank. Prosopee (talk) 06:48, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Any editor is free to propose changes or even a rewrite. However given the effort which has gone in here I suggest you take careful account of what has already being discussed before making any proposals. ----Snowded ^TALK 09:19, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Welcome Prosopeel. Please note that Wikipedia is not a reliable source for Wikipedia (French or otherwise). But your specific edit proposals - especially any based on new third party reliable sources - would be appreciated.Encyclotadd (talk) 13:16, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

OK I read the french article. Now my french is not brilliant, but its good enough to see that said article has hardly any third party references, largely uses NLP material and is a puff piece. Huge amounts of original research and synthesis as well. In effect its propaganda rather than an encyclopaedia entry. So if the proposal is to use that text translated as far as I am concerned its a complete waste of time. ----Snowded ^TALK 07:09, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Prosopeel, Since there are very few citations in the French article, you may want to add some of our reliable sources to the French article to improve it. We can help you clean it up..Encyclotadd (talk) 13:07, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I think they would be better translating this one. The French article is simply an NLP manual written by an NLP practioner. ----Snowded ^TALK 17:27, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Thats a shame. What exactly are the rules about articles without sources? Do they get proposed for deletion? Is it even worth revising? Encyclotadd (talk) 19:40, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

If you want to edit the French Wikipedia yes! This is just another meat farm attempt - the complete rewrite has been their line for a couple of years now. ----Snowded ^TALK 22:24, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi, thank for your advice. I am a former wikipedian on French WP thus i understand the basic points... The goal is not to translate without adaptation, however assertion "In effect its propaganda rather than an encyclopaedia entry" seems to me exaggerated. Article was elected quality article by the French community and it presents balanced and varied sources (some of NLP, other critics). Prosopee (talk) 15:26, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure if generally articles that aren't sourced are deleted, but clearly Wikipedia rules require that reliable sources are reflected, not personal opinion. You wouldn't want a group of German cult followers, for example, to write about their cult favorably in German, and for that to serve as an example for an English article. I'm not saying that's what you are proposing at all-- just that we are on solid footing relying on American Association Peer reviewed and other such reliable sources - the only way to build consensus here.Encyclotadd (talk) 18:19, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry Prosopee, but I think I was understating if anything. If you check the citation count its nearly all from NLP sources. There is one token reference to criticism. Its a puff piece and attempting to present it as an alternative to the current version here which is balanced and in the main uses third party sources, is not on. ----Snowded ^TALK 18:47, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

There are many interesting points here and the two articles are so different that a combination would be great. So, yes, the french article should not spoil the great job that have been done here as in my opinion, there are many relevent discussions, many quality references about criticism… The french article is interenting in another point of view And the point is that if there is a translations, the purpose MUST be to enrich this article, non spoil it. The question might be how to cooperate for the best, isnt' it? --Damien Raczy (talk) 20:12, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

The French article repeats most of its material from NLP handbooks. Some of that may be valid to expand the "What do NLP people do" type sections a little, but not much and there are going to be questions on the source. A lot of French article is unsupported (other than NLP sources which do not count) claims for the range and "effectiveness' of NLP. Most of that should be deleted from the French Wikipedia (not that I intend to engage). ----Snowded ^TALK 20:36, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Anyone know how to say pseudoscience in French?

Developing the "What do the NLP people do" section here will just go in circles because of the sources that have conflicts of interest in there. Adding foreign language COI cannot undue an existing problem. Not sure what I'm missing here.Encyclotadd (talk) 21:27, 1 February 2013: (UTC)

Pseudoscience - c'est le même mot en français. siafu (talk) 21:54, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for these interesting comments. May I suggest being more factual? For example, it is said that French article repeats most of its material from NLP handbooks. I'd be curious of any evidence supporting that. Another example is about linguistic origin of refs. I am not sure a ref in French originally in English is a French ref. And actually there are 43 English refs (translated or not) and 35 French refs so English refs are definitely more numerous. It also is said that if you check the citation count its nearly all from NLP sources. It is not true as it is exactly 2/3 of NLP sources (27/80). And there are many other points. Despite of this lack of precision, these comment are interesting and pointing good opportunities for improving material. --Damien Raczy (talk) 08:20, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

If this is another sock/meat we're really wasting time here. I'm not saying that's the case but let's also not get distracted.

Raczy, if you have a particular edit you want to make to this article, propose it here on this talk page with your source and I'm sure everyone will be glad to consider it.Encyclotadd (talk) 17:01, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

About writing a proposal, thank for your suggestion: I am currently working on it and it is the reason why I carefully read the comments, in order to take them into account, because I do not want to waste my time -- Damien Raczy (talk) 19:07, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Raczy, you give the game away with the heading in your "rewrite" towit NLP is not a science}, which is one of the standard new NLP assertions to try and overcome the criticisms. Otherwise my comments stand - a neutral article does not have 2/3 of its material from NLP sources. I think my comment was factual and precise. You would be better engaged in suggesting specific changes to this article, supported by third party sources. ----Snowded ^TALK 18:41, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Encyclotadd. As you have my full name, you can have a look on who I am. If you have any evidence that I could be a "sock/puppet", I am ready to read it. It not, "sock/meat" is just name calling.

Snowded. You are right about the frame of this "prototype". It was written fast and dirty and it will go to trash. About "NLP is not science", I partly (dis)agree as "NLP is not science" is not really a _new_ standard. The reality is that while a lot of NLPers tried to create a pseudoscience to make a lot of money, many others behaved is various ways. I believe that today, there are three different approach emerging. Those who are willing to go back to the "non scientific" basis (for me it is OK), those suporting the pseudo scientific way (for me it is NOT OK), and those who are willing to do (good) research (OK for me). The difficulty is that all that is melted with money and marketing. One of the things to do is to find good papers describing that. And I don't know if NLP community have been studied by sociologists or anthropologists, but I try to find reliable sources describing this -- Damien Raczy (talk) 19:07, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

To work the "three different approaches" you are going to have to find a third party source that makes that point. Otherwise its simply your opinion or original research or both. I think from what we have found that most people have given up on studying NLP other than NLP practitioners and those have to be used with caution if at all. ----Snowded ^TALK 19:44, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Raczy, I didn't realize that you disclosed your real identity. Thanks for pointing that out here.

Are you aware that Wikipedia encourages disclosure of conflicts of interest? Editing with COI is strongly discouraged. I read Wikipedia rules as explicitly restricting you from editing because you are marketing NLP and benefiting financially from it. Please see Conflict of Interest guidelines.Encyclotadd (talk) 20:45, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Encyclotadd you'll have to _prove_ your claims of COI or apologize quickly. Have a look to my profile, go on the web, and you'll discover I never certified anyone in NLP and NLP in only one of my skills. And my skills are also psychology (PdD), anthropology (masters), cognitive sciences (masters), public law (bahelor) etc. So, _prove_ your claims or apologize. --Damien Raczy (talk) 07:17, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Cool it both of you. Raczy, your profile makes the NLP stuff very prominent (Google+ tag line "I am a certified Trainer and NLP Coach.") so there is a legitimate concern. Encyclotadd, he is not excluded from editing because he is a "master" or what ever. What matters is if he lets that interest influence his edits. So far we have seen some drive by tagging but nothing serious so lets wait and see. It is however a common confusion on COI and there are grey areas so I don't see any reason for anyone to apologise. Lets keep this to content issues please. ----Snowded ^TALK 08:49, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Snowded, Encyclotadd, I had the honesty to comply with the first rules of wikipedia: "being transparent". In return, be kind and restectful, and presupose god will. Are you OK with that, or not ? ... One more thing, My first name is Damien so, as you are not talking to my family, call me Damien . --Damien Raczy (talk) 09:32, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Damien, I'm sure everyone appreciates how you have used the talk page prior to making any edits and your honesty about your identity. I'm also sure all editors (including me) welcome any suggestions you have. Just please base them on reliable third party sources instead of an unsourced wiki article in a foreign language.

Also, as you review the rules we all follow here, please note that there is no requirement that you are transparent about your identity. Anonymous editing is welcome. But when you have a COI, it's strongly encouraged that you reveal it. Denying a financial interest in NLP when obviously you brand yourself professionally with it is silliness. But again, I welcome your proposals for edits.Encyclotadd (talk) 12:54, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Encyclotadd. Your writing is still personal, labeling and speculative ("Denying a financial interest in NLP when obviously you _brand_ yourself _professionally_ with it is _silliness_"). There are two rules about COI : "Be transparent about your conflict of interest" and "Do not edit articles about yourself or your clients". The article is about NLP, NLP not about my clients, and the paper is not about myself, I dont work for NLP companies... If you ve facts, put them here. Please also note that "certified trainer" in my CV is not a job but a "diploma". And to be really clear, my main valuable skills are related to cognitive psychlogy and anthropology as I am a specialist of crosscultral issues in organizations. Got it? So, be factual and don't label. If you have facts, put them here. if it is a personal opinion, drop it down. --Damien Raczy (talk) 19:00, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

I add that non welcoming, suspicious and name calling behaviour might encourage dishonest behaviours. -- Damien Raczy (talk) 19:03, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

I just want to welcome new voices to the discussion, and hope a better article results. htom (talk) 19:08, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Htom! In my mind we are all wikipedia contributors because we all love good standing, neutral and well written papers. Overall, we love getting better article, and getting better teams, don't we? -- Damien Raczy (talk) 19:40, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

We do love getting better teams, and we love better articles.

We also respect Wikipedia rules.

One of the rules is that talk pages are for discussing specific edit requests. If you have a specific edit in mind, please let us know.Encyclotadd (talk) 20:20, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

You know, I don't think I've ever seen that rule, at least expressed that way. That's one of the things talk pages can be for, but it's not the only thing, and that's not the only way that changes can be made to articles. htom (talk) 05:53, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Then you need to read up on the four pillars, the talk page is for discussing changes to the article, not a general discussion of the subject matter. ----Snowded ^TALK 06:50, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

We agree -- for editors to discuss changes to the article, not only for submitting specific edit requests to your consideration. htom (talk) 00:59, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

On first sight, the French article (which is a featured article) appears to be way better than the present one. As far as balance is concerned, the same can be said about the much shorter German article. I haven't analysed the group dynamics at this article, but its present state suggests it is one of the playgrounds of the parascientific crowd that brings science into disrepute by treating it as a religion and playing capture the flag with Wikipedia articles. Hans Adler 09:47, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Historical perspective

On wikipedia, how can you see the historical perspective to the development of both NLP and her critics? NLP has been around for 40 years. For example, 40 years ago what was said in neuroscience? Were not there any mistakes ? Hasn't been any correction since then? Can't we imagine such changes also in NLP? How can we detail this here? Ath200 (talk) 16:59, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Not sure what you are talking about. We reflect third party reliable sources here. Cognitive Neuroscience has a wide body of third party literature which testifies to its progress. NLP in contrast is (as the article says) largely discredited in scientific circles. ----Snowded ^TALK 20:17, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Ath, Comparing a pseudoscience to neuroscience is a little like comparing fake wrestling to the honest Olympic sport.Encyclotadd (talk) 21:44, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Lede

I was referred to comment here by an RFC which seems to be either closed or not going anywhere, but after reading this article, I made a change. I found the article to read as too biased against the subject matter by having an entire paragraph of criticism in the lead. I think it's sufficient to begin the article by saying, "Neuro-linguistic programming (NLP) is a controversial approach to communication, personal development, and psychotherapy..." and allowing the Scientific Evaluation section to speak for itself. The statement in the lede that the scientific community calls it pseudoscience is stated in the first paragraph and sufficient to summarize the Scientific Evaluation section without going into all the well sourced detail. I have added the word "controversial" and moved that third paragraph to be the intro for the Scientific Evaluation section. Without this change, this article does not read like a neutral article. Allisgod (talk) 00:09, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

You've been reverted, per BRD. Please get a consensus (here) for the changes you propose. GoodDay (talk) 01:24, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

The altered sections were discussed at length and wording chosen to reflect consensus. Barring new sources, I agree with GoodDay's decision to revert.Encyclotadd (talk) 01:49, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

This lead is written with so much bias that it actually discredits Wikipedia as a neutral source of information regarding this subject. If I knew nothing of this subject, I would become skeptical of the source after reading the lead and look for another source. I am not for removing content, just mainly for moving the excess criticism into a more appropriate section. Allisgod (talk) 07:22, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

You do know we are meant to be balanced as to the reliable sources, not balanced between pro and anti-NLP views don't you? Otherwise if you want to propose a specific amendment here, do, but please respect the prior discussion on the lede and try and build on that. ----Snowded ^TALK 08:04, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Ah, is that a continuing discussion. I thought it was closed. Allisgod (talk) 08:06, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

It was and settled. You can always suggest changes however. But please don;t waste people's time with general comments ----Snowded ^TALK 09:11, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

RfC: Propose to move Second Paragraph to Scientific Evaluation Section

(note: since this RfC began a day ago, editors switched the second and third paragraphs, so the title has been adjusted to reflect this change) htom (talk) 23:11, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

The article lead is too heavily weighted toward scientific criticism rather than mainly introducing the reader to what NLP is all about.

• The first paragraph includes: "The balance of scientific evidence reveals it to be a largely discredited pseudoscience."
• The third paragraph includes: "..reviews of empirical research show that NLP has failed to produce reliable results for its core tenets."
• The second paragraph adds detailed scientific criticism that sounds excessive for the lead in combination with the above sentences. Those sentences are clear enough on what the scientific community believes about NLP. The excessive weight toward scientific criticism in the opening discredits the article as a neutral source of information regarding this subject. If I knew nothing of this subject, and just wanted to know what is the meaning of "Neuro-Linguistic Programming" I would become skeptical of the source after reading the lead paragraphs and look for another source. The second paragraph ought not at all be removed, but placed more appropriately in its own section (as the opening paragraph to the Scientific Evaluation Section) where it I think it belongs. Few articles on Wikipedia go out of their way in the opening to discredit the subject matter with such relentless detail. I think this could be a good solution in making this article more neutral. Allisgod (talk) 00:49, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Why should a RfC on a medical article be added to either the "religion and philosophy" or the "languages and linguistics" list? I'd say science, or possibly society if we want to claim it's not scientific, would be much more appropriate.

Feel free to add those to the list. Allisgod (talk) 02:43, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

"Neutrality" does not mean that we should give both sides equal time. "Neutrality" means that we should report what reliable sources have to say about the subject, and in proportion to the weight of the sources. If there are a few books by NLP proponents that say it's a fine technique and the overwhelming majority of medical publications on the subject say it's unproved and largely discredited, even a textbook example of a pseudoscience, then we should focus on that and not provide fake "balance" by removing the criticism from the lead. And I, for one, would prefer an article on pseudoscience which clearly states it's pseudoscience to one that peddles pseudoscientific mumbo-jumbo before stating as an afterthought that actually all the article describes doesn't really work. Huon (talk) 01:38, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Pseudoscience and negative research is already addressed in the first/second paragraphs. When I go to Psychic_reading I see a summary of what it is and included is a *brief* understanding of what scientific minds think of it. Here, it reads like a bit of a tirade against the subject at the outset. Allisgod (talk) 02:43, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

This is a waste of time because the purpose of the lead is to summarize the article. The third paragraph is thoroughly referenced and summarizes the article well. Moving that summary into the body would obviously be a confusing mistake. It belongs where it is.Encyclotadd (talk) 04:35, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Rather than moving the third para to another section, why not move it so that it is the second paragraph, and make the current second paragraph the third one?Roxy the dog (talk) 10:08, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the third paragraph would read better if we moved it ahead of the second paragraph.Encyclotadd (talk) 14:49, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

I assume you mean switching the places of the second & third paragraphs. Moving the third paragraph 'ahead' of the second paragraph, would make it the first paragraph. GoodDay (talk) 18:55, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Moving the third paragraph ahead of the second would mean making it the second paragraph; moving it ahead of the first would mean making it the first paragraph. Either way, I think this is a good idea to improve readability. siafu (talk) 20:36, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

The purpose of the RfC is moving the third paragraph down because, according to Allisgod, it is "too heavily weighted toward scientific criticism rather than mainly introducing the reader to what NLP is all about". I counted word "scientific criticism" oriented and words "introducing NLP" oriented. I got the following result: the ratio "179 scientific critic"/"117 neutral presentation" (number of words, counted with ms word). Even in the header of astrology, there is not such a high ratio. I strongly suggest you make your own stats to verify and comment my analysis. How should I proceed to show how I have sorted out words and don statistics of the header? -- Damien Raczy (talk) 20:30, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

"Scientific criticism" vs. "neutral" is a false dichotomy. siafu (talk) 22:20, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Siafu, I apologize for not being absolutely fluent in English, and therefore not being perfectly precise. In my post "neutral presentation" stands for "not (scientific critic)". I have also done some other sorts such as "non(evaluating)/evaluating", "not (negative wording)/negative wording", "not (neutral-positive wording)/neutral-positive wording", "connoted wording/not(connoted)"... My suggestion is to do it yourself if you are willing to, and then critic in a useful way, evently suggesting useful keys to sort and analyze this header objectively. Once again I humbly apologize for not being perfect when writing in English - Damien Raczy (talk) 22:56, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I don't think the third paragraph can be used as the first. But I'm for using it as the second paragraph if we can build consensus around that idea. I disagree with editors who think the paragraph is too lenient-- there are a few points we can expand upon but it reflects the sources.Encyclotadd (talk) 01:31, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Happy to move the paragraphs. Raczy, good or bad English aside our job is to be neutral in regard to the sources, not neutral in respect of the subject. Your search suggestion misses that point. ----Snowded ^TALK 04:37, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Attempted a good faith edit to reflect growing consensus for moving third paragraph up one spot so that it becomes second paragraph. To me this makes sense but it highlights the redundancy of one of the sentences in the formerly second (now third) paragraph.Encyclotadd (talk) 13:10, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Pretty bold of you to make an edit that's an opposite approach of this RfC. There's obviously no consensus for that. I can agree to moving up the second paragraph if the paragraph is significantly condensed. (by the way this is the original poster "All is god" - did a name change) NaturaNaturans (talk) 16:45, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Whether or not it's the original approach of this RfC is completely irrelevant, and there is indeed a consensus for the change, as can be seen in the discussion here. siafu (talk) 17:10, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

This RfC is barely 2 days old and at least 2 people have expressed disagreement with the lead here (and more in the sections above which have not had a chance to express their views here). Just because a few of you are quick to respond and have formed some kind of police group here doesn't mean you have established consensus. NaturaNaturans (talk) 17:16, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

The RfC is not closed, and if you're able to build consensus for the change you've suggested, then that can be done. So far it doesn't seem to be going that way, but regardless there's no reason not to make a switch of the ordering of the paragraphs if the current consensus supports that. siafu (talk) 17:23, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

The reason not to change the order of the paragraphs is that that, the order, is the topic of the RfC. People coming here may be confused as to the order change being proposed. I urge that the order be left as it was when the RfC started. Psychology, Neuroscience, Medicine, and Mind&Brain should have probably all so been included in the RfC notice. IMAO, the article needs many changes, this would be a start. htom (talk) 17:57, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

htom can you please add whatever you think should have been added to the notice NaturaNaturans (talk) 18:29, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

NaturaNaturans aka AllisGod, If you are so bent on changing the POV in the article, why not look for new sources rather than trying to make changes to copy that's properly sourced? The current version of the lead has been discussed, agreed upon and thoroughly vetted so many times before. If you think, on the other hand, that we're being too lenient on NLP, you can prove that with new sources as well. The key is to add rather than subtract from the work of other editors to move the conversation forward.Encyclotadd (talk) 18:02, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

that wasn't me that you just responded to NaturaNaturans (talk) 18:16, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

htom is correct that editing the page's paragraphs while an RfC that specifies paragraph numbers is inappropriate. I have reverted the paragraph switching NaturaNaturans (talk) 18:22, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

It would make more sense for you simply to change the numbers in the RfC rather than to revert a change that had consensus. U've made the change. Improving the article doesn't stop because the same issue is being raised yet again ----Snowded ^TALK 18:32, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

a few of you here have a twisted view of what consensus means. NaturaNaturans (talk) 18:55, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

NaturaNaturans, if you would simply focus on what the reliable sources say, rather than on your personal opinions, you'll find everyone delighted to consider your opinions towards consensus. So far you haven't contributed a single source and have just tried to undue the hard work of others. Your edit warring has to stop.Encyclotadd (talk) 19:00, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

If the concern is that the introduction does not sufficiently explain what NLP is, the best solution would be to propose an addition to it. Another paragraph for the lead, for example, that covers what you believe is missing. If you would care to do that, and propose it here, I'm sure we would all be quite willing to discuss it, and I for one would not object to adding such a paragraph to the lead at least in principle. Removing or marginalizing the scientific criticism, however, smacks very hard of POV-pushing, as the current form is merely representing what the reliable sources say. siafu (talk) 19:04, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm not even disputing the sources or the content, just the manner in which it is presented. If you would like for me to consider challenging the content and its weighted significance here, I can do that also. This article is not the Scientific Evaluation of Neuro-linguistic Programming page, it is Neuro-linguistic Programming and ought to be treated as such. NaturaNaturans (talk) 19:11, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

NaturaNaturans, Your slow edit war won't work. Take Siafu's suggestion and write something new with proper references for a change. That would be a good way for you to contribute positively. Trying to edit war agreed upon references out is just wasting everybody's time.Encyclotadd (talk) 19:41, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree witn Encyclotadd, slow edit won't work. And I agree with NaturaNaturans whet he says this is the NLP article and not the "Scientific Evaluation of Neuro-linguistic Programming" article. And it would be great to create that special page as there is a great job to do in writing an article on the subject. I am quite sure that there would be a great opportunity to frame something interesting and encyclopecic. That would also helps in getting more credibility for the main article which might, sometimes, for some parts, sounds more like a prosecution than like an true encyclopedic article. So, NaturaNaturans, If you are willing to do it, as you first wrote the idea, it is up to you ! -- Damien Raczy (talk) 07:23, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Though I did assess my suggestion about paragraphs two and three carefully enough to know that it would work, the reason I actually made the suggestion was to counter the rather unfortunate proposal to weaken the factual nature of the lead by moving said paragraph away. I believe that in fact, the lead is rather biased against rationality, and could be improved to present NLP in a much more realistic light. In the first para, the last sentence reads "The balance of scientific evidence reveals it to be a largely discredited pseudoscience." Could we not change this sentence to read "The overwhelming scientific evidence reveals it to be largely discredited." This gets rid of the word 'pseudoscience' that the NLP people hate so much, and presents a far more accurate picture.Roxy the dog (talk) 11:59, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Roxy, I appreciate your intention to reduce the influx of SPAs. But the problem we would face with such a change is that our reliable sources do expressly call it a pseudoscience, and even proponents acknowledge there is good reason.Encyclotadd (talk) 18:19, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Damien, You aren't addressing the universal answer among experienced editors to your edit request, which is that you are advocating for the pro NLP perspective rather than for balanced reporting of the sources. You don't love the word pseudoscience but that's what leading academics call it. You wouldn't ask editors of an article about a cult to balance perspectives of the "faithful" with those of peer reviewed journals, would you? Please focus on the sources NOT personal opinion. Otherwise you're wasting everyone's time.Encyclotadd (talk) 12:21, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Aha! I should edit from the ANTI-NLP perspective, pushing the text completely into the Scientific Denunciation of Neuro Linguist Programming article, and wait for the slow editorial process to complete the cycle into the Rational Explanation of What is Neuro Linguistic Progamming, Anyway that I wanted. There are many cults, and I suspect there's one here: an Anti-NLP Cult. htom (talk) 13:58, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

If you feel that the article fails to explain what NLP is, please propose additional text that will accomplish that purpose rather than trying to remove or marginalize the realistic assessment of NLP. Just removing or hiding this assessment would leave the article in a very non-neutral state. siafu (talk) 16:39, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

• Here from the NPOVN, but I've been here before. NLP started as some kind of magical or wishful thinking (mostly wishful thinking from the founders that it would work and/or make them rich and famous, probably) and developed into a scam or hoax. Whitewashing the lead does no service to our readers; the Rfc reads "If I knew nothing of this subject, and just wanted to know what is the meaning of "Neuro-Linguistic Programming" I would become skeptical of the source after reading the lead paragraphs" - take out the word "source" and why not? You should be skeptical of something which has no science behind it and doesn't work. I'm skeptical of snake oil salesmen, myself, glad to hear others are too. But the source? If one article with this many editors can completely put you off Wikipedia, then you're probably a proponent or advocate on the one hand, or an opponent or protestor on the other. IOW, one would generally need an opinion of their own to be assailed to discredit the entire encyclopedia. I leave to the regular editors whether the lead needs any fine-tuning, but moving the entire critical paragraph out of the lead is whitewashing, however it is intended. One puppy's opinion. KillerChihuahua 12:29, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't know much more about NLP than what is presented in this article, but I know that "magical or wishful thinking" is why I am a successful person. I come to Wikipedia to learn and understand, not just get the overwhelming Skeptics View of NLP. Humans are not perfect and science is not infallible. Is Wikipedia just for science worshiping activist editors who think they have all the answers? That's what your post suggests to me. One cat's opinion. NaturaNaturans (talk) 20:44, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Encyclopedia articles are obviously not the place for you to express wishful thinking. They are a place for reflecting reliable sources. There are plenty of discussion forums and blogs where you can engage in that kind of speculation where it won't be reverted.Encyclotadd (talk) 20:50, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

That wasn't my point. My point was that subjects that YOU consider to be wishful thinking ought to be treated in a neutral manner here. This is not the Skeptics Guide to NLP page. Scientific evaluation of the subject is given undue weight here. NaturaNaturans (talk) 21:01, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

The scientific evaluation of NLP is not, in and of itself, a POV that can be weighted. As I have mentioned multiple times, if there is insufficient explanation of NLP itself, please propose some additions that would clarify the subject. If you feel that rational evaluation is excessive, perhaps an encyclopedia is not the place for you. siafu (talk) 23:45, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

This entire circular conversation would end, NaturalNat, if you would just read Wikipedia's rules about reliable sources. You are wasting everyone's time.Encyclotadd (talk) 16:21, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Not sure the time is waste if it leads to better undertanding and good relationships. One point, what specifically do you suggest NaturaNaturans read? It is one thing to assert "would just read Wikipedia's rules about reliable sources", and another to welcome and help people to find and read reliable stuff to read and understand wikipedia. So, please, be specific and helpful. Might you indicate the proper link? == Damien Raczy (talk) 19:24, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Its been explained several times. We are neutral as to the sources, not neutral as to pro and anti NLP groups. Advocacy of the role of magic in your own life has nothing to do with improving the article. Phrases like "science worshiping activist editors" are not acceptable. I could go on but there are multiple examples. If you don't know the link for reliable sources then shame on you. ----Snowded ^TALK 19:48, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Let me be as concise as possible then: I'm here proposing an RfC because of the undue weight given to scientific evaluation of the subject in the lead. Period. NaturaNaturans (talk) 20:02, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

I second NaturaNaturans proposal. I've gone through the previous discussions and read the article and I am of the same impression, meaning: the article's tone is biased. As a reminder, consensus can change.--Ljfeliu (talk) 20:13, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

The invocation of WP:UNDUE here is entirely misplaced, and, frankly, baffling. Scientific evaluation is not, in and of itself, a POV at all, and a fortiori not a POV that can receive excess weight. The denunciation of NLP as pseudoscience, however, is a POV, but in this case it happens to be the POV supported by the vast majority of reliable sources, as demonstrated by the sources and previous discussions on this talk page, and therefore it is most certainly not unduly weighted. siafu (talk) 20:39, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Obviously we would reflect peer reviewed psychological journals over hocus pocus magic advocacy groups. Roxy, Siafu|siafu and Snowded are right- this is a huge waste of time.Encyclotadd (talk) 20:56, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

The number of times you write, "waste of time" etc. is unhelpful and disrespectful. Please stop. NaturaNaturans (talk) 22:56, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Try this analogy. Deism is a kind of alternative theology. If we were to overwhelm that page with POV from experts in theology (which would qualify as reliable sources) from those who criticize deism (practically all theologians), that page would be a bigger mess than this page. NLP does not claim to be establishment psychology with names such as "Structure of Magic" and "Frogs Into Princes". NaturaNaturans (talk) 22:56, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

NaturaNaturans, We reviewed the literature claiming NLP is a religion and cult. While several sources characterize it as a cult, editor consensus here was that we should not include that characterization in the article. So I'm not sure theology is the right analogy. The conversation we're having is less about whether a religion should be considered scientifically, and more about whether a pseudoscience should be considered scientifically, and I believe the balance of the reliable sources support the views expressed in the article. Really if you focus on the rules about sources and sources themselves we can (finally) make some progress. I'm sorry if you don't like my characterizing this conversation as a "waste of time" but really the conversation should be about sources and not your personal opinion.Encyclotadd (talk) 23:06, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure I follow the analogy; if you read the deism article you'll find that the majority of it is a discussion of deism in theological and philosophical terms, with the exception of some parts in the "History of classical deism" section. Also detracting from any power your analogy might have is that deism is merely a belief system, with no testable claims or conclusions, and ipso facto does not and cannot have a scientific or realistic evaluation. If you feel that there should be a comparable discussion of the history of neuro-linguistic programming that is currently missing, please feel to propose the additional text. siafu (talk) 23:12, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

If it's hard to understand the "deist" analogy, try this other one: [...]Psychoanalysis is a kind of psychotherapy. If we were to overwhelm that page with POV from experts in cognitivism and behaviourism (which would qualify as reliable sources) from those who criticize psychoanalysis (practically all cognitivists and behaviourists), that page would be a bigger mess than this page [...]. The fact is that even if I agree with the evidence of lots of pseudoscientific "proofs" in NLP, scientific evaluation of NLP is definitely not the core of NLP. And there is no references here that could prove that scientific evaluation of NLP is the core of NLP, are there? So, I strongly suggest to create a special page for Scientific evaluation of NLP as it is a wide and subject (I would be a good willing contributor) and I also suggest to focus here more on NLP in itself, and less on criticism. -- Damien Raczy (talk) 23:40, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Also detracting from any power your analogy might have is that deism is merely a belief system, with no testable claims or conclusions, and ipso facto does not and cannot have a scientific or realistic evaluation. If you feel that there should be a comparable discussion of the history of neuro-linguistic programming that is currently missing, please feel to propose the additional text. siafu That would be Frogs into Princes, page 178. That's why I've been saying that the denunciation as pseudo-science is nonsense. It is (or was, at one time) a method, a belief, a set of practices, in how you could communicate with a patient/client (or yourself.) It is not a theory of psychology or therapy. (It is, in a way, a model of one of many possible communication processes.) What the practitioner did with that was up to them. The greedy took it and did things they probably shouldn't have, as did some cult leaders. Others tried to test it, taking either the first or the second path to the failure of the method that is described on that page. That the greedy and the cults find it so useful, and science finds it ineffective, I think says something, but it's not that NLP is ineffective. It's that it's not rational, it's ... there's a word for that, it will come to me. htom (talk) 00:03, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

This claim that "NLP is not a theory of psychology" and thereby somehow not subject to scientific analysis is an absurd evasion of the issue. NLP does claim to be able to do things, whether proponents chalk it up to psychology, linguistics, or just plain magic, and these claims are indeed testable, have been tested, and have been shown to be bogus. None of these things is possible, even in principle, for something like deism, which is what makes the analogy inoperative. siafu (talk) 16:20, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

One more point. There are far more sources about “what NLP is” than sources about "scientific evaluation of NLP". So, even if scientific evaluation is interesting, I really don't understand why scientific critic is so prominent in this article, partly hiding the core of the subject Damien Raczy (talk) 00:14, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Partly hiding the core of the subject is exactly the point, I suppose. I have seen this mechanism at work at the homeopathy article for years. Imagine the staff of the Spanish Inquisition working on the article Satan. They think it's a seductive topic that readers should not know too much about because it's so dangerous for their souls. So as much of the lead as they can get away with will consist in warnings that good Christians should not study this guy and what bad things will happen if they try it anyway. Maybe the rest of the article will contain some information about the cultural history of the topic, but not the lead. The lead will only be concerned with warnings that Satan is pseudoscience anti-Christian and how to recognise possessed people and how to drive him away and how to treat witches. Now very much the same kind of thing happens when several subscribers to the Skeptical Inquirer or regular Quackwatch readers assemble at an article like this one. They just can't be relaxed about any topic that smells even remotely like pseudoscience. Hans Adler 00:40, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Nobody is trying to suppress additional information about the topic, or that "readers should not know too much about [it] because it's so dangerous". On the contrary, I and other have asked repeatedly for suggestions for additional text that will fill the void of information you are complaining about. If the article does not sufficiently explain the history and purported function of NLP, that is no reason to remove or marginalize the scientific evaluation, and every reason to write more on the history and nature of NLP. Please do so. siafu (talk) 16:29, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

We discussed Freud before and decided he was not analogous. Too academically accepted to be even remotely like what we have here.

I think we should move on to discuss edits based on reliable sources. The whole "lets remove science" argument is nonsense.Encyclotadd (talk) 00:48, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Definitely I agree with you Encyclotadd when you say that getting more reliable sources is a good outcome. And as a reliable source is not reliable in itself but reliable as related to a topic, we cannot avoid the subject of what this article is about: NLP or NLP scientific evaluation. So, I suggest refocusing on the topic of the article, NLP, and create another page about scientific evaluation of NLP. This doesn't mean that the NLP article must be NLP "friendly", it just means that evaluation is just a part of the topic. At the moment, more than 2/3 of the header is dedicated to NLP scepticism, so it is not an article about NLP, but about NLP scepticism. -- Damien Raczy (talk) 02:59, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Scientific evaluation obviously belongs in an encyclopedia article about a pseudoscience. It's that simple.Encyclotadd (talk) 03:11, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, we agree on one point: scientific evaluation must a part the article. It is obvious! The question is what is this article about? Is it about "NLP" or about "scientific evaluation of NLP"? And, if we agree on the fact that the article is about NLP, can "scientific evaluation of NLP" be the biggest topic of the "NLP" article? If yes, can we rename the article in order to reflect it's main topic. If not, may we create a good and clear article about "scientific evaluation of NLP"? / Damien Raczy (talk) 03:54, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

This is becoming tiresome and you are starting to be disruptive. The lede reflects the article and that both describes NLP but also describes how it is treated in third party reliable sources. If you have ideas to improve the description of NLP and you can come up with suitable sources make the proposal. There is a section on the scientific evaluation, it is not excessive. We can almost certainly find ways to improve the lede but that does not mean moving sections whole scale. I think it could be more succinctly summarised without loosing its essence but its difficult to do that with the constant assault by NLP practitioners trying to make it into a puff piece. If we can close this meaningless RfC I'm happy to come up with some proposals for that. ----Snowded ^TALK 07:21, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Since the beginning, NLP claims being NOT scientific as Mann & al (2012) say:

On page 7 of their book Frogs and Princes they explain that they are not psychologists, theologians or theoreticians; that they have no idea about the real nature of things; and are not particularly interested in what’s true. Their aim is to describe something that is useful. They further report on page 7 that “If we happen to mention something that you know from a scientific study, or from statistics, is inaccurate, realise that a different level of experience is being offered you here. We’re not offering you something that’s true, just things that are useful.” (Samantha Mann & Aldert Vrij & Erika Nasholm & Lara Warmelink & Sharon Leal & Dave Forrester, 2012, J Police Crim Psych, The Direction of Deception: Neuro-Linguistic Programming as a Lie Detection Tool)

So, scientific (in)validation of NLP is very interesting, must be present in the NLP article and should not be underweight. On the other hand, as it is not a part of NLP, it should not be overweight. IMHO, a dedicated page would be useful. It will be a great opportunity to increase quality of both “NLP” content and “NLP evaluation” content - Damien Raczy (talk) 10:23, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes and we all know that is the line taken by Grindler in his attempt to relaunch NLP. Now can you please stop the original research and come up with some sources. Interestingly the "a different level of experience" is a classic psuedoscience statement. Also the scientific evaluation is not the largest part of the article, you statement there is false. If you have (supported by references) ideas to improve the other sections we would all welcome them. The obfuscation of proposals for different articles etc. is all to characteristic of the attempts by the now permanently banned Comaze and several of his meat puppets by the way. ----Snowded ^TALK 10:47, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Snowed, are you seriously suggesting that Grinder is attempting to relaunch NLP with a quote from him from 1979? Relaunching with out the crud attached by others and denounced by the skeptics might be useful to the world at large. Your paranoia about anything published by anyone who isn't a third-hand skeptic of NLP is a bit tedious. htom (talk) 21:31, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Useful or not its not our affair, and its not my paranoia but wikipedia that insists on third party reliable sources. Your designation of that rule as third hand and skeptic is pretty typical of your tendentious style and refusal to attempt to understand how wikipedia works. Try not to judge others by your own standards for polemic. ----Snowded ^TALK 23:18, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm saying it's your judgement that's requiring third-hand skeptics' opinions, not Wikipedia's. I suppose you can complain about that; I think it's tendentious on your part. htom (talk) 00:54, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Snowded was right that Grinder was trying unsuccessfully to relaunch the subject with New Code, and that effort started around 1979. I don't have any opinion on that particular quote but generally he has the history correct.Encyclotadd (talk) 22:58, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure when the "New Code" project started (1995?), but Frogs into Princes was their third or fourth book, covering material from the late 1960s and early 1970s, decidedly part of the "Old Code", and it had several successors before Grinder and Bandler's falling out in the 1980s. htom (talk) 00:54, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Snowded. Are you suggesting I ll be banned? = Damien Raczy (talk) 11:34, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Raczy, I don't think Snowded was suggesting you are part of the meat puppet farm that was recently banned-- more that you have taken the same positions and tactics as that meat farm, and that your indefensible insistence on "removing science" from the article is disruptive. We've now heard you out at length and editor consensus is that peer reviewed journals and other such reliable sources do indeed belong in this article, just as Wikipedia rules require that they are. If you want to add constructively, please provide some edit suggestions with references. But if you just wish to extoll the virtues of magic etc long wind, find a discussion forum or blog. This is an encyclopedia.Encyclotadd (talk) 11:46, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

My main suggestion is : if scientific evaluation is not the main topic of the article, as Snowded agreed with, so it should not be the main topic of the header. --- Damien Raczy (talk) 18:01, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

All of your suggestions Raczy amount to less science and more magic. The problem is that this article is based on reliable sources, and our sources say not only science but pseudoscience. Lots of editors now have politely tried to explain the rules to you. If you don't like the sources, provide some new ones. If you don't want to have to focus on sources, go write about you theories on meta magic on a blog or discussion forum somewhere else because this is an encyclopedia.Encyclotadd (talk) 22:58, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Wow! After claiming COI, you are inventing I am pro-magic. One may think differently without falling in the abyss of magical thinking or COI. And please read more carefully, especially the references mentioned above before criticizing. It is not pro or anti, not opinion or beliefs, it is only facts. What is ungrounded belief if for example speculations about why and how Grinder is marketing to renew NLP. For this claim about the renewal of NLP, I know absolutely no valid ref. And I suppose there is no valid ref about a renewal of NLP simply because NLP is at the end of its paradigm. (http://www.sueknight.co.uk/Archives/Publications/Articles/NLP_Plausible.htm). ~ Damien Raczy (talk) 02:34, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Raczy, I'm not calling you out for a conflict of interest. I'll leave it to other editors to decide whether your NLP consultancy and coaching business is a conflict. However, you have posted a lot of links on this talk page to NLP training seminars, including the one above to Sue Knight. You should know that marketing is frowned upon here. Please do keep that in check.Encyclotadd (talk) 03:07, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Encyclotadd. You write that I "have posted a lot of links on this talk page to NLP training seminars". Prove it, and be factual. = Damien Raczy (talk) 03:34, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I think part of your confusion is that you think NLP consultants are sources reliable by the same standard as peer reviewed psychological journals. The link you posted two paragraphs above was to Sue Knight's NLP consultancy training business: http://www.sueknight.co.uk/Programmes/nlp.htm I suppose that's not necessarily marketing, and you were using her consultancy business as a source. But regardless your entire focus should be on reliable sources. The whole conversation about making the article and lede less scientific is just hogwash.Encyclotadd (talk) 04:01, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

You write above that I posted a link that was http://www.sueknight.co.uk/Programmes/nlp.htm. This is false as the link was http://www.sueknight.co.uk/Archives/Publications/Articles/NLP_Plausible.htm . And the link was towards to a sceptical point view / NLP and not towards to a training.

And, please, refocus on the subject : the header of the article = Damien Raczy (talk) 04:20, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

You are both right, yes in her archives she lists one partially skeptical article; yes the header links to her training and consultancy. Overall she is not a reliable source for a third party view of NLP. She would be a source for what NLP is. I bought her book when I first got into editing this page to get a view of the subject and its a good summary and she is well respected. Raczy, the proposition still stands, if you want to suggest improvements to the What is NLP sections, which could do with improvement do so, then we can reflect that material as appropriate in the lede. The criticism section has been through hell and back to validate its sources under multiple attacks from many editors and its sound. How we summarise it in the lede then becomes an issue. I'm happy to work on that when this RfC is over. There is repetition and we can improve it and make it more representative, but the solution is not to move one paragraph out whole scale which is what the RfC is about. Also the RfC is not about renaming the article, that I am pretty sure is a non-starter ----Snowded ^TALK 07:01, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Snowed. I am happy to read your last post. I am currently "trying" to write something short and balanced. The main issues are not using the NLP '"jargon", not copy paste "incantations", not being "anti" nor "pro" etc. and for sure, I'll need help. I hope collaboration will be respectful and flowing. It should be written in a couple of days. As it is adding significant material, where should I post my short proposal for a constructive collaboration ? . Damien Raczy (talk) 08:09, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Create a section here. But some advise. Tightening up the existing wording is one thing, rewriting it I am less sure of. There has been a lot of discussion and agreement over the years on this and given some of your comments above I don't think you have fully grasped what NPOV means here. ----Snowded ^TALK 23:16, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

That's a balanced suggestion from Snowded. I guess it's up to an uninvolved editor to close the RfC, and we would (I'm sure) all welcome a new section of the talk page for conversation about the article based on reliable sources.Encyclotadd (talk) 23:54, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I've made three contributions to this talk page, and no edits to the Article. Am I uninvolved enough to close the RfC, and if so, how do I do that? (insert smiley here)Roxy the dog (talk) 23:01, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes that would be consistent with the spirit of the rules I think. There are instructions here: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:CLOSE#section_3 Encyclotadd (talk) 01:16, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

I think its dead so if you just want to close it as unresolved I can't see anyone objecting. On the other hand if you want to make a determination involving any change you are an involved editor ----Snowded ^TALK 07:19, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

I can't do it, I'm too involved, so I asked a much more experienced mate to do it, and he refused stating that ethically it would be wrong, as it is exactly what the "baddies" do, get mates to come along and vote. He's right. Instead, I've asked on the NPOV/Noticeboard where Alisgod opened the discussion. I hope that is OK Roxy the dog (talk) 12:03, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

THere is no consensus to change so closure is easy. Are you hoping otherwise? Otherwise to note for any new editor, Alisod who opened this discussion also contributed as NaturaNaturans. The editor seems to be in a quandary as to which name to use. ----Snowded ^TALK 12:29, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

The editor may be using multiple machines with bookmarks to the different names, and hasn't brought them into sync. Especially unhelpful in fixing this can be external browser syncing and login tools, which may "fix" the changes you try to make.

I hope that's what it is, and that the editor using multiple handles (NaturaNaturans aka Allisgod) is not associated with the recently banned sock/meat accounts. It would be nice to improve the article without disruptive behavior. Obviously we should assume good faith.Encyclotadd (talk) 15:27, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

"The title asserts..."?

Can we find better language please? Asserting is something that people do. A concept or abstract noun cannot assert. If suggests is MOS:OPED, so is asserts. Suggests is at least half-decent English. WykiP (talk) 20:19, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

"It asserts" would be OK. I can't see how its OPED as its exactly what is claimed ("It claims" would also be OK). ----Snowded ^TALK 10:11, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

I reverted WykiP's "As the title suggests" for being MOS:OPED on a par with saying "obviously" or "clearly". "It asserts" seems fine. --McGeddon (talk) 11:45, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

The "suggests" language was not mine. The words "Neuro-linguistic Programming" assert nothing. They are just words. Therefore "The title asserts..." is grammatically incorrect and that's why I restored the change. I don't have access to the sources to see whether they make any such assertions. WykiP (talk) 18:47, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

A theory can assert something surely? ----Snowded ^TALK 11:23, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but a title of a field cannot -- and there isn't a theory of NLP as far as I know. WykiP (talk) 20:53, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Funny there are all those books then ----Snowded ^TALK 03:17, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Well I don't know a great deal about NLP but I do have dozens of books that contain no theories.

I Googled NLP and theory and there's nothing. But I did find this, maybe it alludes to what I heard: "A question often asked of NLP is that of whether it has a theory. As noted above, authors in the field emphasise pragmatism, and have seldom shown interest in articulating NLP as a theory...

...NLP does espouse underlying epistemological principles, concerning the processes through which people perceive, know and learn. Typically articulated for practitioners as a set of `presuppositions’ ... these appear to be based substantially on Gregory Bateson’s interests in ecology and cybernetics systems."

Googling NLP Presuppostions, I get this page

First is an instruction, second is axiomatic I guess, third is a theory (proven AFAIK), fourth is an instruction, don't know what the fifth is... it's all a bit of a mess. There's another theory further down: "Behind every behaviour there is a positive intention." Sounds dubious and unfalsifiable.

I guess the question is can you cite a source saying there's a theory of NLP that there's a connection between the neurological processes ("neuro"), language ("linguistic"), and behavioral patterns learned through experience ("programming") WykiP (talk) 04:47, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Check the references at the end of the paragraph. This is also the lede. That connection is fundamental to NLP (although personally I think its nonsense) ----Snowded ^TALK 14:40, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Which? #3 or #18. I don't doubt the connection was originally asserted, but without a source asserting it, it should probably be deleted. WykiP (talk) 18:05, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Both do as far as I know and so does virtually every book on the subject including multiple citations in the main body of the article ----Snowded ^TALK 22:49, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Neither do. You reverted this, you find a reliable source, or accept the word "suggests" MOS:OPED or not, else I'm deleting it. WykiP (talk) 13:11, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

(out) NLP as originally taught by B&G explicitly rejected the idea that NLP was a theory as such. NLP was not a science, not engineering, but a method of communication that could be practiced. Look for used paperbacks of Frogs into Princes, and Reframing. The connection is described there as that, a method, not as a theory. htom (talk) 02:51, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

OK so its a method (sort of), point still applies it can assert ----Snowded ^TALK 08:02, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

With a citation -- currently lacking, else it's as MOS:OPED as "suggests". WykiP (talk) 13:19, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

The lead lacks a decent definition but would be worse without this. Whilst looking for a new one, I found a source for the 'asserts' statement. WykiP (talk) 05:51, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Jargon

108.180.252.74, I re-read the prose that you excerpted and think I can see (at least part of) the problem you describe. The article uses NLP jargon (eg. Meta Model, sensory predicate, matching, mirroring, etc.) without having first defined it. This is poor form for an encyclopedic entry. Either the jargon should be defined before or at the point of use or it should be omitted altogether. 114.76.75.113 (talk) 09:29, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

A jargon section may be a suitable initial patch - David Gerard (talk) 12:00, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Is there some kind of template for this? WykiP (talk) 05:59, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Lacunae that have been marked-up

Below I provide the citations that are missing from the article and marked-up as so. These have not been incorporated into the article. If someone with permission to edit the article could do so that would be great.

History and founding > Early development:

(1) Missing citation marked-up with "citation needed".

The phrase "artfully vague" occurs in the context of describing the "Milton-Model" on page 240 of "Trance-formations: Neuro-Linguistic Programming and the Structure of Hypnosis" (John Grinder and Richard Bandler; edited by Connirae Andreas; Real People Press; 1981), i.e.

Bandler, R. & Grinder, J. (1981) "Trance-formations: Neuro-Linguistic Programming™ and the Structure of Hypnosis", Moab: Real People Press.

Scientific evaluation > Scientific criticism:

(2) Missing citation marked-up with "citation needed" The required citation is:

Rodrique-Davies, G. (2009). Neuro-linguistic programming: Cargo cult psychology? Journal of Applied Research in Higher Education, 1, 57-63

(3) Missing citation marked-up with "citation needed"

Devilly G. J. (2005) Power therapies and possible threats to the science of psychology and psychiatry. Australia and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 39, 437-445

(4) Superscipted "when?"

The issue of when is clarified by referring to the citations but if this is deemed inappropriate the temporal reference can be dropped altogether. The sentence can be written as:

"NLP has also been used as a key example of pseudoscience to facilitate the understanding of the importance of rational and critical thinking in a number of academic subjects.[11][12][13]" 114.76.75.113 (talk) 03:47, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

(5) Corrupted footnote number 29

AFAIK Norcross et al (2010) is

Norcross JC, Koocher GP, Fala NC, Wexler HK. (2010) What does not work? Expert consensus on discredited treatments in the addictions. Journal of Addiction Medicine, Sep, 4(3), 174-80 114.76.75.113 (talk) 04:00, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks - if another editor does not pick them up I will try and complete over the next 48 hours ----Snowded ^TALK 05:02, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Correcting and cleaning up the citations and references was what I was going to do next. I enjoy that sort of thing! There are quite a few of those, so if there are any that I miss, or can't figure out, I 'll leave those for Snowded. --FeralOink (talk) 01:48, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! ----Snowded ^TALK 04:58, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

I spent hours last night, cleaning up a number of the "corrupted footnotes". They were remarkably resistant to being un-corrupted, which is mostly due to the presence of duplicates, as well as bare DOI's that aren't using the Journal Citation template. I didn't fix everything.

Some observations

1. The article needs a thorough going-over with the appropriate toolserver for citation cleaning.
2. The article suffers from an excess of justification of what is widely known, well-established and accepted as fact. Sigh. I don't know what can be done about that, as the article continues to be challenged, despite its current, "hyper-corroborated" status.

--FeralOink (talk) 09:32, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Some other (typographic/grammatical/stylistic) problems I have noticed:

1. In the lead the sentence: "Norcross et al 2010 list NLP in the top ten most discredited interventions for treatment of addictio" Problems: (a) the year should be in parentheses; (b) an 'n' should be appended to 'addictio'.
2. In the section Scientific criticism the sentence: 'Norcross et al. listed "neurolinguistic programming for drug and alcohol dependence" seventh out of their list of the ten most discredited drugs and alcohol interventions' Problems: 'et al' should be italicised and '(2010)' should appear after it. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 10:16, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

The Lead is absurd

What's with this ridiculous lead? More than half of the lead is criticism etc. of NLP ?? LOL

The problem with the criticism paragraph is that it is simply a laborious repetition of the fact that NLP is considered Pseudoscience by the Scientific community - which is clearly the truth.

There should be no more than 3 lines summarizing the criticism in a very clear and emphasized way. the rest of it ,naturally, should be in the appropriate places within the article

Right now this doesn't look serious and encyclopedic, it looks ridiculous and quite hysterical 79.181.218.107 (talk) 11:01, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Granted, it may appear hysterical and ridiculous. The extraordinary ardor which the subject matter of the article continues to elicit, seems a plausible motivation for such emphasis though. Ultimately, if people want to give their money away to those who make false promises, no amount of rationality will dissuade them. It is in the nature of Wikipedia though, that if this article weren't footnoted and fer'd and sourced to seeming excess, that within a few weeks, the article would be re-written as a glowing endorsement of the efficacy of Neuro-linguistic programming, and there would be references to it, web-wide. In good conscience, it seems better (to me) to make the effort, of clearly stating that this is a discredited practice, right in the first few sentences, than being too mild. --FeralOink (talk) 13:31, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't agree that the article "looks ridiculous and quite hysterical". I do agree that the prose can be improved in some places but overall I think it is fine. As FeralOink has already suggested the hyper-citation is a response to the repeated destruction of the article by editors with COIs that are here to promote NLP rather than inform the general public. The earnest editor can do no more than corroborate and corroborate some more in response to this self-service and zealotry. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 09:54, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

As I've said before, the lead barely attempts to explain what NLP is. The prestigious Royal College of General Practitioners apparently do not consider NLP to be a pseudoscience but rather an improperly tested field of unknown efficacy (http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/rcgp/bjgp/2012/00000062/00000604/art00031) and no convincing evidence that they have a minority viewpoint has come forwards.

As the article seems to be written entirely by one or two skeptics, with no-one else paying any interest, I haven't bothered pursuing either this or the clear flaws in the article (yours being a prime example). WykiP (talk) 20:35, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

The opinion expressed in Sturt et al is the opinion of Sturt and her co-authors it does not represent an official position of the RCGP. Furthermore, (a) the opinion expressed in Sturt et al is a minority opinion and that doesn't need corroboration, we can safely conclude that it is a minority position because it is the only paper of its type that expresses such a view; (b) the opinion expressed in Sturt et al is at odds with other recent reviews such as Witkowski (2010) that instead concludes, "[m]y analysis leads undeniably to the statement that NLP represents pseudoscientific rubbish, which should be mothballed forever". (p.64) Witkowski (2010) adds to the chorus of disapproval and condemnation of NLP and the lukewarm conclusion of Sturt et al regarding NLP -- which I have covered repeatedly here in the talk page -- is insufficient to negate all of this criticism; and (c) Sturt et al does not represent positive evidence in favour of the efficacy of NLP nor does it contain any sort of rebuttal that NLP is a pseudoscience. The absence of any sort of positive evidence or argumentation for NLP renders Sturt et al insiginificant for the purpose of editing this article. Sturt et al actually corroborates the main thrust of the article, namely that NLP is devoid of an evidence base. 114.76.75.113 (talk) 12:47, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

The book you reference is not a statement by the Royal College and the nature of its claims have already been answered above. ----Snowded ^TALK 04:57, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

No, but it is published by the Royal College, and "answered" in your opinion, not mine. WykiP (talk) 06:37, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Published by does not mean endorsed by. How much do you know about publishing? Otherwise if you disagree then take it to a forum and see what support you get ----Snowded ^TALK 21:54, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

I know that institutions, particularly ones as prestigious as the RCGP, are very very careful about what they publish.

I've fixed some POV-causing overgeneralisation in the lead.

The sentence In research designed to identify the "quack factor" in modern mental health practice is pejorative. This was opinion-based research. WykiP (talk) 10:50, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

1. It is not pejorative to describe practices that offer false hope to desperate, unhappy people in exchange for money as within the realm of quackery. Quackery is a legitimate word, as a charlatanry. If something less damning (no blasphemy intended by my usage here) was chosen i.e. "quack factor", that would be appropriate under WP policies of not using jargon or unnecessarily complex phrasing.

2. Regarding the Royal College of General Practitioners (RCGP), they do not opine on that which they consider "an improperly tested field of unknown efficacy". If they were to do so, they would be publishing about all manner of things.

3. Much more significant, regarding the RCGP, please note that they are Royal College of General Practitioners. They are not psychiatrists, nor behavioral therapists, nor psychologists, nor do they claim to be. General practitioners are medical doctors who treat physical ailments of adults and children. Their commentary regarding psychological or behavioral therapeutics, if that is the content of the source referenced (I did not check, merely trusted you, in good faith), would not be authoritative for the purposes of this article's subject matter. --FeralOink (talk) 13:21, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

1. That depends on the sources. 'Quackery' is more of an emotive, negative label than pseudoscience. For sake of argument, let's assume that the ARBCOM ruling on pseudoscience still applies. Where it says that a subject may be called pseudoscience if it is "generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community", let's say that the lead on the NLP can refer to quackery if it is generally considered "quackery" by the scientific community, OK? In which case, produce the sources. Secondly, this was opinion-gathering, not science at all.

2. Can you rephrase that? I'm not sure what you mean.

3. Psychiatrists are not highly regarded by the scientific community. You might notice have noticed recent authoritative attacks on the psychiatrist's bible, the Diagnostics and Statistics Manual. Ergo, I would not assume that psychiatrists speak for the scientific community. I would have to say that respected medical authorities are more authoritative. WykiP (talk) 20:10, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

1. Norcross et al (2006) use the terms/phrases quakery, quack psychotherapies, psychoquakery to refer to those treatments that are pseudoscientific and unvalidated. The word quack and its derivatives generally pertain to nonsense in the medical domain so one would only expect to find that description of NLP techniques that are applied psychotherapeutically. So the correct question would be "what portion of experts in mental health regard NLP to be quakery?" and Norcross et al (2006) answers that question. You should also note that Norcross et al (2006) was published in the American Psychological Association's journal Professional Psychology: Research and Practice. The APA is the USA's preeminent organisation for psychologists. With regard to authoring Wikipedia articles on psychology and mental health matters the APA's journals are amongst the most citable sources. Further, John C. Norcross is a distinguished academic psychologist with a specialisation in psychotherapy (http://www.scranton.edu/faculty/norcross/ http://www.scranton.edu/faculty/norcross/Vita%202013.pdf). These things give Norcross et al (2006) considerable significance. The form of the study was a Delphi poll based on a panel of experts who were intended to be representative of the mental health professionals in the USA. This gives the paper's results generalisability over the USAs community of mental health professionals. You wrote, "Secondly, this was opinion-gathering, not science at all." Yes it was and that is made clear by the title of the paper. Polling subject matter experts is often used when the scientific consensus needs to be established as was the case on the issue of teaching "Creation Science" alongside evolutionary biology in high-school science classes (see http://www.interacademies.net/10878/13901.aspx). A paper that presents the results of polling subject matter experts on a matter is precisely the sort of paper we need to write an article on a contested topic. Norcross et al allows to determine what the consensus view is amongst experts regarding which psychotherapies are considered discredited and that is germane.

2. I believe FeralOink's point is that it would be incongruent for the editorship of a publication that is devoted to an evidence-based field to proffer opinions on something which was deemed "an improperly tested field of unknown efficacy" by that same publication.

3. Just as there are experimental psychologists (i.e. psychologists that are devoted to research and publication in journals) there are also experimental psychiatrists. Experimental psychiatrists are members of the scientific community as much as experimental psychologists and are well-regarded amongst other medical scientists. Your inference on the basis of some dissension regarding DSM-V is ill-conceived and far-fetched and has no relevance. No one said that "psychiatrists speak for the scientific community". The field of science is split into specialisations and the membership of each specialisation generally speaks for itself (via their professional organisations, journals dedicated to their subject matters etc), i.e. geologists speak for geologists, geneticists speak for geneticists, etc. In the same way clinical psychiatrists speak for clinical psychiatrists and experimental psychiatrists speak for experimental psychiatrists.

Lastly, you appear to be mining this website http://www.bradburyac.mistral.co.uk/norcross.html and inparticular that page in this instance. Are you Andy Bradbury? If you are you shouldn't be editing this article because you have a commercial COI. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 03:28, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Small edits in the lead

In the lead I added the missing parentheses around the year of the Norcross paper and I removed the full-stop before the "and". AnotherPseudonym (talk) 09:23, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Rewrite of Early development section

I cleaned-up Early development. It was somewhat disjointed, had some factual errors and didn't clearly explain the role of modeling in NLP. I also added several citations. I don't think there has been any substantive loss of information. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 16:08, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Missing citations

I added the missing Stollznow (2010) citation from section Techniques or set of practices. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 01:16, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Commercialization and evaluation

The Commercialization and evaluation contains that same blurb about Grinder's New Code NLP that was in the IP disputes section. Again it is out of place and it looks as if a Grinder fan has just gone through and pasted that text everywhere they could get away with. I am going to remove it because it bears no relation to th subsection in which it appears. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 05:01, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Associations, certification, and practitioner standards Section

The Australian government does not endorse the content of any NLP course. The implication in this section is that the a Graduate Certificate in NLP carries a governmental endorsement as far as its content is concerned. It doesn't. All that the government accreditation means in this case is that the structure of the course meets the governments definition of a Graduate Certificate. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 05:11, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

I pretty much rewrote this section also. It was largely unsourced and contained many redundancies and some obfuscations. It also contained what appeared to me to be remnants of when the article was an "advertorial" for NLP. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 06:38, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Lead

The first sentence of the second paragraph was unclear. I believe I have clarifed the intended meaning and have added a supporting reference. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 09:17, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

What is the purpose of the article?

I came to the article not knowing anything about the subject, and after reading the article all I know is it's pseudoscience.

That's fine, I'm not questioning the topic's validity, but shouldn't the main purpose of the article to be to define the subject? Because IMO this article didn't.

108.180.252.74 (talk) 21:56, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Please see responses to almost identical questions in the talk page history. Which ever meat farm is generating this really needs to change the suggested edit ----Snowded ^TALK 22:44, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not part of a meat farm. I'd be happy to PM or email you screencaps of my twitter feed why I wanted to learn about this topic today. I came with no agenda other than to understand something I don't understand. And I still don't. And referring to a bunch of previous posters doesn't help ME learn what I came here to understand. 108.180.252.74 (talk) 22:49, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Well this article suffers occasional plagues of SPAs or low edit count IPs who ask a near identical question. I note that despite only making 12 edits over 17 months you knew instantly what a meat farm was. But happy to apologise if wrong. Otherwise I'm sorry but the article is pretty comprehensive in describing what NLP is, if all you know is that it is a pseudoscience I suggest you go and read it again. ----Snowded ^TALK 22:54, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

I have no control over what other editors do. And if you'd like to hear the provenance of my knowledge of the phrase 'meat farm', I'd be happy to give it. You are wrong, BTW. I read the article and I don't understand what NLP is, but I probably will read it again, and perhaps it will make more sense to me. 108.180.252.74 (talk) 23:00, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

I think the article does an adequate job of providing a succinct account of NLP. If you are looking for some substantive theoretical foundation -- as you would find if you reserached cognitive-behavioral therapy, for example -- you will not find one. NLP is largely -- perhaps entirely -- a collection of techniques which are justified on ostensibly pragmatic grounds and are loosely related by the ideas suggested in the name Neuro-Linguistic Programming (which the article does expands on). NLP is much like an onion in that if you keep peeling the layers you will eventually be left with nothing. 114.76.75.113 (talk) 02:42, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. I have re-read the relevant section (Techniques or set of practices) and still find it unsatisfactory. The whole thing is jargony, with several un-linked words and phrases I have no idea what they mean, and the first paragraph in a discomfitingly-passive voice. This section (spanning two paragraphs) stands out in particular:

The first is the act of establishing and maintaining rapport between the practitioner and the client which is achieved through pacing and leading the verbal (e.g. sensory predicates and keywords) and non-verbal behavior (e.g. matching and mirroring non-verbal behavior, or responding to eye movements) of the client.[32]

Once rapport is established, the practitioner may gather information (e.g. using the meta-model questions) about the client's present state as well as help the client define a desired state or goal for the interaction.

Anyway, it's just my opinion. The only thing for me is, I still don't have a clue what NLP is, and now I've spent way more time trying to express myself on the talk page than I spent reading LOL. Thanks for the responses at any rate. 108.180.252.74 (talk) 06:36, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

That paragraph reads ok for me but perhaps that is because I was once immersed deeply in NLP. I'm not suggesting that it is brilliant prose but it is understandable, at least to me. I think that you have actually understood what NLP is: it is "jargony", NLP books and seminars are replete with jargon and it is just a collection of techniques that NLP practitioners claim are efficacious. NLP has no substantive theoretical core, it is literally nothing but a bunch of techniques that practitioners justify inclusion by referencing Neuro, Linguistic and/or Programming. Any "theory" that you find in the works of Bandler and/or Grinder is fragmented and ad hoc. Any description of NLP inevitably ends as a description of one or more of its core techniques because it is essentially an assemblage of techniques. NLPers will typically retort that they have "presuppositions" -- that is what they call their foundational assumptions -- but these are unilluminating and if you read them you would still not have a better idea of what NLP actually is. Hypnosis -- for example -- is subsumed under NLP as far as NLPers are concerned because they conceive of it as a form of Neurological Programming using Language. NLPers like what they term conversational hypnosis -- i.e. hynosis that occurs in the context of an apparently normal conversation -- because they believe that is what the psychiatrist Milton Erikson performed with great effect and Richard Bandler and John Grinder claimed they captured Milton Erikson's "magic" by identifying and isolating the linguistic patterns employed by Erikson. In NLP jargon Bandler and Grinder modelled Erikson, that is to say they identified his essential linguistic patterns, vocal intonations, gestures and body language which made him effective as a psychotherapist. Giving you an example of a technique like this is really the only way to give you a clearer idea of what NLP is all about because -- as I said previously -- there is no substantive overarching theory to describe. Further if you press a NLPer on why the linguistic patterns of Milton Erikson belong in NLP they will reply "because they work", where "work" is understood as work in altering peoples' behaviour. Pretty much any technique that is concerned with behavioural change can be incorporated into NLP if it can be demonstrated to revolve around the use of language (not necessarily vocal language) and if you can convince NLPers that it is effective. Given the amorphous and eclectic nature of NLP it is difficult to provide at a succinct description of it. Hope this helps. 114.76.75.113 (talk) 08:40, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

SPA plagues or not, WP:AGF still applies. Secondly, it should not be required to read an article twice to understand what the basic premise is of what it's describing. If the article provides a succinct account of what NLP actually is, can someone point me at it? WykiP (talk) 13:29, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Please read my comment above. Also, anyone that has a pecuniary interest in Wikipedia users believing in the efficacy of NLP is not well qualified to edit this article. If you derive an income from NLP then you are prima facie biased in favour of NLP and will likely not be happy with anything other than an article that glowingly praises and validates NLP as a form of applied psychology. NLP has had about 40 years to demonstrate the validity of its assumptions and the efficacy of its techniques and it has failed to do so. Further, over the last 40 years discoveries in neuroscience, advances in linguistics and tests of NLP techniques have actually invalidated the working assumptions and techniques of NLP. The consensus opinion of the science community is that NLP does not work. The article should reflect that consensus view. 114.76.75.113 (talk) 09:17, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you addressed this to me.

However, top 3 results from Google Scholar since 2009:

"weight loss in overweight and obese participants was maintained equally efficiently with a healthy cooking course or NLP therapy"

"In conclusion, neurolinguistic programming reduced anxiety"

"This conclusion reflects the limited quantity and quality of NLP research, rather than robust evidence of no effect."

The last is a strong secondary source and says not that NLP doesn't work, but rather the research is insufficient. What am I missing? WykiP (talk) 05:36, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Regarding Sturt et al (2012), only 5 of the 1459 titles they found were RCTs and 4 of the RCTs found that NLP was no better than placebo. That is evidence of no effect -- the 4 RCT studies can not be arbitrarily dismissed. There is no good reason to completely disregard these results and Sturt et al (2012) don't provide one. The authors of the paper appear to be operating on the a priori assumption that any studies that support the null hypothesis must be somehow flawed. This is essentially an unfalsifiable position which many NLPers have been resorting to (Grinder included re eye accessing cues). The most salient detail of the Sturt et al (2012) abstract vis-a-vis this article is "There is little evidence that NLP interventions improve health-related outcomes." The consensus of scientific opinion is not that all existing experiemental evidence on NLP is flawed and that the efficacy of NLP remains an open question and the article shouldn't even imply that. Sturt et al (2012) is not sufficient to overturn the consensus opinion of scientists. 114.76.75.113 (talk) 03:40, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Regarding Sørensen et al (2011), there was no placebo group, i.e. there was no group that was administered/taught sham NLP so there is no way to determine the actual effect of the NLP. This is a poorly designed study from which no firm conclusions can be drawn. 114.76.75.113 (talk) 03:51, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Regarding Bigley et al (2010), again there was no placebo group, i.e. there was no group that was administered a sham NLP technique. It is not possible to determine the effect size of a treatment in the absence of a placebo group. This too is a poorly designed study. 114.76.75.113 (talk) 03:57, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Regarding what you may be missing, I think you are giving undue weight to Sturt et al (2012). Merely because they contend that "[t]his conclusion reflects the limited quantity and quality of NLP research, rather than robust evidence of no effect" is not sufficient to render that opinion as the consensus opinion of scientists re NLP. The balance of studies that are concerned with effect size and which included a placebo group do show that NLP is no better than placebo. Similarly, the balance of studies that are concerned with NLP claims of particular behavioural correlates (eg. eye accessing cues; see http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3394779/ for a recent example) find no relationship. The available evidence (and intrinsic proability based on background knowledge in neuroscience and psychology) suggests that NLP has no effect (besides the non-specific) and that the correlates it suggests do not exist. As far as most experiemental psychologists and clinicians are concerned the case against NLP is closed. Only a minority of scientists and clinicians maintain hope -- predicated on the assumption that almost all experimental evidence against NLP is invalid -- that some research can/will be conducted which will confirm the armchair speculation of Bandler and Grinder. Many NLPers themselves have given up on NLP being experimentally validated, they instead appeal to ideas drawn from post-modernism which in effect denigrate the scientific method and the value of empirical evidence. The upshot of this is that were the article edited to suggest that the validity of NLP remains an open question that would be an inaccurate report of the majority opinion of scientists and clinicians. 114.76.75.113 (talk) 05:08, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

NLP therapy is a largely talk-based, isn't it? How do you do sham NLP therapy? Train a novice to do sham NLP whilst convincing them it's real and that they're competent enough to do therapy?

I was looking at homeopathy the other day and it seems they can't even do sham homeopathy proberly ie give tap water to people. Cochrane doesn't even state that homeopathy is no more than placebo. Makes me wonder if I should have a career in testing this stuff...

Besides, this is all MOS:OPED. Is there a stronger or multiple secondary source(s) that say NLP (therapy) is pseudoscience? WykiP (talk) 08:35, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

A placebo arm would require that a form of sham psychotherapy be administered. Sham NLP is indistinguishable from sham CBT or any other psychotherapy because it is just a ritual of some sort that convinces the patient that they are receiving psychotherapy. Sham NLP can be as simple as getting the patient to visualise a series of biographical events in reverse chronological order. It can be anything that engages the patient and convinces them that they are participating in their therapy. That is all. No one need be trained comprehensively in sham NLP just a single fake technique is sufficient or there can be no training and the experimenter administers the sham NLP directly. When hypnosis was being evaluated sham hypnosis was a component of the well designed studies. Here http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=193729 is an example of a double-blind study that incorporates a sham psychotherapy for the purpose of the placebo arm. Cochrane are yet to perform a comprehenesive review (i.e. a review of all the existing reviews) of homeopathy but they have completed numerous reviews of homeopathy vis-a-vis various illnesses. A study will not always explicitly state that the treatment was no better than placebo. This result is often communicated in terms of effect size and in terms of an absence of evidence for efficacy, eg. "The two studies provided data from a total of 63 participants (32 verum homeopathy and 31 placebo homeopathy) and indicated no evidence of the effectiveness of homeopathy in improving the core symptom scores of ADHD" (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD005648.pub2/full). In the context of a study that included a placebo arm the phrase "no evidence of the effectiveness of homeopathy" is equivalent to saying that the homeopathy arm of the study was not (statistically significantly) better than placebo. 114.76.75.113 (talk) 04:02, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes they are in the article and if you check the talk archives you will find multiple discussions on this. ----Snowded ^TALK 09:18, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Can you be more specific? A search for "Sturt" in the archives produces no results. I see I mistakenly inserted the wrong URL, which I have now corrected. WykiP (talk) 09:34, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

You asked about sources that say it is a pseudo-science. I pointed you to those which are in the article and then referenced the multiple discussions in the archives on those sources which are easy to find. ----Snowded ^TALK 09:48, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

I asked about strong secondary sources ie on the level of the RGCP and published in the last 5 years. Sorry if I wasn't clear. WykiP (talk) 10:16, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Your stipulated criteria are unreasonable given that NLP is around 40 years old. There were many studies of NLP in the 1980s and 1990s and because those didn't find in favour of NLP the research community largely lost interest. Eye accessing cues are perhaps the most investigated proposition of NLP (I cited a recent study earlier) and the majority show that there are no such thing. Despite the overwhelming evidence against the existence of eye accessing cues these continue to be taught in NLP books and seminars and they are required to be learnt as part of most certifications. This suggests unfalsifiability and hence psuedoscience (and this point has been made by experts cited in this article). The curious history of NLP is that no technique and no proposition as originally specified by Bandler and Grinder (and their notable students) has ever been discarded because it was found to be false or to not work. This pattern of knowledge acquisition, revision and discovery is foreign to human endeavours that are based on evidence and reason. 114.76.75.113 (talk) 04:22, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Given that NLP has been largely dismissed by the scientific community I doubt you will find any. The Sturt one does not contradict that previous consensus. User:114.76.75.113 has given you a summary of that above and I am not sure what your homeopathy point is about in response. You won't find much research to prove the earth is round any more. ----Snowded ^TALK 10:23, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

I was just questioning 114.76.75.113's notion that NLP therapy could be tested blind.

I came to this article because from psychoanalysis where there was a discussion of an ARBCOM ruling on pseudoscientific topics. NLP was listed as one, along with homeopathy et al. Unprompted, 114.76.75.113 then asserted to me that "The consensus opinion of the science community is that NLP does not work." The top 3 results for NLP on Google Scholar contradicted that. I've asked three times for stronger sources than Sturt et al but none have been forthcoming. Can you see why I'm getting a little suspicious?

As the article strongly emphasises NLP as pseudoscience, I presumed there are stronger, recent sources saying that. As editors defending the article's pseudoscientific assertions, you would presumably know exactly what they are. Otherwise, why would you defend incorrect and pejorative assertions? WykiP (talk) 11:55, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

WykiP, you wrote: "Unprompted, 114.76.75.113 then asserted to me that "The consensus opinion of the science community is that NLP does not work." The top 3 results for NLP on Google Scholar contradicted that." That is incorrect. As I have already explained, two of those studies have no placebo arm. It is an established result that it is impossible to determine the efficacy of a treatment and its magnitude of effect without having a placebo arm. That all interventions have non-specific effects -- that must be filtered out -- is a well-established result. You can look at countless studies specifically on this topic and you can also study well-designed RCTs to see that inert pills, sham psychotherapies, sham ECT and sham hypnosis have a therapeutic effect. In the absence of a placebo arm there is no reason to conclude that the results observed in those studies -- that are attributed to NLP -- are not merely placebo effects. The two actual studies have no evidentiary value because the design of the experiment in the studies is incapable of yielding any evidence. The third study -- which is a review/meta-analysis -- finds no support for NLP. So those top 3 results in Google Scholar give you nothing so I'm unsure why you keep referring to them as if they are of significance. They lack significance such that they would displace the opinions of the subject experts that are cited in the article. 114.76.75.113 (talk) 04:51, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Quick note, this is all WP:OR and thus irrelevant to the content of the Neuro-linguistic_programming article. Do you agree?

Sturt et al contradicts the pseudoscience categorisation of this article. I've asked Snowded four times to produce something that shows that Sturt et al is a minority viewpoint and that NLP is pseudoscience is a majority viewpoint to no avail. WykiP (talk) 23:13, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Whether it's WP:OR is irrelevant because I am not proposing that it be included in the article. I am trying to be patient with you by explaining things to you. Yes Sturt et al (2012) presents an opinion that is contrary to that of the majority of experimental psychologists and clinicians but that is not sufficient to overrule the majority opinion. You wrote, "I've asked Snowded four times to produce something that shows that Sturt et al is a minority viewpoint". That is a bizarre demand. It is a minority viewpoint by virtue of the fact that it is the only paper in recent history that presents that view. If there were, say 10 such reviews -- with the same conclusion as Sturt et al (2012) published in significant journals -- then we would have license to characterise that view as something other than minority. Your demand is just utterly bizarre. I can liken it to me solitarily shouting in the public square "The Earth is Flat!" and members of the public ignoring me and walking passed me and then in frustration I shout "Show me how that is a minority opinion". Sturt et al (2012) is the only (published) paper that I know of that suggests that "robust evidence of no effect" has not been demonstrated -- ipso fact that is a minority opinion. Neither Snowded nor anyone else is required to provide any further evidence or argumentation regarding that matter. Rather it is your obligation to present more such papers -- with the same citability that present a similar conclusion -- to show that it is not a minority opinion. Regarding the viewpoint that NLP is a psuedoscience, the superscipts and their corresponding footnotes will take you to the sources of those statements. What -- in specific terms -- are you demanding from Snowded? 114.76.75.113 (talk) 02:54, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

You insist you're an expert in this and the rest of us aren't. Instead of writing 300 words trying to wriggle out of it, demonstrate your expertise by a single metaanalysis of the scope and reliability (based on who published it and up-to-dateness of publication) of Sturt et al. Fifth time of asking. WykiP (talk) 05:40, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

If you are suggesting that I am trying to "wriggle out of" addressing your claim that "Sturt et al contradicts the pseudoscience categorisation of this article" then I would suggest that you obtain a copy of the paper and read it in full. I really don't know what you are getting at. Sturt et al (2012) is not concerned with whether NLP is a pseudoscience, it is a review of existing research on NLP as it relates to health. That is all. The topic of pseudoscience is not addressed and it would be strange if this literature review addressed that topic. 114.76.75.113 (talk) 07:49, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Where do I "insist" that I am an expert in anything? I don't understand what you are making of Sturt et al (2012), it states on (page 762): "This systematic review demonstrates that there is little evidence that NLP interventions improve health-related outcomes." That is the primary conclusion of that paper and that is not favourable to NLP. The subsidiary conclusion is "[t]he study conclusion reflects the limited quantity and quality of NLP research, rather than robust evidence of no effect" and that -- as I have repeated several times -- is a minority view of the preceding research. It is a minority view because that is the only paper -- thus far -- that makes that conclusion. It is up to you to demonstrate that is anything other than a minority view by presenting other papers with a conclusion that is the same as Sturt et al (2012). Lastly, Sturt et al is a review not a meta-analysis, the two are not the same. 114.76.75.113 (talk) 07:33, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

You can repeatedly ask a question that doesn't make sense, and you can even say "Fifth time of asking" as if it's not a question that doesn't make sense, and you can even do so in direct response to a patient explanation as to why it doesn't make sense - but it still doesn't make sense - David Gerard (talk) 07:20, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

It sure makes sense as far as so-called expertise and classification of this article is concerned. WykiP (talk) 13:38, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

You're a new editor and you have already run into trouble on several articles so I will be patient. Your google scholar search means nothing as you are conducting original research, you need that material summarised in a third party review. You also need to look into the subject a bit more. There is evidence that any talking therapy produces a change regardless of its validity. You can find the same for religious conversion for example. The issue is when the claims are tested for repeatability and there NLP has failed according to the sources. In part that is because it makes claims to be scientific (or did). There are sources in the article you can read and they are all stronger than Surt so please don't make false claims. There is extensive discussion in the archives of the issue and you should read that rather than asking experienced editors to go through the whole thing again. I have no idea why or what you are suspicious of, but I do suggest you do some basic reading of the article, its sources and the talk page before you make strong assertions here. ----Snowded ^TALK 12:07, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Up to "there NLP has failed according to the sources." is all MOS:OPED and thus irrelevant. Re: "it makes claims to be scientific (or did)", where's your citation for NLP once allegedly being a pseudoscience? Because every single claim you and 114.76.75.113 made that I've investigated has turned out to be false.

I've now looked through every single citation and there is nothing comparable to a 2012 RGCP metaanalysis with the scope of a systematic review of NLP & health. I don't need to know anything about NLP to know that. Likewise, as I already said, Sturt et al isn't in the archives. WykiP (talk) 13:36, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

The citations in the article clearly use the word pseudoscience along with other statements. The 2012 study you reference does not contradict those as it shows no impact. Your opinion about its relative status is your own. No one has said Sturt is in the archives - please pay attention - there is however a substantial discussion of the pseudo-science issue in the article. You will also notice (if you were not aware) a cyclical pattern of this or a related issue being raised by newbe editors ----Snowded ^TALK 14:26, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

That you, Snowded, can't see that "showing no impact" is not a contradiction to your repeated citations showing failure is astonishing. Perhaps you should be paying attention? True, there's a parade of people who've noticed the article is an anti-NLP screed, attempt to change that, and you drive them away. I'm not sure if it's you or them driving that cycle, but you certainly can't be accused of approaching the newbies with an overwhelming demonstration of AGF. htom (talk) 00:20, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Implicit in your criticism of the article is an implied assumption that there exists a collection of well-designed studies that find a significant effect size in favour of NLP, that corroborate NLP claims about behavioural correlates and that these empirical findings have been reviewed by scientists and that their conclusions are in favour of NLP. Also implicit is that this evidence is being deliberately suppressed by some of the editors of this article. This is the only way that I can make sense of your -- and WykiP's -- complaints against the current form of the article. If it is your claim that such evidence exist then I'm confident that all of the editors of the article would be pleased to see it. AFAIK no such body of evidence exists and the article, rightly, reflects that situation. We can't rule out a priori the possibility that the weight of evidence is against NLP and that the consensus opinion of experimental scientists and clinicians is that NLP has no effect beyond the non-specific and that many of its assumptions about linguistics and neurology are false just because we don't want an article to appear "anti-NLP". Some articles will necessarily be negative because that is where the evidence and expert opinion leads. Articles on flat-earthism, perpetual motion, Mesmerism, young earth creationism or phlogiston theory are necessarily negative. A young earth creationist would deem the Wikipedia YEC article as "anti-YEC" but that is not evidence that there is something wrong with the YEC article. There exists no Wikipedia policy imperative that all articles have to leave the reader with the impression that all positions re a matter are of equal merit. When I read the article [earth creationism (YEC)], I am left with a negative impression of young earth creationism, and rightly so because that is where the consensus of scientific opinion leads. NPOV does not entail that you take an in principle objection to an article because it presents an unfavourable picture of its subject. If the consenus opinion of scientists and clinicians is that NLP doesn't work then that is a brute fact that has to be reported in the article. 114.76.75.113 (talk) 05:48, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

No, I've criticised the article for not giving any real idea what NLP is. I previously criticised it for having incorrect grammar in the lead. I can't say I currently have enough understanding of NLP or the science base to definitively criticise it further.

"If the consenus opinion of scientists and clinicians is that NLP doesn't work then that is a brute fact that has to be reported in the article." << True assuming that WP:RS state that, but Sturt et al certainly does not. WykiP (talk) 23:28, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Surely you can understand that if in a cohort of people G on the topic T 99 say X and 1 says Y that that the consensus view on T amongst G is X? To conclude that the (subsidiary) opinion presented in Sturt et al (2012) is anything other than a minority view you will have to produce other (published/citable) papers with the same conclusion. 114.76.75.113 (talk) 03:06, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

A parade of NLP practitioners with some exceptions and when a newbe arrives with the "I just came to this article ..." pitch the rest of you assemble again. Sock puppets, meat puppets its a sad saga. Maybe time to work with the evidence. ----Snowded ^TALK 00:50, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Compare and contrast; I see a considerable difference, both in the tone and in the information provided in the lead about the topic:

• Flat_earth
• Perpetual_motion
• Mesmerism#Mesmerism
• Young_earth_creationism
• Phlogiston_theory
• and
• Neuro-linguistic_programming

htom (talk) 02:19, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

So instead of directing me to the collection of well-designed studies that find a significant effect size in favour of NLP, that corroborate NLP claims about behavioural correlates and that have been reviewed by scientists and that conclude in favour of NLP -- which is a prerequisite to presenting anything other than the view currently presented -- you are inviting me to quibble about the "tone" and content of the lead? The lead should be a synopsis of the remainder of the article. That it is. Are you suggesting that the existence of non-existent evidence in favour of NLP and that the existence of a non-existent consensus in favour of NLP exists amongst experimental scientists and clinicians be stated or implied in the opening paragraph in service of an ill-founded belief that you appear to have that all articles must convey that all opinions on a matter are of equal merit and that there exists a perfect balance between all competing views on a topic such that it is an arbitrary matter which opinion you adopt? This seems to be what you are demanding. The lead of the YEC article reads: The scientific consensus, supported by a 2006 statement by 68 national and international science academies, is that it is evidence-based fact derived from observations and experiments in multiple scientific disciplines that the universe has existed for around 13.8 billion years and that the Earth was formed about 4.5 billion years ago, with life first appearing at least 2.5 billion years ago.[6]... the consensus among scientists is that creation science is unscientific in both conception and methodology.[7]" The central premise of YEC is unequivocally refuted in the lead and YEC is characterised as unscientific. I don't think this differs in tone or equivalency of content when compared to the NLP article. By your reckoning the YEC article is an "anti-YEC screed". I really can't see any merit in what you are pursuing. I reiterare my point, the article reads as -- in your words -- "anti-NLP" because the weight of evidence and evidence-based expert opinion does not find in favour of NLP. Further, this situation is not confined to the NLP article and I direct your attention to the YEC article for a comparable case. You may believe that NLP has more merit than the article suggests -- as do many of the NLP trainers that want to re-write it. I understand that. But it is irrelevant to the task at hand. The task of the editor is to accurately represent the evidence and the expert commentary on that evidence. If/when substantive evidence is produced that shows the efficacy and validity of NLP then the article will have to be edited to reflect that. But that evidence does not at this time exist so the article has to reflect that. 114.76.75.113 (talk) 04:22, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

WykiP Firstly, the standard question to any new editor here - would you confirm if you have ever edited wikipedia under another name or not? Thanks. I note that you are not putting forward proposals to improve the description of NLP (per your protestations) but are instead taking up the anti-pseudoscience campaign. Secondly Surt et al do not contradict the current position, they say there is no evidence and that there is not enough research. Its a similar argument to the NLP consultancy group that also sits at Surrey who have gone further and say we can only use self-reported results. Generally once the scientific community has reached a conclusion they do not go back on it unless there is substantial evidence to challenge that view and Surt confirms there is not. ----Snowded ^TALK 06:13, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

No, I haven't. Have you? WykiP (talk) 14:02, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

No and thank you for answering----Snowded ^TALK 18:23, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I re-read WykiPs comments and as far as I can gather he seems to think that Sturt et al (2012) represents some sort of case that NLP is not pseudoscience. I have read all of Sturt and as the abstract indicates it is a literature review re NLP vis-a-vis health -- that is all. All that the authors of that paper are concerned with is reviewing the existing evidence base of NLP to determine if the NHS should spend money on it as a therapeutic modality. The issue of whether NLP is or isn't a pseudoscience is not addressed and a conclusion on the matter can not be inferred from anything in the paper. That is to say it is irrelevant to the topic of whether NLP is pseudoscientific. Consistent with the aim stated in the abstract, the authors conclude that "[t]here is currently insufficient evidence to recommend use of NLP for any individual health outcome. Neither this review, nor the FOI NHS trust data, point strongly to appropriate populations for further research. Use of NLP in specific settings may be vindicated in future, and preliminary data from its use in MRI/claustrophobia may justify a sufficiently powered RCT to clarify its role for these patients." (p.763) The substance of the paper is that there is no evidence to justify the use of NLP in the NHS and that if the NHS is to spend any money on NLP it should direct that entirely to research to determine if NLP is at all efficacious. The crticisms levelled against NLP by Heap and Devilly are acknowledged (Heap (1988) and Devilly (2005) are cited on page 758) and not in any way challenged by the authors. Sturt et al doesn't strongly advocate more research into NLP but it is not hostile to the idea either. That they are not advising that no money be spent on investigating NLP is a minority opinion -- as I have stated many times -- and appears to me to be connected with the UK being the last unexploited market for NLP training and accreditation. The marketing driven buzz about NLP that currently exists in the UK is reminiscent of the excitement that existed in the USA in the 1980s and Australia/NZ in the 1990s. The authors appear to recognise this when they write, "the targeting of medical and healthcare practitioners for such training by NLP organisations in the form of seminars, workshops, and literature appears to be presently focused on the UK." (p. 757) 114.76.75.113 (talk) 09:34, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Good point. The Surrey group are part of that promotion but I hadn't made the connection. Either way there is nothing here to justify a change in the article ----Snowded ^TALK 18:23, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Snowded and 114.76.75.113 have provided voluminous, repeated explanations for the content of the Neuro-linguistic programming article. These explanations appear here, in section 3.2, as well as in earlier parts of this version of the article talk page. Furthermore, there are over 20 ARCHIVED versions of the talk page, with much the same content, available for perusal. I can't find any fault with this article, personally. It seems like a fine article. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia which is intended to present the current state of existing knowledge and status of its subject matter. In this case, Neuro-linguistic programming has an extensive history of unscientific and unsavory associations, which are accurately described by the article. At this time, it is considered a pseudoscience that has been used for fraudulent and deceptive purposes that have separated people from their money, and betrayed public trust. There is also extensive evidence indicating that it doesn't work, or rather, nothing that can be found to demonstrate that it does work. I'm not getting caught up in THAT, the argument that just because you can't prove efficacy doesn't mean that it has no efficacy. Obviously, if such justifications were acceptable, then I could open up a business, and write a Wikipedia article, about FeralOink's Love Charm Emporium, where customers learn to Cast a Glamour and gain their heart's desire, for a small fee.

Anyway, this is objectionable, I believe:

"You insist you're an expert in this and the rest of us aren't. Instead of writing 300 words trying to wriggle out of it, demonstrate your expertise by a single metaanalysis of the scope and reliability (based on who published it and up-to-dateness of publication) of Sturt et al. Fifth time of asking. WykiP 05:40, 14 May 2013 (UTC)"

We don't challenge other Wikipedia contributors to write metaanalyses, do we? That is (1) confrontational and (2) beyond the scope of what is expected of a Wikipedia contributor. I don't have the policy to cite offhand, but I know that (1) is against WP policy with certainty, and that (2) probably is too.

• I have no idea what a "meat farm" is. It sounds like a colloquial term for an illegal organ donation facility, similar to the climax of the science-fiction novel, Coma. Alternatively, a "meat market" is not a carneceria nor butcher shop; instead, it is slang for an establishment that facilitates opportunity to carnally liaise, once. As a farm, maybe a "meat farm" is a "meat market", operating at scale? --FeralOink (talk) 01:40, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

• • I should mention this: I am not a new editor, but I am a guilty-feeling one. I failed to assist user WykiP in a timely manner when he requested help from a third party about the Slashdot article (I like and am active on Slashdot, but it was beyond my ability to find a middle ground with the highly contentious individual that WykiP was debating; furthermore, WykiP wasn't entirely correct either, but this is not relevant). Thus I arrived here, now, hoping to redeem myself, to myself (my own conscience) for past failure to be a supportive Wikipedian when my assistance was asked by WykiP, though he had not asked me to do so now. I wanted to be clear about that. Instead, I am rather appalled at the excesses of this talk page. No one will want to edit Wikipedia if they are compelled to do what Snowded did. --FeralOink (talk) 01:45, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello FeralOink. :)

There is no need to feel guilty. You have already apologised (unnecessarily) for not being able to volunteer your free time and expertise when asked!

I can see where you're coming from here -- apologies to all for my vague language. I was not asking 114.76.75.113 to write a metaanalysis -- this would indeed be unfair as I have no intention of putting time into this article myself. I was asking 114.76.75.113 merely to 'cite' one. As I said, for an anonymous user somehow knowledgeable about the sources in the article, who was writing long replies yet seemingly dodging the issue, it seemed a reasonable question. He/she did not.

I did not mean to sound confrontational, but to be direct, in response to a repeatedly avoided question. I struggle to maintain patience with editors who seem interested in maintaining the low quality of an article and am trying to find interesting articles which don't have such editors. I have felt patronised by both 114.76.75.113 and Snowded and the three accusations of sock/meat puppetry by Snowded within two talk article topics are a little tiring. With the low interest in improving the article, I was just going to leave it be. However, that's two editors who have started new talk topics complaining about the article. Indeed, it seems to be 4 editors that agree that the lead at least is in a mess.

I thank you for pointing to previous debates and maybe someone else will take that up. As I said, these debates seem to be ignorant of a very strong secondary source which apparently does not consider NLP to be a pseudoscience and there seems to be a moderate amount of NLP research continuing today. Here is another source, a book published this year. Again, it took 10s to find. If NLP is considered a pseudoscience, why is it so easy to find recent scientific sources which imply otherwise? What are the criteria for establishing whether something is "generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community"?

Lastly, what do you mean, "No one will want to edit Wikipedia if they are compelled to do what Snowded did"? WykiP (talk) 09:49, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

WykiP, you wrote, "As I said, for an anonymous user somehow knowledgeable about the sources in the article". Most Wikipedia editors are anonymous. Anyone with a username that isn't their actual name is anonymous. You are anonymous -- "WykiP" is a pseudonym. If it is important to you, I can register a username. I don't understand your use of the phrase "somehow knowledgeable". I am knowledgeable about the sources cited by the article because I have read many of them. How else would someone arrive at first-hand knowledge of a text? That phrase also implies that knowledge of the sources is blameworthy. You are being confrontational and that is but one example. You are also being unreasonable by being unwilling to review previous discussions that answer your concerns and by refusing to engage in dialogue when you have a disagreement. Repeating your unfounded accusations over and over ad nauseum does not constitute dialogue. When your concerns have been answered it is then your task to show how your concerns were not answered or to provide a rebuttal if you disagree. Regarding the book that you referenced: (a) your URL is bad, this one http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=xA3JNo89P50C&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false works; (b) I quote, "[t]he authors' intent is to conduct a systematic review of the evidence base to date and subject it to critical appraisal, to provide a solid basis for moving forward with rigorous research."(p.2) That has already been performed twice. The book The Clinical Effectiveness of Neurolinguistic Programming: A Critical Appraisal doesn't cover any new ground. All of the studies on NLP are encompassed by the literature reviews provided by Witkowski (2010) and Sturt et al (2012) and both of those papers conclude that NLP has no evidence base. I haven't read that book (yet) but there exist no new NLP studies for it to reference such that it would provide a "very strong secondary source"; (c) The publication of The Clinical Effectiveness of Neurolinguistic Programming: A Critical Appraisal does not indicate that there is "a moderate amount of NLP research continuing today". If there were such research it would have been captured by the literature reviews of Witkowski and Sturt et al unless they appeared at the beginning of 2013 and I am not aware of any such research; (d) I am not sure that either I -- or even the authors themselves -- would characterise their work as "scientific" because there is no new favourable scientific evidence to bring to bear on an appraisal of clinically applied NLP. I would conjecture that this is why the title of the book is The Clinical Effectiveness of Neurolinguistic Programming: A Critical Appraisal; and (e) the authors of the essays that comprise the book are NLP practitioners and instructors that experience a direct financial benefit as a result of obscuring and obfuscating the actual epistemic status of NLP so it is to be expected that they have a high opinion of NLP. Just as a Young-Earth Creationist doesn't regard YEC to be psuedoscience they don't either. If you disagree with what I have written above then refute it don't post innuendo and unsubstantiated accusations. Address each of the points I made and show me how I am wrong. 114.76.75.113 (talk) 04:51, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

RE: The Clinical Effectiveness of Neurolinguistic Programming: A Critical Appraisal(http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=xA3JNo89P50C&lpg=PP1&pg=PP1#v=onepage&q=confirmation%20bias&f=false)

From the introduction, "...it now behooves us to move toward formal scientific validation of our experience in accordance with standard evidence-based procedure." (p.2) Yet surely this aim would be best advanced by achieving publication in those journals that they would hope to see these hoped-for validations of NLP? I did a survey of the editorship and authorhip of the book and the results are concerning. Consider:

Editors:

Lisa Wake - NLP trainer and consultant (http://www.awakenconsulting.co.uk/)

Richard M. Gray - Assistant Professor in the School of Criminal Justice, Fairleigh Dickinson University (http://richardmgray.home.comcast.net/~richardmgray/)

Frank S. Bourke - Professional NLP practitioner (http://www.nlp-institutes.net/Clinical-Effectiveness-of-NLP-book-flyer.pdf)

Contributors:

Richard M. Gray - See above

Richard Bolstad - NLP trainer (http://www.transformations.net.nz/)

Lisa Wake - See above

Lucas Derks - NLP trainer (http://www.the-solutions-group.net/Coming%20events/Lucas%20Derks/About%20Lucas%20Derks.html)

Przemyslaw L. Turkowski - NLP trainer (http://translate.google.com.au/translate?hl=en&sl=pl&u=http://sknro.pl/projekty/dni-nlp&prev=/search%3Fq%3DPrzemyslaw%2BL.%2BTurkowski%2Bnlp%26start%3D10%26safe%3Doff%26sa%3DN%26biw%3D1152%26bih%3D704)

Bruce Grimley - NLP trainer (http://www.achieving-lives.co.uk/achieving-lives-nlp-training.html)

Karl Nielsen - NLP trainer (http://www.nlpuniversitypress.com/gtcsessions/listmem.php?memID=650)

Nandana Nielsen - NLP trainer (http://www.nlp-institutes.net/infoszeigen/show.php?nummer=nk&lang=e)

Catalin Zahara - NLP Trainer (http://www.nlp-center.net/trainers/romania/174_Catalin_Zaharia.html)

Steve Andreas - NLP trainer (http://steveandreas.com/)

Joe Cheal - NLP trainer (http://www.gwiztraining.com/People.htm)

Richard F. Liotta - NLP trainer and consultant (http://www.enrichmentact.com/about-us/richard-f-liotta-phd)

Frank S. Bourke - See above

Peter Schutz - NLP trainer (https://www.facebook.com/events/206595909764/)

Almost all of the authors have a direct pecuniary interest in the promotion of NLP. As far as I can determine these potential conflicts-of-interest are not declared in the book. It seems highly unlikely that these people -- that derive an income from NLP training (some of them apparently exclusively) -- would be seeking to accept the null hypothesis (i.e. would be pursuing falsification). The vested interest would appear to block that possibility. I read what I was able of the online version and these authors do not present any new evidence for the efficacy or factuality of NLP. They review some of the studies that are reviewed by Witkowski (2010) and Sturt et al (2012) and seek to discredit those that find against NLP. I really can't expect any of these authors being satisfied with anything other than hosannas to NLP. It is a bizarre book not only because of its inherently biased authorship but because on the one hand it calls for attempted validation of NLP using well-established methods i.e. blinded RCTs, but on the other hand seems to implicitly assume that validation of NLP is a foregone conclusion, a mere formality (see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pOqVijvKr1Y). The authors "know" that NLP works. They know-so because of their personal experience. That is why they are comfortable teaching NLP for a fee or applying NLP-derived techniques on clients for a fee. They know. Their knowledge of the efficacy of NLP is unperturbed by notions such as Confirmation bias, Naïve realism and the non-specific effects of all treatments. They just know. None of the authors are experimental psychologists or psychiatrists and this would seem explain this obliviousness. The one and only academic is an associate professor of criminal justice. Those that have qualifications other than NLP certificates have those in irrelevant fields. There is no one amongst the authors or editors that has published the results of an RCT in a professional behavioural science journal. I really can't imagine a more specious and partial source than this book: (a) all authors have a financial interest in the (apparent) validation of NLP: check; (b) none of the authors are experts in experimental psychology or psychiatry: check; (c) none of the authors have published RCT studies of any form: check; (d) the book's authors exhibit no interest in falsification but rather are concerned with confirmation: check; (e) none of the authors have a demonstrable expertise in experiment design: check. In my estimate this book is just another hustle from the NLP industry. If its contents were substantive they would have been published as papers in behavioural science journals. But as far as I can tell there is nothing significant or substantial in this book. It presents no new evidence for NLP so it has no probative value such that it could influence the content of this article. From the table of contents and the portions of the index that I could view it presents no rebuttal to any of the critical material produced by behavioural scientists, linguists and clinicians. It is just more of the same self-serving foam: (a) NLP works; (b) my personal experience assures me of (a); and (c) all studies that contradict (a) are flawed and invalid and all those that confirm (a) are well-designed and valid. The substance of the article can and should only be influenced by the "formal scientific validation" that the authors of the book campaign for and aspire towards. The expression of hope for high-quality evidence doesn't itself constitute evidence for NLP. Like Sturt et al (2012) this book has no evidentiary value with respect to NLP and consequently with respect to the article. It may be contended that NLP is unvalidated as opposed to invalidated and that this book and Sturt et al (2012) are evidence of this. I would object that this book has no probative value because it is written by a collection of NLP trainers -- true believers that lack all impartiality. Further, I would add that any such view is a minority view amongst subject matter experts. We can find an abundance of books on Young Earth creationism that were written by Young Earth Creationists (see here http://www.answersingenesis.org/store/) that contend that YEC is scientific. What we don't find is papers published in geology, biology, genetics, biochemistry, microbiology and philosophy of science journals that contend that YEC is scientific and that there exists empirical evidence for YEC. Similarly, we don't find any papers arguing for NLP in any of the behavioural science, neurology or neuroscience journals. That isn't my opinion -- that is a statement of fact and the article should reflect that. Furthermore, it should communicate what experts in these fields say about NLP. We already know what NLP trainers say about the validity and efficacy of NLP -- just as we already know what the membership of Answers in Genesis says about the validity and scientificity of YEC -- and we don't accord those opinions equal weight with those of subject matter experts. Is there such a thing as an NLP trainer that believes that NLP lacks efficacy and validity? 114.76.75.113 (talk) 08:16, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

PLEASE NOTE! I -- who was 114.76.75.113 -- have now registered an account with the username AnotherPseudonym and will be editing Wikipedia using only that account. Any future edits that may come from 114.76.75.113 will not be from me (and I don't expect to see any especially not in anything NLP-related). Any edits from 114.76.75.113 in the medium-to-longterm future (i.e. months and years from now) will certainly be unconnected to me as that IP address will likely have been reallocated to another user. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 09:06, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

In "The clinical effectiveness of NLP" (1) the authors clearly state their ID and interests. (2) In the introduction, p 1, it is written:

"Level A evidence is based on findings from multiple populations and/or derived from multiple randomized controlled trials or meta-analyses /.../ There are no A studies yet completed for NLP techniques."

So, the authors clearly stated the limits of NLP research. So, I don’t understand your claims related to possible COI and lack of objectivity. I am a coach and I am trained in NLP. Does it mean that what I write can not be objective and authoritative ? That would sound like pseudo skeptic thinking. - Damien Raczy (talk) 07:22, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

McClendon and Burlingame 2011

Closed discussion

I found a reference that I think would be suitable to add to the article in the section that discusses NLP and EBP. McClendon and Burlingame (2011) say "this creative interconnectedness between clinician and client that is difficult to objectively measure and study - we will call this the magic of psychotherapy (Bander & Grinder, 1975)". See p.191-192, they provide a quote from Bandler/Grinder as a frame for further discussion of this issue. I'll leave in your trustworthy hands. Debra Theobald McClendon and Gary M. Burlingame (2011) Has the Magic of Psychotherapy Disappeared? Integrating Evidence-Based Practice into Therapist Awareness and Development. Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199736393.003.0009 --Reconsolidation (talk) 11:26, 15 June 2013 (UTC) I had a look at this and I don't think it is relevant. It isn't actually about NLP and it doesn't say anything about NLP. They only mention B&G because they like the "magic" methaphor that B&G use in SOM I & II (but they don't actually understand it). That is all. I suggest that the authors you cited didn't understand SOM I&II. The project of B&G in SOM I&II is to demonstrate that there is in fact no such thing as psychotherapeutic "magic". The contention of B&G is that psychotherapeutic "magic" or excellence has a discernible, codifiable and reproducible structure that they have succeeded in codifying and that anyone with the necessary motivation can learn. I would also suggest that B&G would offer the Meta-Model, Milton-Model, anchoring, matching, mirroring and representational systems as evidence that the "creative interconnectedness between clinician and client" is certainly amenable to measurement, analysis and reproduction via the NLP process of modeling. Purely obiter dictum: the therapeutic success of CBT, its comprehensive validation, and the existence of high-quality clinical training programs in CBT all suggest that McClendon and Burlingame are misguided and as ignorant about CBT as they are of NLP. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 12:19, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Additions

I have added Sturt et al (2012) to section Psychotherapeutic:

A systematic review of experimental studies by Sturt et al (2012) concluded that "that there is little evidence that NLP interventions improve health-related outcomes." [57]

Recent discussions lead me to believe that the article isn't sufficiently clear that there is an emerging consensus amongst NLP proponents themselves that NLP lacks an evidence base so I have added to section Empirical validity:

The view that NLP lacks an evidence base is also expressed by some NLP proponents.[75][76][77]

All of the citations for this come from well-regarded NLP exponents (NLP trainers, authors and practitioners). From Mathison and Tosey we have the concession that:

The disadvantage compared with bumblebees is that NLP has not demonstrated that it can fly. The cry, `show me the evidence’, has not yet been answered convincingly. (p.8)

From Bourke, Wake and Gray we get:

The purpose of this book is to present sufficient evidence of the clinical efficacy of Neurolinguistic Programming (NLP) techniques to justify and motivate rigorous scientific research...Level A evidence is based upon randomized well-controlled clinical trials for individuals...There are no A studies yet completed for NLP techniques. (first page of introduction)

Not exactly true, there have been a few but because they found against NLP these (partisan) authors don't like them. The existing RCTs are reviewed in Sturt et al (2012) (see above) Gray and Liotta tell us:

The V/KD protocol (as discussed in the following) is an intervention originally designed in the early 1980s for use with phobias. The protocol is one of many anecdotally supported interventions that emerges from the field of neurolinguistic programming (NLP). NLP is a controversial approach to modeling, replicating, and transforming behavior that includes a number of specific therapeutic techniques; amongthese is the V/KD protocol. NLP finds its roots in models of the therapeutic techniques of Milton Erickson, Virginia Satir, and Fritz Perls. NLP has generated a great deal ofanecdotal evidence of effectiveness but has undergone little empirical testing. There have been recent calls from within the NLP Community for more research into its efficacy claims (Bandler & Grinder, 1975b, 1979; Bolstad, 2002; Bostic St. Clair & Grinder, 2002; Dilts, Grinder, Bandler, &DeLozier, 1980; Wake, 2008). (p.2)

Just to be clear here because there have been and continue to be protests coming from positions based in ignorance, anecdotes (aka anecdotal evidence aka case studies) comprise the lowest quality form of evidence that is available in all conceptions of the hierarchy of evidence value -- a concept central to evidence-based medicine. Most of the "evidence" for NLP is either from the very bottom of the pyramid or one step removed from the bottom on some pyramids. The highest level of evidence is the systematic review of multiple RCTs or the meta-analysis of multiple RCTs (testing the same thing). By way of comparison so as to introduce some much needed perspective cognitive-behavioural therapy has been validated as being effective for numerous condition via reviews and meta-analyses of RCTs. NLP has had no such validation. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 11:39, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

I added a summary of Willem Levelt's review (in Dutch) of NLP that appeared in 1995 in Intermediair and again in Skepsis as translated and summarised by Drenth and published in Studia Psychologica in 2003. Levelt is the founder and was the director of the Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics when he wrote his review. He has an extensive article on German Wikipedia and a stub on English Wikipedia. He is an internationally acknowledged expert on psycholinguistics and he does not work in mental health so he has no dog in this fight so to speak. His opinion is that of a scientist. In his review he says that he had not even heard of NLP until he was asked to author a review. For these reasons I believe that Levelt is a very reliable and authoritative source. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 14:29, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be better placed in "Scientific criticism"? AnotherPseudonym (talk) 14:46, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, it's better there. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 14:57, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

You seem to have just talked to yourself as if you were talking to another person. That is very interesting. WykiP (talk) 19:15, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

"Seem" is the operative word. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 01:12, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

This is yet another example of your innuendo. I answered my own question. Is that unheard of? But you just couldn't resist making a cheap remark. I don't think you have any interest in making a positive substantive contribution to this article. You are yet to make one and all signs suggest that you are either unwilling or unable. All you have shown an interest in doing is summarily deleting material and trying to use policy and guidelines as instruments to annoy, obstruct and harass. All of this suggests bad faith on your part. Where there was an opportunity to fix damaged or missing citations -- a relatively easy and small matter -- you didn't contribute, instead you decided to use your time and energy to be vexatious, poring over policy and guidelines to find an infraction. You don't find an infraction so you bend either policy or guidelines or fact to create one, (eg. quoting a judges decision is POV pushing). You are also eager to try and reverse the burden of proof (eg. use of the word claim is justified only where it can be shown that there was a disregard of contrary evidence; present positive evidence that X is a minority opinion).That the present form of the article is a result of previous arbitrations, adjudications and discussions doesn't deter you. You are happy to have all concerned parties revisit an old matter. I think your intentions in relation to this article and its editors are bad. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 03:45, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

I have tidied up section Scientific criticism. Parts were confusing and I think I have clarified them. The opening was confused about name vs. field. I corrected that. I clarified the portion that is about criticisms of the name NLP. I grouped and merged the common criticism about NLP jargon. Devilly is not a clinical psychologist he is an Associate Professor of psychology. Beyerstein is a neuroscientist. His PhD is in biological psychology which is a synonym of behavioral neuroscience -- a branch of neuroscience. He is also published in neuroscience so by all measures he is a neuroscientist. I corrected that. I have also incorporated a pertinent quote from Beyerstein and Della Sala taken from Tall Tales About the Mind and Brain: Separating Fact from Fiction. I think this section still needs more work and I will revisit it. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 08:44, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

The section of Scientific criticism referencing Devilly was poor, it didn't accurately paraphrase what Devilly wrote. I rewrote that bit and think it is clearer now. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 08:51, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

I have added Dr Stephen Briers review of NLP that appears in his book Brilliant Cognitive Behavioural Therapy to section Psychotherapeutic. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 04:14, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

I have added Dr Eisner's review of NLP to section Psychotherapeutic with a complete citation. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 04:54, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

I have added a reference to NICE-approved psychological therapies in section Psychotherapeutic and that NLP and NLPt are not NICE-approved. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 06:52, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Retract

I fully retract my suggestion that some editors could participate in pseudo skeptic forums. - Damien Raczy (talk) 22:53, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Last paragraph of lead

The last paragraph of the lead is mainly composed of a description of NLP. I think that content better belongs before the second parapgraph which consists of reports of evaluations of NLP. I think the lead should have the general structure of description followed by evaluative reports. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 03:24, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

The last paragraph of the lead contains the sentence: 'The originators' stated aim was "finding ways to help people have better, fuller and richer lives"' which is sourced from the dustjacket rather than the book proper. The dustjacket is typically not written by the authors but rather by the editor. Aside from being poorly sourced this statement is discontinuous with the prose that precedes it and which follows it. It appears to be a remnant of an earlier version of the lead which seeks to soften Bandler and Grinders actual claim that NLP is a panacea. One of the superscripts refers to Bandler and Grinders claim in Trance-Formations that NLP can cure myopia and the common cold. The relevant portions of Trance-Formations where this claim is made follow:

"I regress people to a younger age than when they first had to wear glasses and have them keep child-like eyes and grow up, as a way of working with myopia." (p. 166)

"Myopia isn't too hard to deal with, because nearsighted people are just squeezing their eyeballs too hard. When they try to see something, they squint and strain, and that results in improper focus and blurred vision. All they have to do is learn the meaning of the word "focus." That's not really very difficult. William H. Bates developed a way of doing that years ago, and wrote Better Eyesight Without Glasses. It's just that people don't use it." (p.166)

"The way I go about that is to regress them to a time before they first wore glasses. Then I test their eyes, to make sure that they did not have myopia at that age. When I bring them back to their present age, I leave them with "child eyes" and grow up everything else from the eyeball out. I don't know what that means, but I've done it with a lot of people and it has worked." (p.167)

"The results lasted for about two months, and then slowly his eyes started to get bad again. That's when \ started using reframing to find out what his purpose was for having blurry eyes. It turned out that over the years he had learned to do lots of things by having blurry eyes. Ordinarily he had what we call "see-feel cir- cuits." When he looked at something, he instantly had feelings about it. Having blurry vision stopped the sec-feel circuit. During a time of stress, if he couldn't see something unpleasant, he wouldn't have the unpleasant feelings. I had to give him other ways of interrupting see-feel circuits, to take care of the secondary gain that came from having blurred vision." (p.167-8)

"Susan: I've got a cold. Can you use hypnosis to take away a cold?

A man came to me with a cold that he'd had for six months, and I made it go away. But his unconscious specified exactly how long it would take to go away. He'd had it for six months, and his unconscious wanted two days to make it go away.

Susan: I've only had mine for three days."

Well, I'm not going to take the time to do it now, if that's what you are asking. But I'll certainly give somebody else a set of procedures to do it with you. Is that acceptable?

Susan: Yes.

Who wants an interesting task?

Woman: I'll do it.

OK. Do the following sequence...Then I want you to ask her unconscious if it would be willing to remove the cold, carte blanche. Get a "yes" or a "no." If you get a "yes" ask it if it will be willing to do so right now. If there is any hesita- tion whatsoever, whether you are using verbal or nonverbal signals, then go into the reframing format and find out if the cold serves any function whatsoever. If it does, come up with new ways of accomplishing that function. Get the unconscious to specify exactly how long it will take to make the cold go away." p.173-174

Trance-Formations was published in 1981. Grinder repeats the claim that NLP techniques can be used to cure mypoia in Whispering in the Wind which was published in 2001: Thus, an amusing sequence of events consisting of:

a. an oversight on Grinder's part to note the presence of the contacts being worn by his subject

b. followed by Grinder's alertness in detecting the amazing "problem" the subject, Maribeth, was having trying to see through an artificial aid (contacts) but with regressed eyes that had no need for such aid

led to recognition that under certain regressive circumstances it is apparently possible to return to physiological states that are free of defects developed subsequent to the age the subject is regressed to.5

(Chapter 4: Personal Antecedents of NLP)

...

5. This incident has apparently prompted an NLP practitioner by the name of Leo Angart of Hong Kong :(leo.angart@ibm.net) to develop an entire treatment regime that incorporates this strategy alongside a number :of others (some NLP based and some not) in assisting people in recovering the ability to see without :artificial aid.

Bandler also continues to make extraordinary claims for NLP in his seminars. The claim of NLP as panacea has not be diluted or revised by NLPs founders and for this reason I believe it should appear in the lead. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 05:29, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Of course and it's good to keep it in the lead. They're telling lies in a similar manner that neuroscience and quantum physics professors do. The lies (generalizations) that they communicate about neurons and physics models are there to solve problems and develop better understandings later. For instance, the Neuron article states in the lead "Changes in the cross-membrane voltage can alter the function of voltage-dependent ion channels. If the voltage changes by a large enough amount, an all-or-none electrochemical pulse called an action potential is generated, which travels rapidly along the cell's axon, and activates synaptic connections with other cells when it arrives.".

Actually, this is less likely to happen than not...BUT, that BS they purposely state allows for people to gain a better understanding at a later point in time more easily. Professors know they're flat-out lying (and, wikipedia is flat-out lying to readers!) when they state the above bolded claim. There are good reasons for them to lie like that to students. Some professors state up from that they're lying, like I've seen in TTC lectures where they'll state it up front and explain why they're making stuff up. Bandler and Grinder both state that they're doing a similar thing. They're well aware of it in the same way neuroscience and physics professors know they're making stuff up.

The claim of NLP as panacea has not be diluted or revised by NLPs founders

Of course. It's part of their pragmatic epistemological models based methodology. It makes sense within their methodology. It would be as silly to argue that as it would be to argue that when fishing it's better to use 4.5 turns when tying a knot than 5.5 turns yet many people debate this sort of thing.

I'm not debating whether the claims of NLP are accurate or not. I'm pointing out that the developers using the same sorts of lies that neuroscience and physics professors knowingly use while teaching and the NLP founders were and are well aware of this and are using it as well.

-- That Guy, From That Show! 00:11, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Your opinions on what "neuroscience and physics professors" allegedly say or do has no probative value and is irrelevant for the purpose of composing this particluar article. Also this isn't a forum for general discussion -- if you want that then you should go to an NLP forum where your thoughts on "pragmatic epistemological models based methodology" would be welcome. If you think there is a problem with the neuron article then take your concern to the talk page of that article. If you have citable evidence for the empirical claim you are making about the behaviour of neurons then present it on the talk page of the neuron article for consideration by the editors of that article. I'm sure the people there will want to know about a factual error or deliberate lie about the behaviour of neurons. You wrote:

Some professors state up from that they're lying, like I've seen in TTC lectures where they'll state it up front and explain why they're making stuff up. Bandler and Grinder both state that they're doing a similar thing.

Actually, no. You are alluding to a statement to that effect that is contained in Frogs into Princes:

We call ourselves modelers. What we essentially do is to pay very little attention to what people say they do and a great deal of attention to what they do. And then we build ourselves a model of what they do. We are not psychologists, and we're also not theologians or theoreticians. We have no idea about the "real" nature of things, and we're not particularly interested in what's "true." The function of modeling is to arrive at descriptions which are useful. So, if we happen to mention something that you know from a scientific study, or from statistics, is inaccurate, realize that a different level of experience is being offered you here. We're not offering you something that's true, just things that are useful.

I don't think you understand what they are saying here. Bandler and Grinder elaborate on that idea in The Structure of Magic I where they copiously and explicitly quote from Vaihinger's text The Philosophy of 'As If'' which is definitive of the epistemological theory termed fictionalism. It is suggestive from the Vaihinger quotes in The Structure of Magic I that Bandler and Grinder seek to found NLP on fictionalism. Later texts such as Grinder's Whispering in the Wind don't explicitly use the term fictionalism nor do they quote from Vaihinger and Bandler's books and seminars do not even mention foundational issues so it is unclear where they stand on that theory today. Regardless of that -- contrary to what you are suggesting -- fictionalism does not amount to a justification for lying carte blanche and Bandler and Grinder are not merely saying they are "making stuff up". With regard to NLP the "useful fictions" that fictionalism mandates -- and which Bandler and Grinder lean on -- are those concerning mechanism NOT outcome; that is what they mean when they say, "We have no idea about the "real" nature of things, and we're not particularly interested in what's "true."". From Frogs into Princes and The Structure of Magic I (at least when those texts were published) it appears that Bandler and Grinder are contending that they are proposing useful fictions regarding how the brain actually works. They are -- in effect -- saying "we aren't saying that the brain necessarily behaves in manner X, Y, Z but rather we are contending that if we assume that the brain behaves in manner X, Y, Z we obtain useful techniques". The quote from Frogs into Princes emphasies utility. Something is useful if it is true that it works. Utility is the raison d'etre of the fictionalist construction. That is the essence of Vaihinger's fictionalism and that is what -- I submit -- Bandler and Grinder are referring to. Your idiosyncratic reading that the idea of "useful fictions" pertains also to whether NLP works or doesn't work (eg. whether NLP techniques can or cannot be used to treat the common cold or myopia) is absurdist and finds no support in any writings or seminars from Bandler or Grinder. It is plain from Grinder's books and seminars that he believes he is making a statement of fact when he contends that the NLP "spelling strategy" can improve spelling -- he proposes a design for testing the strategy in Whispering in the Wind so that confirms that he is seeking to make a statement of fact. The "useful fictions" (though he doesn't characterise them as such explicitly) concern how exactly the so-called "spelling strategy" works, i.e. the underlying mechanism, and it is the underlying neurological mechanism which is the subject of instrumentalist-style justification. This is evident when in Whispering in the Wind Grinder invokes a type of epistemological instrumentalism -- perhaps fictionalism but this isn't clear -- when he writes:

Note that this positioning of NLP and its operations as a set of higher order epistemological operations has as its corollary that NLP operates solely and exclusively on representations (mental maps) and at no point does it touch upon any questions of the nature of the real world. The domain of NLP is representations, pure and simple. (Chapter 1)

That doesn't amount to "making stuff up". Your bizarre claim that the fictionalist idea of useful fiction also pertains to claims about the efficacy of NLP is not one that is advanced by any NLP instructor that I am aware of and is actually self-contradictory and destructive of NLP. Your claim -- were it true -- would render NLP a complete fabric of lies by its proponents own admission. It would be, perhaps, a form of absurdist theatre rather than the claimed "study of the structure of subjective experience". In case this isn't clear here's an example. Consider the proposition P that NLPs V/K dissociation is an efficacious treatment for phobia. Let proposition Q be some non-factual -- fictionalist justified -- proposition about the underlying mechanism of the efficacy of P. Q is characterised as a "useful fiction" because it provides a derivation for P and may allow for the extension of P. That is to say, Q has utility hence it is justified. If P is false, i.e. if V/K dissociation is not efficacious, then P has no use, there exists no instrumentalist grounds for proposing P, so it is not a useful fiction it is a fiction simpliciter. Consequently there would be no point in teaching P or applying P to people with phobias. In more concrete terms, people learn NLP because it promises a toolbag of useful techniques that people can use to achieve certain outcomes. Why would someone enrol in a seminar for c. US$5000 to learn a bunch of techniques that don't work, that are "lies" both in terms of their underlying mechanism and efficacy? Your position is literally nonsensical and based on a gross misunderstanding. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 06:21, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Bandler and Grinder both make it clear that content is made up. NLP is a covert hypnosis methodology based at the top on pragmatic epistemological models. The training is using the same covert hypnosis methodology it's teaching. Most of the content is a distraction intended to keep what is considered "conscious processes" busy.

Bandler and Grinder both state in seminars that they're intentionally being misleading. When teaching a covert hypnosis methodology that requires leading/distracting awareness why would you think that they would do anything other than exactly that while teaching it? They're demonstrating what they're teaching at the same time they're teaching it.

NLP is used to teach NLP (covert hypnosis being used to teach covert hypnosis). Once you get your mind wrapped around that everything makes a lot more sense. For example, Bandler and Grinder never believed that eye accessing cues were real. It's a big ol whopper of a lie that's used in training with the goal of reaching outcome targets.

-- That Guy, From That Show! 18:49, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

In addition, you not only wrongly guessed where I got some information above, you also missed what was else was said in where you got that quote that you mind-read that I was thinking of. The bolded part highlights this:

For example, I'll name a standard one. You ask somebody a question. They say "Hm, let's see," and they look up and to their left, and tilt their head in the same direction. When people look up, they are making pictures internally. Do you believe that? It's a lie, you know. Everything we're going to tell you here is a lie. All generalizations are lies. Since we have no claim on truth or accuracy, we will be lying to you consistently throughout this seminar. There are only two differences between us and other teachers: One is that we announce at the beginning of our seminars that everything we say will be a lie, and other teachers do not. Most of them believe their lies. They don't realize that they are made up. The other difference is that most of our lies will work out really well if you act if they are true.

As modelers, we're not interested in whether what we offer you is true or not, whether it's accurate or whether it can be neurologically proven to be accurate, an actual representation of the world. We're only interested in what works."

-- That Guy, From That Show! 19:27, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Can you demonstrate evidence (i.e. sources) for this claim? Thanks NaturaNaturans (talk) 19:13, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Grinder, John; Richard Bandler; Connirae Andreas (Ed.) (1981). Trance-Formations: Neuro-Linguistic Programming and the Structure of Hypnosis. Moab, UT: Real People Press. ISBN 0-911226-23-0.

-- That Guy, From That Show! 19:54, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I understand your argument is based on the source material. But has any other source interpreted that way, or have they themselves come out and explained it based on your interpretations? Your interpretation of the text can be considered original research. I think if you had a third party independent research that said the same, it could be used in the article. NaturaNaturans (talk) 21:30, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

What specifically would you like sourced? All statements contain multiple claims to knowledge. By knowing which specific claims you want sourced I'll more clearly know what you want sourced instead of making up in my own mind what it is I "think" you want sourced.

-- That Guy, From That Show! 00:24, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Sorry but this is all a bunch of nonsense and I didn't get anything wrong about the quote you were alluding to, I actually nailed it. I excerpted a version of the statement where their intended meaning is clearer and I also read it in conjunction with Bandler and Grinder's more formal texts where there meaning is more clearly elucidated. Firstly, the core of NLP is their modeling methodology, that is the imputed source of all NLP techniques and it is clear from Whispering in the Wind (a relatively recent text) that Grinder presents this as an efficacious process. Secondly, the fundamental techniques of NLP are derived from modeling and again it is made plain in both Structure of Magic I&II and Whispering in the Wind that B&G have codified the therapeutic "magic" of Satir and Perls and that their skills can be transferred to anyone. Again this is presented as fact, as an accomplishment of NLP, by both Bandler and Grinder. Thirdly, any concepts of hynosis do not enter NLP until Gregory Bateson suggested to B&G that they study Erikson. The creation of the Milton-Model does not occur until after the fundamentals are laid down so it is anachronistic to equate NLP with "covert hypnosis". You can consult the article to obtain references for all of my claims. The Milton-Model is just another model, namely one derived from the modeling of Milton Erikson, it is not as you imply the core of NLP. Fourthly, Frogs into Princes is an edited transcript of a seminar so things will be expressed "off the cuff" and ideas will become confused. There are numerous reasons why that portion of the Frogs into Princes should be interpreted as I have suggested: (i) I have corroborative evidence for my reading in the form of Structured of Magic I&II, Whispering in Wind and interviews by Bandler such as this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8vlcsFJyEXQ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vMipI3zjMOc and Grinder such as this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hJzO5x6ko6w whereas you have none. There is no other primary NLP text or seminar by Bandler and Grinder that I have witnessed that presents what you are arguing. You contend that "Bandler and Grinder both state in seminars that they're intentionally being misleading". I have seen about ten Bandler seminars and in none of those did Bandler make that claim; (ii) in Whispering in the Wind (Chapter 3) Grinder proposes a test design for the evaluation of eye accessing cues. If it were his position that these are lies he would not propose this endeavour. The relevant chapter section is named "The Verification of Pattern" and eye accessing cues are used as an example of how Grinder believes elicited patterns are to be validated. This directly contradicts your stated position; (iii) the least you can do in trying to understand what B&G mean from the quote you provided is to read it in conjunction with the quote I provided which -- I believe with good reason -- is a better expression of the same idea. Merely, pointing to Trance-formations doesn't establish your case, there is nothing in that book that corroborates your fanciful reading of B&G. This is the core of your argument:

P1. NLP is used to teach NLP.

P2. NLP is covert hypnosis.

C. Covert hypnosis is used to teach covert hypnosis.

The problem with it is that the second premise (P2) is false. NLP is used to teach NLP but NLP is more than the Milton-Model. What you have done -- and this is your original (misguided) research -- is to take your false premise that "NLP is covert hypnosis" and to meld it with section of Frogs into Princes which is properly read as a poor statement of instrumentalism/fictionalism (which is elucidated in Structure of Magic I and more recently in Whispering in the Wind and elsewhere in Frogs into Princes) to produce the absurdist idea that Bandler and Grinder just make stuff up at random because it's covert hypnosis. This is your original reseasrch in bastard algebra form:

"B&G say they are lying in FiP" + NLP is CH = B&G are lying because they are doing CH

That is your naive original research result, it isn't NLP and it isn't Bandler or Grinder. It isn't even possible to arrive at your conclusion just by looking at Frogs into Princes. You've apparently tried to make sense of that portion of text in FiPs by bashing it with your misguided idea that "NLP is covert hypnosis". Your conclusion is a patchwork monster based on two egregious misunderstandings of NLP. An understanding of what NLP is is arrived at by considering as much of the corpus of B&G as is possible not by seizing on a comment made in one seminar and by collapsing all of NLP into "covert hypnosis". In order to make your case you would have to explain why B&G make explicit reference to Vaihinger's conception of fictionalism, why Grinder appeals to a form of instrumentalism in Whispering in the Wind and why also in the quote you supplied words were chosen and emphasied as follows:

The other difference is that most of our lies will work out really well if you act 'as if' are true. (p.18)

where the name of Vaihinger's book (that is copiously quoted from in Structure of Magic I) is named The Philosophy of 'As if'. My reading -- the conventional reading -- has the most explanatory power and the widest explanatory scope; yours on the other hand has the least explanatory power and the narrowest explanatory scope. Furthermore, you have no corroborating evidence to support your reading of Frogs into Princes and your argument is directly contradicted by Grinders testing proposals. Your position is not only OR it is thoroughly flawed and without any merit. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 03:38, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Um, of course it's flawed from your perspective. This is because you replied to a response of mine directed at NaturaNaturans. I wanted more information about what he wants so I could reply with more context to work with. Instead, you typed all that stuff thinking it was related to you. Scroll up so you can see how this happened to you and you thought it was about you but it wasn't.

-- That Guy, From That Show! 05:59, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't really care who your response was directed at, your position is based in ignorance regardless. Here is some more corroborative evidence that suggests that the utterance in a seminar that was transcribed into the quote in Frogs into Princes -- that you are basing your ridiculous conclusion upon -- does not carry the intended meaning of Bandler and Grinder. This is what Grinder has to say about the discovery of eye accessing cues. The following is taken from chapter 1 ("Contexts of Discovery") of Part II of Whispering in the Wind. The chapter is concerned with describing the history of NLP. This is significant because (a) it is the work of one of co-creators of NLP, namely John Grinder; and (b) it is relatively recent, i.e. 2001. This is Grinder's account of the discovery of eye accessing cues:

For reasons now lost in the mists of memory, the next 5 or 6 days immediately succeeding the work in the group and the debriefing which followed hard upon it, Bandler and Grinder were separated physically. One or both of them were on a trip out of town. When they met again, nearly a week had passed since the group work and debriefing. Their encounter is highly instructive. Once again, with all respect to the actual exchange, something close to the following happened:

Richard: Hey, what's happening!

John: Hey, you know as well as I do!

Richard: So, you've seen it!

John: How could anyone miss it!

The non-referring pronoun if in the above exchange, of course, refers to what we now call eye movement patterns. The furious conversation that followed this somewhat enigmatic exchange revealed that each of the two men in the week that had passed since the work and debrief during which they had had no contact had had very similar perceptual experiences. More specifically, with the auditory filter for representational systems predicates cleanly in place, they had both been astonished by the regularity and obviousness of the associated eye movements - it was, as they say, as if the scales had fallen from their eyes. The astonishing part was not that each of the men had independently discovered the eye movement patterns - as one of them in the exchange says, How could anyone miss it! - but that they could have failed to notice this obvious pattern previously! Grinder and Bandler coded their independent observations into what has now become known as the funny face:

[picture of familiar smiley face depicting eye accessing cues]

perhaps the most commonly recognized popular icon of NLP. They were struck with the simplicity of the pattern while sensitive to handedness (a common measure of so called cerebral dominance) as well as its robustness - independent of culture and language.[22]

This provided them with the opportunity to test whether others, given the original reference point - the predicates specified for representational systems - would find the same pattern. They then challenged a number of their students to find this pattern. This exercise proved highly successful as the majority of the students so challenged succeeded in finding the same set of eye movements that the Grinder and Bandler had originally independently discovered.[23]

There are few NLP patterns that can be justly claimed to be original discoveries by the co-creators of NLP (as opposed to modeling of Patterning already present in the behavior of highly effective people albeit intuitively). The discovery of the eye movements represents one such original piece of research on the part of Bandler and Grinder.

This account of the discovery of eye accessing cues is irreconcilable with the reading of Frogs into Princes that B&G are lying about eye accessing cues amongst other things. I put it to you that this passage:

Do you believe that? It's a lie, you know. Everything we're going to tell you here is a lie. All ::generalizations are lies. Since we have no claim on truth or accuracy, we will be lying to you consistently ::throughout this seminar. There are only two differences between us and other teachers: One is that we ::announce at the beginning of our seminars that everything we say will be a lie, and other teachers do not. ::Most of them believe their lies. They don't realize that they are made up. The other difference is that most ::of our lies will work out really well if you act as if they are true.

As modelers, we're not interested in whether what we offer you is true or not, whether it's accurate or ::whether it can be neurologically proven to be accurate, an actual representation of the world. We're

only interested in what works. (p.18)

is a poorly executed attempt to recapitulate the earlier message (and make a joke -- moreon this later) conveyed here:

We call ourselves modelers. What we essentially do is to pay very little attention to what people say they ::do and a great deal of attention to what they do. And then we build ourselves a model of what they do.

We are not psychologists, and we're also not theologians or theoreticians. We have no idea about the "real" ::nature of things, and we're not particularly interested in what's "true." The function of modeling is to ::arrive at descriptions which are useful. So, if we happen to mention something that you know from a ::scientific study, or from statistics, is inaccurate, realize that a different level of experience is being ::offered you here. We're not offering you something that's true, just things that are useful. (p.7)

That such is the case is suggested by the last two sentences of the page 18 quote which are consistent with the message in the page 7 quote:

As modelers, we're not interested in whether what we offer you is true or not, whether it's accurate or ::whether it can be neurologically proven to be accurate, an actual representation of the world. We're

only interested in what works. (p.18)

Other texts, namely Structure of Magic I with its extensive quotes from Vaihinger's The Philosophy of 'As if' as well as Whispering in the WInd corroborate this interpretation. It is abundantly clear that all of Bandler and Grinder's references to "lies" and "lying" are intended to be construed with reference to fictionalism -- the epistemological theory that is defined in Vaihinger's voluminous book from which they quote. As a cross-check consider also Bandler's account of the discovery of eye accessing cues taken from this interview recorded in 2009: I have transcribed the dialogue:

Bandler: See, think about it this way Rodney...(mumbles)...I noticed something 30 years ago that no one noticed which is when people think in pictures their eyes go up. They go 'mmm, let's see' and they do. And when they talk to themselves they go like this and sometimes they even use telephone postures especially in Western cultures where there are telephones that when people talk to themselves they have a tendency to touch their heads. And when their eye go down to the right typically they'll touch themselves at the mid-line and they use preducates like 'feel', 'rough', 'handle'. So...I also noticed that people that weren't communicating well were people that didn't notice this, so that one when one person is talking in pictures (looks up-left) and another is talking in feelings (looks down-right) they can't communicate very well. As a sales person this become profoundly important because if you notice which way their eyes move and you listen to the words they're using you can talk to them in a way they'll understand better. Now this 23-year-old kid notices all this and a whole field based on observation missed it. Now, how is that possible? Well it's possible because if you're not programmed with...to believe that everything that doesn't work then you'll always look for something better (sic). (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u3ObU3bwXec starting from 4:50)

Bandler's account is not exactly the same as Grinder's but clearly he too does not believe that eye accessing cues are "lies". He too is arguing that eye accessing cues are a significant and original discovery. His claim that they are "profoundly important" to sales people indicates that he believes they represent an effective practical technique. We can also look at Bandler and LaValle's book Persusaion Engineering which is aimed primarily at sales people and teaching them NLP as it relates to persuasion. In chapter 3 ("The Basic Stuff") they advise:

You'll remember about eye accessing cues. This was a really great discovery since it went unnoticed for years. Well, it's still good information about where someone's eyes move when they're accessing information and validating the congruence of their communication but it's not nearly as valuable as noticing where they move their eyes to after they have the information.

For example, think about something that you believe without a doubt. Like, do believe that it's important to breath? Now where did your eyes move to in order to retrieve the information? And now where is the information? In front of you and down right or higher, for example? Ask this question of others and notice what you get as a response. Notice if they first remember the information (eye access up and left, for example), then where do they place the picture? This is very valuable information. (pp.30-1)

In this case, eye accessing cues are being presented as an effective technique for sales people to employ to achieve the trust of their prospects. Clearly, if it is supposed to work then it isn't a lie. Finally -- and this by no means is to be taken that I have no more evidence to present -- is that the quote from B&G, that you are hanging off, namely

Everything we're going to tell you here is a lie. All generalizations are lies. (p.18)

is -- I contend -- a joke that you are interpreting literally. The statement "all generalisations are lies" is itself a generalisation so it too must be a lie. Similarly, the statement "everything we're going to tell you here is a lie" is reminiscent of the Liar Paradox. It appears to me that B&G are just trying to be funny and provocative and are playing with language (something which Bandler still does in his seminars). Both of those statements are paradoxical and are incapable of communicating any information. Once you get your mind wrapped around that everything makes a lot more sense. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 06:52, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Here is yet more evidence that That Guy, From That Show!'s claim that "Bandler and Grinder never believed that eye accessing cues were real. It's a big ol whopper of a lie that's used in training with the goal of reaching outcome targets" is garbage. Inspiritive is a major NLP training provider in Australia, that is affiliated with John Grinder and has Grinder teach components of their courses. EAC appear in the Inspiritive NLP syllabus (see here http://www.inspiritive.com.au/images/NLP-Field-Guide-contents.pdf) and they are defined in their glossary (see here http://www.inspiritive.com.au/glossary.htm). Consider also this (http://www.anlp.org/files/georgios-dimantoplois-eye-accessing-cues_6_130.pdf) which had input from Tosey and Mathison -- two significant figures in NLP in the UK. So you (That Guy, From That Show!) are contending that the person that wrote the thesis doesn't understand the reality of EAC and neither do Mathison and Tosey and that you possess some unique faculty that equips you -- and you only -- to divine Bandler and Grinder's real meaning. Please. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 07:29, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

More evidence of the same from Dilts, a major figure in NLP: http://nlpuniversitypress.com/html/E43.html Also, what does "used in training with the goal of reaching outcome targets" mean? Give me a concrete example about how imparting an invalid technique -- a technique that doesn't work, that doesn't achieve the advertised claim -- helps students "reach outcome targets". What "outcome targets"? How -- foe example -- would it help a person make a sale by losing rapport (which is a necessary consequence of mis-reading the PRS because EAC will mislead because they are just lies)? To me the phrase "the goal of reaching outcome targets" just reads as obscurantist dross. I eagerly await your reconciliation of all of this contradictory evidence with your position. I am especially eager to read your apologetic for your literal interpretation of two paradoxical and hence self-contradictory statements -- that were most likely uttered in jest. I think it noteworthy that the self-contradictory -- and hence contentless -- nature of those two statements escaped you and you formed what amounts to an alternative school of NLP from your equation of NLP with "covert hypnosis" and your self-assigned fool's errand which ended in you arbitrarily assigning a Boolean truth-value true to those two paradoxical statements. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 08:11, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

User That Guy, From That Show! contends that, "Bandler and Grinder never believed that eye accessing cues were real. It's a big ol whopper of a lie that's used in training with the goal of reaching outcome targets." Here is yet another example that demonstrates that Grinder considers NLPs EAC model to be valid, literally true i.e. not a bunch of lies that is uttered "with the goal of reaching outcome targets" (whatever that means). This is taken from chapter 3 ("The Intellectual Antecedents of NLP") of Whispering in the Wind. This is a good example in that it illustrates the criticality of the EAC model in eliciting so-called strategies. If either the EAC model had the mapping of representational system to eye movements mixed-up or if no such mapping exists -- i.e. Bandler and Grinder were just lying when they proposed their EAC model -- then it would be nonsensical of Grinder to write the following:

These judgments about natural language are typically called intuitive: hardly a term to inspire epistemological confidence as the term itself is unanalyzed. While this is not the place to attempt to establish a sound pistemological foundation for linguistics, we will pursue the point slightly further to capture the methodological point - that is, how linguists actually practice their trade.[10] One of the images most clearly fixed in my (JG) mind from my studies as a graduate student (1967-1970) is that of my major professor, Edward Klima, a superb syntactician, in the process of presenting some interesting syntactic pattern in an advanced graduate seminar. When challenged by a graduate student with a putative counterexample to the pattern under scrutiny, he would respond by listening intently to the example offered, take a deep breath, move his eyes up and while gently stroking his chin, make the internal visual search necessary for deciding whether the example offered constituted a genuine counterexample. Such searches, depending on the complexity of the point in question could vary from a few seconds to several minutes, during which the remainder of us, graduate students, would either make a parallel search or watch with fascination the efforts of this accomplished linguist to decide whether or not the challenge was a genuine counterexample, relevant to the pattern.

What was it that Professor Klima was doing? Here, I can only fall back on my own experience of some years of so operating as a professional linguist in the academic world. First of all, it is trivial in hindsight to appreciate how Klima was proceeding formally - the eyes movements described immediately allow any trained NLP observer to recognize that he was creating internal visual images as his primary search strategy movements up indicate that the person is entertaining visual images.[11]

So, it is clear how Klima was going about the search to determine whether the proffered sentence was a legitimate counterexample - how, in the sense of the use of visual images. It is also quite easy for me to remember that immediately before announcing the results of his search, Klima would drop his eyes down to a position indicating that he was checking his feelings about the results of the search.

This procedure that Grinder is describing is an example of strategy elicitation. If the EAC model was invalid -- was a "lie" -- then the strategy that Grinder claims he has obtained by observing Professor Kilma would be necessarily wrong and there would be no point in him codifying it and even less reason to write about it and use it as an example. The raison d'etre of strategy elicitation is to codify the subjective experience of the exemplar, to determine what they are doing in their heads to achieve a result so that others can do the same. The invalidity of the EAC would undermine this method of strategy elicitation. There are methods in strategy elicitation -- such as the one illustrated above -- and methods in the all-important process of modeling that rely on the EAC to elicit patterns and also to confirm that someone trying to learn the pattern is being true to the exemplar's patterning. If EAC were just a big lie told by Bandler and Grinder to achieve "covert hypnosis" then why would Grinder give EAC the vital role that he gives it in NLP modeling? Modeling is the core of NLP, it is how the Meta-Model and the Milton-Model were obtained. Modeling is prior to all else in NLP, including the Milton-Model and its hypnotic language patterns. EAC is used in modeling to track representational systems both in the elicitation stage and the verification stage. Knowingly introducing a method that is invalid into the modeling process would undermine NLP from root to branch. Grinder would -- in effect -- be damning all his student to produce invalid models of their exemplars. The strategies and models would be flawed -- according to NLPs own lights -- because the codified representational system use transitions would not be congruent with the exemplars. That is the implication of what user That Guy, From That Show! is claiming. Similarly, a salesperson using the EAC model to guide predicate selection -- as advised in Persusasion Engineering -- would be mis-matching the prospect when (s)he intends to match the prospect. There is no level of analysis nor vantage point from which user That Guy, From That Show! claim even makes sense. Have I made my point? Have I supplied sufficient evidence and argumentation? Is more needed? AnotherPseudonym (talk) 11:05, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

You really don't get it. For example, out of many, the EAC is a training tool, for the purposes of training. The rest of what you write above is similarly interpreted in really odd ways that are far off the mark.

-- That Guy, From That Show! 11:33, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, it is you that really doesn't get it. EAC is NOT a training tool, it is used to elicit strategies and it is also used in modeling. In covering the history of NLP in Whispering in the Wind Grinder describes the EAC model as the second codified model after the Meta-Model. Modeling is NLP, the rest are just techniques derived from modeling. You have no corroborative evidence for any of your ludicrous claims. None. There is no account of the history of NLP neither from its co-creators nor their students that proposes that the EAC model was made up. You don't understand a joke, and your position is based on your failure to comprehend that

"Everything we're going to tell you here is a lie. All generalizations are lies." (p.18, Frogs into Princes)

are both paradoxical statements that are neither true nor false. NLP is most definitely not a "covert hypnosis methodology", the core of NLP -- according to everyone that matters including the co-creators -- is modeling. The Milton-Model is just another model, it is not privileged in any way. Show me how I am "off the mark", substantiate your claims in the manner that I have done so. I have provided a veritable avalanche of evidence from the co-creators themselves that directtly contradicts your claims. You have provided nothing besides your naked opinions. You don't even appear to understand what NLP actually is and you presume to question my knowledge of the matter. You seem to think that NLP is the Milton-Model -- it isn't and it can't be not only because Grinder and Bandler explicitly state that NLP is essentially a modeling methodology but also because the Milton-Model was the third model that B&G codified. The prior two were the Meta-Model and the EAC model. This is thorughly documented in Whispering in the Wind. Have you even read Whispering in the Wind? How can NLP be "covert hypnosis" when hypnosis didn't even come into NLP until after B&G modeled Satir and Perls and developed the Meta-Model and EAC model. So when B&G modeled Satir and Perls -- before they even met Bateson that introduced them to Erikson -- they weren't doing NLP? If B&G didn't model Erikson and there was no Milton-Model we wouldn't have NLP? NLP was NLP prior to the modeling of Erikson. You don't understand the distinction -- as made plain by Grinder -- between NLP (methodology) and NLP (applications). The hypnotic language in NLP is there by virtue of the Milton-Model and the Milton-Model is the product of B&Gs modeling of Erikson. B&G modeled Erikson only because they believed he -- like Satir, Perls and Farrelly -- was an effective psychotherapist not because hyonotic language is intrinsically NLPish. The commonality that underlies all of the original NLP models -- the Meta-Model, the EAC model, the Milton-Model -- is that they were codified using the NLP methodology known as modeling. Those models are not NLP proper, they are the product of the application of NLP methodology, i.e. modeling. There are multitude of third-party models aside from the original models created by B&G that have nothing to do with hypnosis. This isn't my idiosyncratic take on NLP, this is what is taught by Grinder (Bandler has abandoned trying to add models to NLP since he lost the trial wherein he tried to obtain exclusive use of Neuro Linguistic Programming and NLP as trademrks) in his current seminars and recent books. I also provided you a recent video of Bandler where he too defines NLP as a methodology for modeling excellence. That is enough of me trying to educate you. The onus is on you to provide evidence to substantiate your claims. Show where in the writings and seminar videos of the co-creators there is any evidence for your claims. There is none, and I know there isn't because I have an extensive knowledge of both Bandler and Grinders books and seminars. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 12:46, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps an example will show you where you are misguided. Consider the following. Eriksonian hypnosis existed prior to NLP and there are practitioners of Eriksonian hypnosis that don't even know what NLP is (http://erickson-foundation.org/conferences/). I'd hazard a guess that most Eriksonian therapists don't know what NLP is. When these people deliver psychotherapy they aren't "doing NLP", they are using Eriksonian methods. Similarly, when Virginia Satir was using the questions that eventually came to comprise the Meta-Model she wasn't "doing NLP", rather she was delivering her brand of family therapy. The Milton-Model and the Meta-Model are generally considered to be NLP because they are NLP modeleres accounts of what Erikson and Satir respectively were doing that is effective. To the extent that the account of the work of these two exemplars -- the Milton-Model and the Meta-Model -- was obtained using the NLP modeling methodology and the extent in which the work of the exemplars is conceptualised in NLP terms those model are NLP -- that is all. There are people trained in the methods of Satir and of Erikson that have no experience of NLP. There is nothing intrinsically "NLPish" about Satirs work or Eriksons work -- that existed prior to NLP and the best NLP hope to achieve in relation to that was to capture it accurately in transferable format. It is purely historical accident that the first three NLP models were derived from psychotherapists. According to Grinder and Spitzer's account of the history of NLP B&G were interested in NLP because they both believed they needed psychotherapy. Regardless of the ultimate cause, we can at least be sure that the proximate cause was that both B&G were interested in psychotherapy. If B&G were instead interested in oration, juggling, improvisational theatre or wood carving we would have had a different set of original models and they would still be considered "just as NLP" as the actual original models derived from psychotherapy. Also the underlying methodology that generated the models would be largely the same (the methodology of modeling is reflexive such that codified models can be fed back into the modeling process itself to improve it as per the EAC model so there would have been some variation due to this). You seem to be of the view that the original three models of effective -- in B&Gs estimate -- psychotherapists are special or somehow privileged and definitive of NLP. They aren't. They are just NLP reconceptualisations of what B&G believed their psychotherapeutic exemplars were doing that made them effective. A successful outcome of modeling is to have others do as the exemplar does not to "do NLP". In creating the Milton-Model the aim of B&G was to have others effectively execute Eriksonian hypnosis NOT to "do NLP". The aim is to reproduce the "genius" of the exemplar -- who is not doing NLP -- that is simply doing their "thing", whatever that may be. Have I made this critical distinction clear? NLP is no more "covert hypnosis" than it is "playing pool" or "Salsa dancing" (two actual models). "Covert hypnosis" (as performed by the consumer of an NLP model) is -- ideally -- "covert hypnosis" (as performed by Erikson). That is the aim of NLP modeling. NLP has become synonymous with persuasion and psychotherapy because the original three models were aggressively marketed to sales people and psychotherapists/counsellors and those are major markets. But as I said this is just historical accident. The Milton-Model is no more or less NLP that is the model on how to shoot pool. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 13:38, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

You still don't get it.Meta and Milton model are used throughout the training. You're unable to model the training even though it's using what you were taught. Since you can't even notice that the presuppositions of NLP are mostly milton model patterns I don't even know what so say about that except *facepalm*

You can go ahead and type a bunch more stuff but that won't cover the fact that you can't recognize what you would recognize 'if you had actually learned the methodology.

-- That Guy, From That Show! 02:28, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Have you read Whispering in the Wind? It seems that that you haven't. A multitude of models in addition to the Meta-Model and Milton-Model are used in some trainings -- what of it? Why then characterise NLP training as "covert hypnosis" when other models that have nothing to do with hypnosis are also utilised? Different sections of the training will use different models. Why arbitrarily focus on just the Milton-Model? The presuppositions of NLP proper are those that enable modeling and those which comprise the minimalist theoretical core of NLP eg. "skill is a rule governed activity", "experience is encoded and stored in sensorial terms", VAKOG, the map/territory distinction etc. The elements of the Milton-Model don't comprise the foundational presuppositions of NLP. The lost performative -- for example plays no foundational role in NLP, neither does the unspecified referential index. Given that NLP predates the Milton-Model your claim is prima facie false. It is you that doesn't understand the NLP methodology, i.e. modeling. You think that the models -- which are the product of the modeling -- are NLP proper and this is a mistaken view. Read Whispering in the Wind -- if you have read it then re-read it. This is just another manifestation of your profound ignorance of NLP. This is your catalogue thus far:

(i) NLP is covert hypnosis;

(ii) Covert hypnosis consists in telling lies and it is effected by telling lies;

(iii) Bandler and Grinder make stuff up and specifically the EAC model is one of the things that they made up;

(iv) The Milton-Model comprises a subset of the presuppositions of NLP;

We can file your arbitrary assignment of truth-value true to two paradoxical statements under General Ignorance. I should also remind you that your initial posting to this talk page consisted in a attempt to try and categorise Bandler and Grinder's claim that NLP can treat such things as myopia and the common cold as lies told for the sake of covert hypnosis. You didn't explain how exactly these sorts of lies effect covert hypnosis or why it is even necessary to tell lies to effect covert hypnosis, or how the passages I quoted relate to the Milton-Model, you just asserted this as transcendent fact as if you had some special faculty that enabled you -- and only you -- to understand what Bandler and Grinder really meant when they wrote that description of reframing under hypnotic trance that appears in Trance-formations. This is the essence of what you have offered us as an exegetical method for a deep understanding NLP texts: "It's spooky, weird, mind control hypnotic stuff everywhere and you have to tell lies in order to do it. You guys just don't get it. If you find something in NLP that is wrong or seems outlandish, incredible or exaggerated it's spooky, weird mind control hypnotic stuff. NLP can cure myopia: spooky, weird, mind control hypnotic stuff. NLP can cure common cold: spooky, weird, mind control hypnotic stuff. EAC model: spooky, weird, mind control hypnotic stuff. NLP can aid spelling: that's just normal stuff no spooky, weird, mind control hypnotic stuff there". That Grinder (a) repeats the claim that hypnotic regression can reverse myopia in Whispering in the Wind (which isn't a transcript of a seminar); (b) provides the email address of one of his students that claims to have developed a system for treating myopia using NLP techniques (amongst others); and (c) there is no evidence of the use of the Milton-Model doesn't bear on your interpretation of the material on pages 166-174 of Trance-formations. You just KNOW that it has a transcendental hypnotic meaning. You've yet to present any evidence from the co-creators of NLP to substantiate your claims, we still only have your assertions and you don't appear embarassed to just offer those and expect agreement. Perhaps this is why despite your failure to substantiate your claims you are still trying to lecture me as if you have presented some killer argument and some piece of killer evidence in the texts of B&G that I was ignorant of. You haven't presented anything of evidentiary value, you have literally presented nothing that corroborates any of your claims. I've rebutted all of your claims by presenting evidence from the co-creators themselves and I have done so to the point of redundancy to illustrate the magnitude of your ignorance. You've just ignored it and have failed to provide any sort of counter-argument. You have no case and you haven't offered anything which should influence this article. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 04:07, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

You wrote, "Since you can't even notice that the presuppositions of NLP are mostly milton model patterns I don't even know what so say about that except *facepalm*". I present:

The Milton-Model

(1) Nominalizations;

(2) Unspecified verbs;

(3) Unspecified referential index;

(4) Deletion;

(5) Causal modeling;

(6) "Mind reading";

(7) Lost performative;

(8) Universal quantifiers;

(9) Modal operators;

(10) Subordinate clauses of time;

(11) Ordinal numerals;

(12) Awareness predicates;

(13) Adverbs and adjectives;

(14) Changes of time verbs and adverbs;

(15) Commentary adjectives and adverbs;

(16) Embedded commands;

(17) Analogue marking;

(18) Embedded questions;

(19) Negative commands;

(20) Conversational postulates;

(21) Ambiguity;

(22) Selectional restriction violations; and

(23) Quotes.

(After Appendix II of Trance-formations)

These are the presuppositions of NLP according to Dilts: http://nlpuniversitypress.com/html2/PrPu24.html

Let A denote the Milton-Model, let B denote the presuppositions of NLP. then

$A\cap B=\varnothing .\,$

At this stage it would be remarkable if you stated something about NLP that was correct. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 04:55, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

I would suggest that since you appear to like Grinder a lot that you get his Trainer's Training and Syntax of Behavior series then you'll understand this much better.

-- That Guy, From That Show! 05:37, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Do you have anything to offer in the way of improving this artcle (and that excludes your special insights)? If not then please go away. You're a genius blessed with a special faculty that permits you -- and only you -- to extract the real meaning of B&Gs texts and this transcendental meaning would be otherwise denied to all others were it not for your beneficence. We are most blessed to have you. That notwithstanding, at this phase of humanity I think it would be sufficient to have an encyclopedic entry on the lower NLP -- the NLP that is defined by just reading the words in NLP books written by Bandler and Grinder and by attending and watching/listening to their seminars using just your ears and eyes. The higher NLP -- which only you are privy to -- whose revelation exists in a transcendental domain that supervenes the text -- is best left out of the article and preserved for the future age when all humanity is prophesied to be blessed with the faculty that you have been gifted which permits the discernment of the higher NLP from the banal lower NLP. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 06:24, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

@AnotherPseudonym and @That Guy, From That Show! Hi guys. There is a big yellow box at the top of this page. The second line in it begins - "This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject." Roxy the dog (talk) 09:04, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

I've got a question for people who have spent more time editing this page. I did some Google searching for scholarly articles and found some saying that NLP was effective at helping with certain things - like phobias - and I also found some articles that criticized certain parts of NLP for use as therapy. So far, I haven't found any citations that could be added to the page, but I'll keep looking. My question is about the last paragraph of the lead. In it, it says "According to clinical psychologist Grant Devilly (2005),[18] NLP has had a consequent decline in prevalence since the 1970s." I'm wondering if there are statistics that are more current than 2005, as I think it would be useful to the page to display how prevalent NLP has been in the past 8 years.Gustav38 (talk) 22:16, 3 July 2013 (UTC)