Talk:Neuro-linguistic programming

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Neuro-linguistic programming. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070615185758/http://www.mheap.com/nlp1.pdf to http://www.mheap.com/nlp1.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110616080310/http://www.allea.org/Pages/ALL/4/881.bGFuZz1FTkc.pdf to http://www.allea.org/Pages/ALL/4/881.bGFuZz1FTkc.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.anlp.org/anlpnews.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:50, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

"Discredited"

"Mixed results" is more accurate than "scientifically discredited."

Did you know that all forms of Psychotherapy have mixed results? Yet not a single one of these list in the first paragraph as being "scientifically discredited". Did you know all forms of surgery have mixed results? If you cheery-picked all the "failures" and put them all together into a "study" you could "discredit" 100% of all western medicine. Because there are rarely silver bullets that work 100% of the time for 100% of the people. And we don't know why, people are very dynamic beings. None the less, there are PLENTY of NLP studies that report success. So should we only look at these and say it's a blinding success? No, we look at both, and you can claim mixed results. That's fair, balanced and accurate. Officially, not even that vernacular should be used, UNLESS you go and change every single other medical procedure first paragraph page as well as being "mixed results." Because that's is 100% honest scientific truth. Darrellx (talk) 18:34, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Whataboutism -Roxy, the dog. barcus 19:20, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Well, Whataboutism that was easy. Calling me a "lunatic charlatan" trying to be fair and balanced? Wikipedia really is broken beyond repair. (Citation: Cofounder of Wikipedia; Thomson, Iain (13 April 2007). ’’Wikipedia ’broken beyond repair’ says co-founder” http://www.iwr.co.uk/information-world-review/news/2187709/wikipedia-broken-beyond-repair. Information World Review.)

Darrellx (talk) 12:00, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Here is your scientific journal (Psychiatr Danub. 2015 Dec;27(4):355-63.) Evidence-based Neuro Linguistic Psychotherapy: a meta-analysis: "Neuro-Linguistic Psychotherapy as a psychotherapeutic modality grounded in theoretical frameworks, methodologies and interventions scientifically developed, including models developed by NLP, shows results that can hold its ground in comparison with other psychotherapeutic methods."

"Meta-analysis is a statistical analysis that combines the results of multiple scientific studies." Meaning they looked at all the other scientific studies. "From a total number of 425 studies, 350 were removed and considered not relevant based on the title and abstract. Included, in the final analysis, are 12 studies with numbers of participants ranging between 12 and 115 subjects. The vast majority of studies were prospective observational. The actual paper represents the first meta-analysis evaluating the effectiveness of NLP therapy for individuals with social/psychological problems. The overall meta-analysis found that the NLP therapy may add an overall standardized mean difference of 0.54 with a confidence interval of CI=[0.20; 0.88]."

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26609647 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darrellx (talk • contribs) 18:49, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Lunatic charlatan? what the hell are you talking about. Who called you that? -Roxy, the dog. barcus 19:27, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm guessing they mean your profile badge:

This user resists the POV pushing of lunatic charlatans.

73.202.40.143 (talk) 07:04, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

But they used pointing it out as a form of Whataboutism, straight after calling them out for Whataboutism, despite the original point not being Whataboutism and just making comparisons to how the bias may be different on other topics, but the point about being called a lunatic charlatan WAS, rather than addressing their concern either, so this appears to be going round in circles.146.198.219.40 (talk) 22:38, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

As has been pointed out before, @Darrellx: the authors of that meta analysis appear to work for some Romanian company specialising in, yes - you guessed it, NLP. Find me a scientific study supportive of NLP that is not written by an NLP practitioner and I will buy you a beer. Until then, case closed. Famousdog (woof)(grrr) 13:11, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

How about you go point for point for my initial argument? Is every part of western medicine 100% works 100% of the time for 100% of the people? Or is it mixed results? Of course NLP works for some people. A PLACEBO works for 30-80% of people. Lots of FDA drugs on the market today wouldn't be able to pass the current FDA requirements for better than placebo.

Darrellx (talk) 15:31, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Oh dear, I thought we were finished with this. My mistake. OK, @Darrellx:. You are right that many therapies and medicines have "mixed results", but evidence based medicine requires that any therapy or intervention provide a statistically significant improvement over placebo in a randomised controlled trial, preferably one in which the therapy is compared to a sham version of the therapy in question. There is no such study to date and the only potentially reliable meta-analysis in support of NLP is tainted by a clear conflict of interest). Ask yourself this: would you trust the results of a study demonstrating the effectiveness of a drug if the study came from BigPharmacorp, Inc. who where actively marketing the drug? No, you damn well wouldn't and you'd be right not to. Looking at "all" the evidence (as you suggest, and which is what the editors of this article have been doing) it is fairly clear (to me, at least) that NLP is just plausible-sounding waffle with only a tenuous basis in human psychology and neuroscience (in which I have a PhD, but I'm sure you'll assume that I'm lying about that). It has had decades to provide reliable sources to demonstrate its effectiveness and all it has managed to do in that time is become a weird managerial personality cult. If you have "PLENTY of NLP studies that report success" (and meet the criteria for good science) then please link to them here. So far you have provided only one study by NLP practitioners published in a journal that nobody has ever heard of (Psychiatria Danubina). Is that "point for point" enough for you? Famousdog (woof)(grrr) 07:37, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

I know nothing about the subject (I came to the article to learn about it) but the style of the paragraph beginning 'NLP has since been discredited scientifically' looks terribly familiar — it looks almost as if the sceptics have a template to work from to discredit ideas that they disapprove of. My apologies, if there is no truth at all in that suggestion. --Brian Josephson (talk) 10:36, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

I accept your apology. -Roxy, the dog. barcus 11:48, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

I make no apologies for indicating my belief, which appears to be shared by others, that the article gives the impression of being distinctly biased (all achieved strictly in accord with w'pedia's specifications, I'm sure). --Brian Josephson (talk) 12:47, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Over the years, Brian, you have shown you believe all sorts of things, many of them without accompanying evidence! -Roxy, the dog. barcus 12:50, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Such as memory of water? Last weekend there was a conference where clear evidence of water structure was presented. The w'pedia page is going to have to be changed soon. It may be that the cymascope will give very clear evidence of water memory, but the work is in a very preliminary stage at present (the w'pedia page on the subject is a bit limited). --Brian Josephson (talk) 13:18, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Oh my !! You and Luc together at the same time. I wondered what caused the ripples in the space-time continuum. Be that as it may, as this is well outside the scope of Talk pages, I shall not respond further. -Roxy, the dog. barcus 13:31, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

I agree, but let me just close by saying that I discovered at the event that Luc and I are both banned from speaking at the Lindau meetings.

Semi-protected edit request on 18 August 2018

Kirin Soo is the youngest NLP Practitioner trained by Dr Richard Bandler during May 2017 in London.Source:

<ref>https://www.facebook.com/nlplifetraining/photos/t.100003379624179/10154439380550458/?type=3&theater<ref> Crypto168 (talk) 12:35, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

What on earth has this got to do with anything? Change rejected -----Snowded ^TALK 03:42, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 October 2018

Can you change the following text: "There is no scientific evidence supporting the claims made by NLP advocates and it has been discredited as a pseudoscience by experts" TO "There is some scientific evidence supporting the claims made by NLP advocates, (see: http://www.nlp.de/cgi-bin/research/nlp-rdb.cgi) and expert psychologists are ambivalent in their assessment of NLP as they are of many modalities"

My reasons for asking for this is I am a professional chartered psychologist who has been practicing in the UK and using NLP for 25 years. I have written my own academic text on NLP: (The theory and practice of NLP coaching, 2013, (Sage) and numerous academic articles which can be viewed by going to the above web link. Wake et al (2013) have also produced a responsible academic text demonstrating the evidence base for NLP in the context of psychotherapy. Wake, L., Gray, R. M and Bourke, F. S. (2013). The Clinical Effectiveness of Neuro-linguistic Programming. A critical appraisal. Ed. London and New York: Routledge. NLP has in fact produced both RCT's and Meta-analysis, which can be accessed at the above web link and it is simply not true to say there is no scientific evidence supporting the claims made by NLP advocates, there are. Also it is not true that NLP has been discredited by experts. Some psychologists have written in an unfavourable way concerning NLP, but NLP has not been discredited scientifically. Little evidence for, is very different from evidence against. Thank you and kind regards. Dr Bruce Grimley Brucegrimley (talk) 20:25, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

I am not persuaded. -Roxy, in the middle. wooF 20:32, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

OK, I understand. But here are 2 RCT's related to NLP. Surely even 2 are enough to suggest the wording "No scientific evidence" is wrong. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/272743688_Raising_maths_attainment_through_enhanced_pedagogy_and_communication_Results_from_a_'teacher-level'_randomised_controlled_trial_An_NLP_related_study

http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0091217417703285?journalCode=ijpb

Thank you.Brucegrimley (talk) 21:05, 17 October 2018 (UTC)--Brucegrimley (talk) 21:05, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

We've been through this before and we've been through the third party sources that have evaluated it, rather than reports by practitioners. -----Snowded ^TALK 22:14, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

    I know this will probably get deleted because I don't sign in but whatever. Source 10 seems to be primarily based on source 11 (not a good look). Source 11 (Sharpley, 1987, p. 103-107) summarises other studies (which themselves tend to have mixed or inconclusive results) attempting to disprove PRS. Now I don't have any stake in this and personally I don't think very highly of the whole PRS categorisation thing (in case anyone is unfamiliar this involves categorising people as 'visual' 'auditory' or 'kinesthetic') but this is not NLP in it's entirety. Sharpley's - well it's not really a meta analysis - is poorly written; indeed the fact that so many of the studies criticising NLP involve self-reporting is poor scholarship in on the part of the authors summarised. The pseudoscience claim needs to be backed up by much better evidence or changed.
     Now I'm not out to defend NLP, it is simply that this article does itself a disservice by labeling NLP pseudoscience on the strength of what is essentially one piece of very mediocre evidence. I'm just a guy who got vaguely interested in hypnotism after hearing Derren Brown on Sam Harris' podcast (I'm not really a fan though I can't stand the cult that seems to have sprung up around him) and ended up here. If this isn't changed or better supported then you will just get more people like me arriving on this page and thinking "Huh? This looks like a hit-piece" - because right now that's what it looks like.144.48.37.100 (talk) 10:01, 26 November 2018 (UTC)