Skepticism B‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article has been marked as needing immediate attention.

Archives

Pre-Oct 2005 Oct 2005 Disputes Oct 2005 (Mediated) Disputes 1 Oct 2005 (Mediated) Disputes 2 Nov 3 - 13, 2005 (Mediated) Nov 13 - 25, 2005 (Mediated ) 2005 Nov 25 - Dec 22, 2005 (Mediated) 2005 Dec 22, 2005 - Jan 14, 2006 (Mediated) 2006 Jan 14, 2006 To ArbCom decision Feb 6 2006 Mentorship begins Mentorship ends, HeadleyDown and many socks blocked The Swish discussion (March 6th - March 9th, 2006) General Workshop discussion (Feb 12th to May 10th, 2006) June 6 2006 to December 31 2006 Longterm abuser trolling/disinformation discussion (December 17 2006 to Present) Late December to January 19 2007

This article has been submitted to Peer review and cleanup taskforce projects. We are currently working with those projects to improve the article. This is with the aim of eventually reach Feature Article candidate. To reach this goal we must aim for well written, comprehensive, factually accurate, neutral and stable article.

Template:Cleanup taskforce notice

This section is for general question regarding the progression toward feature article status:

Comaze, have you contacted Cleanup yet? I couldn't work out how to get in touch with the same person, or isn't it supposed to be the same person?Fainites 19:35, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately the person who did the cleanup report was not a regular member of that taskforce so I could not get in contact. I've ask peer-review to comment on our progress. --Comaze 22:38, 22 January 2007 (UTC) Thanks Fainites 16:20, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Current status: A number of issues have been raised by both projects are being worked on. --Comaze 10:15, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This section is for proposing changes to the article. In the past the article has been flooded with off-topic discussion. Here we can begin to focus our efforts in collaborating with each other. When agreement is reached and changes made, the relevant discussion can be moved to the archives.

Change subtitles and order of research reviews and mental health sections

Discussion

I noticed the 'Research reviews' has been moved into the 'Classifying NLP' section. Rationale? Doc Pato 21:11, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That was me. I thought they fitted better after the science section. However, I have no strong views on the subject if you think they would be better suited elsewhere.Fainites 23:03, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't quite understand the new position. 58.179.173.84 05:18, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What new position? DocPatos comment or the position of research reviews? They were moved on 11th jan. Fainites 14:25, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What about putting the Research reviews before 'Classifying NLP'? Previously it was between Mental Health Practice and Human Resources which didn't seem appropriate. It's too far down and not specifically related to either. 'Research reviews' cover broader aspects than MH practice. They mostly undermine the underlying principles and theories of NLP. There is scientific criticism and specific research relating to MH practice in the MH section itself. The research reviews need to be near the science issues. Fainites 20:04, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I meant I didn't understand research reviews as a subsection of science and pseudoscience. I'd prefer it be a sub-section of reception as it has little to do with classification (to my mind). Perhaps move the whole Reception section above the Classifying NLP section. 58.179.182.216 07:27, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think on reflection you're probably right. It could go above Mental health, then move the whole thing up. Then the 'classifying' section. Try it and see how it looks.Fainites 16:20, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Below is a contribution from an unknown editor added today near the top when we were discussing classification last time. I've copied it down here in case it's missed.Fainites 17:12, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there I have 3+ years experience with NLP and I will give you my opinion to help you make a better categorization. NLP is not a science, nor is it an art nor a religion. NLP is the study of the place where science, art, and religion overlap, also known as 'subjective experience.' The original subtitle of NLP was 'the study of the structure of subjective experience.' The structure of some NLP organizations may sometimes resemble that of a cult, but NLP itself is not a cult, though it can be used by cults. Subjective experience is not always directly measurable. This is why science has a hard time with NLP. The primary way to understand subjective experience is not by measuring it - that is comparing it to something else like a yardstick - but rather by observing the structure of subjective processes that occur in all manner of human experiences - from experiences in science, art, religion, etc. Think of it in the same way that quantum physics is not an exact science, and is sometimes paradoxical. I offer this explanation to you only as a guide to help you find the right way to categorize NLP correctly. The dispute over this article comes directly from misunderstanding and miscommunication - something that NLP itself does alot to rectify when used correctly.67.174.224.210 08:53, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

• Proposed change: Move "research reviews" to subsection of reception... "It could go above Mental health, then move the whole thing up. Then the 'classifying' section."
• Status: I did this 23.1.07. Fainites 12:26, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Update tags for reception

Tried the re-order as discussed. Overall I think it's an improvement but feel free to revert if you disagree. I think perhaps your tags ought to go though Comaze. They haven't achieved anything yet.Fainites 20:15, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What tags are you referring to? --Comaze 13:42, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your tags at the beginning of reception. They don't seem to have produced anything. Is there a way they could perhaps be simplified? That might produce more.Fainites 17:42, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The second tag is mine. I think it's been quite effective. I would consider an updated wording/tag. 58.178.161.126 11:40, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Proposed change: Update wording and tags on the reception section
• Current Status: It appears that we agree to update the wording/tags --Comaze 09:51, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Resolve confusion over criticism and reception

Somehow my suggestion got waylayed with the archiving... but how does the idea of a specific 'Criticism' section of NLP sound? This is something that's been discussed in the past, but always opposed by the sock army. The research reviews could be re-headed (unless someone wants to add the reviews suggesting some efficacy as well) and integrated within a general 'Criticism' section, which can even be possibly be followed with a brief counter criticism section? Thoughts? Doc Pato 19:20, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

:: Please read WP:CRITICISM and WP:STRUCTURES. Calling a section criticism has been a troll magnet in the past on this article. From my POV, NLP isn't really all that criticised; there is more positive reception than negative, so equal weighting would become difficult when following your suggestion.

:: What's more important though is that not all research reviews we've included are as negative as might be implied by calling the section criticism. In fact some citations we have lumped together don't necessarily belong together at all. Some groupings seem to be promoting the idea that there is a unanimous scientific "AHOY! look! quackery!" We could be a little more careful to avoid that kind of WP:OR, and a great place to start is calling a section reception (per guidelines above). 58.178.111.142 22:06, 26 January 2007 (UTC) I have struck and revoked my views from the record above due to restructuring and overgeneralising on this talk page that has altered context and meaning of my original statements. My apologies. I realise you had good intentions. 203.212.136.193 09:00, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Proposed change: Retain reception instead of criticism. --Comaze 10:06, 31 January 2007 (UTC) [reply]

• Current status: Tentative consensus. --Comaze 10:06, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Assigned to: N/A --Comaze 10:06, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Summarize research

The research reviews aren't 'criticism' , they're research reviews. The fact that they're mostly critical is a different matter. I think there could be a 'criticism' section that presented a summary of criticism and referred to research reviews, and a positive reception section,but overall I think that 'reception' is better because although the reviews are mostly critical, not everything is entirely critical, yet you couldn't call it positive. I'm not convinced by the idea as stated above that there is more positive reception than negative though. Apart from the fact that it's popular, (Singer says there are 38,000 practitioners in the USA alone) positive reception seems a little hard to come by. A summary of the scientific views would be ideal in principle but on this site it is problematical due to past (including recent past) problems with false and misleading citations. We could easily write an agreed version but it would have to be watched like a hawk! Does anybody (apart from sockpuppets) think we should attempt a summary of scientific views rather than the current list of quotes or should we leave well alone? (ps, I have no internet access for the next few days, but would be happy to attempt a summary of science views if there was general consensus that this was appropriate). Fainites 17:30, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

:: Having considered this issue further. I'd love to have a well written summary on-hand. Perhaps it will be better than what we currently have. Good luck. 203.212.138.209 12:08, 31 January 2007 (UTC) I have struck and revoked my views from the record above due to restructuring and overgeneralising on this talk page that has altered context and meaning of my original statements. My apologies. I realise you had good intentions. 203.212.136.193 08:56, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Should this happen before or after we have a more complete the list of peer-reviewed papers. Some of the current authors are not published in peer-reviewed journals. --Comaze 06:05, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Proposed change: summarise the scientific reviews, separate commentary from reviews and discussion.
• Assigned to: Fainites
• Current status: Fainites has written a draft. S/he's waiting for feedback. --Comaze 23:16, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Preference peer review sources

Peer review / FAC wants us to include all PMID, ISBN and page numbers for books. This will help reviewers quickly check if sources published in peer-reviewed reputable journals and if the authors are credible. This will help us resolve some weighting issues and would help Fainites if s/he were to write a summary. Most of the sources are not indexed by PubMed but are indexed by Proquest, psychinfo and non-medical journals. This is an important distinction that was missed by the peer-review comment. I've started a list of Talk:Neuro-linguistic programming/Peer reviewed sources --Comaze 22:48, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good start on the peer review list Comaze. Am I right in assuming Devilly, Sharpley, Druckman, Einspruch, Elich, Krugman, Buckner, Beyerstein, some Lilienfield, and in education - Craft and Tosey are all peer reviewed? However, possibly not Heap, and not Von Bergen or Figley. I think Wiki peer review have a point. What's the distinction between PubMed and Proquest, psychoinfo and non-medical journals? The research reviews should be peer reviewed only. In MH there should be a clear distinction between peer reviewed work and commentary, however notable the commentator. E.g. Drenth. How do we characterise Singer?

Looking at the one of the peer review comments, (the one that starts off with the POV that NLP is pseudoscience), the only peer reviwed scientific paper that calls it pseudoscience is Beyerstein. Lilienfield calls it pseudoscience in a book, and Corballis and Singer don't actually use the word but it's clear what they mean, but also in books. I think we should make a distinction between peer reviewed papers and commentary. However, presumably the commentary of the likes of Lilienfield and Drenth is worth having? Look forward to the complete list.Fainites 20:35, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looking again, Devilly's abstract says 'shows some of the characteristics of pseudoscience'. I'll look at the whole article. I think we did this before. Also, Eisner is a book, therefore should be commentary, not research reviews. DocPato has a point. Peer reviewed research and reviews in one section. Other criticism in another. What we shouldn't do is conflate critical research and critical commentary.Fainites 22:58, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comaze, can we get the reviews and research we already know about in the list first. Also, looking at some of the list, there is a difference between peer reviewed research and informative articles that happen to appear in a peer reviewed journal. We need to be careful about this.Fainites 07:56, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Should the section be 'research reviews' and 'research'. For example, Buckner et al did a specific piece of research in response to Sharpley, but it's not a review. Fainites 08:52, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Devilly uses NLP in his introduction as an 'early example' of alphabet or power therapies before going on to rubbish more recent examples such as EMDR and EFT.Fainites 14:39, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Current status: Comaze is still working on it. I've added some more articles and started grouping into categories and subcategoies: Talk:Neuro-linguistic programming/Peer reviewed sources
• Assigned to: --Comaze 22:48, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Views of prominent organizations

Regarding positive reception: I think perhaps I've been confusing popularity with positive reception. I agree that those who have a purely positive and purely academic interest in NLP are few. However, that is a misleading figure. If you look past a mere head-count, some very prominent government and international agencies use NLP; and I think there is implied positive reception by the amount of use internationally. So perhaps the approach for citing positive reception is to not only cite the numbers and fields (e.g. Singer says 38000 practitioners in the US) but also to cite the prominent international agencies using NLP (eg. The United Nations, UK Police force, and others).

Regarding critical reception: A list of peer-reviewed sources is useful. I don't think a abridged summary of science views is ever a good idea. Either individual researchers present their findings summarily or not. Where the findings are too verbose or unencyclopedic footnotes might be a useful comprimise. Take care. 58.178.144.161 03:30, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have struck and revoked my views from the record above due to restructuring and overgeneralising on this talk page that has altered context and meaning of my original statements. My apologies. I realise you had good intentions. 203.212.136.193 08:57, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

US Federal Probation is another govt agency using NLP. There are many other organisations that have incorporated NLP into their training but don't refer to the source. I'll work on that list of peer review sources including the AAT, ISBN (with page numbers), ISSN and PMID so that these sources can be verified. You (including Fainites) are much better at writing that me, so I'd like to make it as easy as possible for you to look up these sources. --Comaze 12:26, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. A list like this would be awesome. Can you provide a source for prominent organisations using NLP? 58.178.144.161 14:20, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've added some URLs to that list Talk:Neuro-linguistic programming/Peer reviewed sources. --Comaze 22:19, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'll check it out when I get some time later this week. 58.179.132.208 08:14, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Proposed change: Include a list of prominent organisation and their view of NLP. --Comaze 10:18, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Current status: Discussing issues. --Comaze 10:18, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Assigned to: Currently unassigned. --Comaze 10:01, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Fainites. Still looking forward to the research summary. Let us know if you want us to review an in progress version. Take care. 203.212.136.193 08:52, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Awfully sorry people but I'm still without internet access at the moment except for the occasional snatched moment on borrowed computers. BT seem to be struggling with the concepts does not work and please mend it. I would hope to get down to the summary next week. Look forward to the list of peer-reviewed and other studies !Fainites 11:37, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all. Back in business. Ready to get on with summarising (or 'summarizing' on this site) research reviews. I'll post the results and then we'll see whether or not it is an improvment on the quotes which in themselves are all summaries.

Like the list of peer reviewed studies. How do I access the 'to-do' list or hasn't it been created yet? By the way, I re-ordered the sections at the bottom, americanised the spellings and put refs at the end of sentences where possible in accordance with peer review before I went off the air. Can't remember if I mentioned this. What's left? Fainites 18:21, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you want to use the following todo list? --Comaze 01:59, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Comaze. good work. 203.212.143.5 08:12, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Comaze and Numbers, this summary business is more difficult than I thought it would be. It's the distinction between reviews, individual research and commentary that makes it difficult to organise. i'll try and post something this weekend and see what you think.Fainites 22:29, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As per 58.* comments, I want to move the to-do list to a separate page and make it op-in.. 58 is a very experience editor and I trust his/her judgement on this one. My apologies for the disruption. --Comaze 11:42, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Comaze. I think it helped resolve a few issues. A good refresher for moving forward. 58.178.160.124 00:17, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't disruptive. It was a good idea to concentrate the mind.Fainites 16:00, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh well. Can't hurt to have it in todo list format now (See above). 203.212.143.5 22:04, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Comaze, fainites, doc. Though this page was begun the British English (see Modelling, Counselling in early edits) it quickly switched to American English (which probably shouldn't have happened). I plan to fix discrepancies up now, so let me know if there's anything particular I leave out or you want to make a case for British English. 58.178.172.195 22:23, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Comaze, Doc and Numbers. I thought the article had pretty much settled on American English, hence my spelling edits. The only English English I deliberately left in was in quotations from British authors, eg O'Connor and Seymour. I see you've still managed to find plenty of discrepancies though Numbers! Fainites 08:40, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi folks. I think it would be good to include somewhere prominent that levels of proficiency in NLP are generally known as:

• NLP practitioner
• NLP master practitioner
• NLP trainer

Your thoughts? This seems pretty fundamental and universal. 58.178.176.153 10:29, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, in that somebody reading the article for basic information would want to know what the heiroglyphs after peoples names mean. By the same token, we ought to explain what eg 'NLP practitioner' means. What is such a person supposed to be able to do, or not do?Fainites 12:23, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding is that a practitioner is qualified to run patterns, a master is qualified to create new patterns, and a trainer is qualified to train people to become the other two. Does that sound succinct enough? 58.178.176.153 21:43, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We'd need a bit of an explanation of 'patterns' in all that then.Fainites 20:49, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all. The lovely AlanBarnet has gone at last, although you could say 'better the devil you know'. [1]I must say, I preferred him when he was merely bloody rude as opposed to nauseatingly 'civil' for which he just didn't have the knack. As DocPato said, "idiosyncratic language is a funny thing". It should make the talk page shorter though. Thanks Ryalong. Also thanks Woohookitty if you had anything to do with it. (I contacted Woohoo to tell him AlanBarnet was citing him as a supporter along with Guy.)He'll be back though.Fainites 13:36, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats on your first Headley experience Fainites. I think your voice as a new and independent editor in this headley saga made a huge difference and completely deflated his cabal theory stories. He really is utterly delusional. And thanks everyone for your continued diverse yet civil opinions on representing this controversial/criticized topic of NLP. I'm sure we'll create a balanced and useful article yet. 211.26.243.102 02:16, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's quite interesting really. Have you seen his reply on the admin. page? It's as if he actually believes in his own nonsense. I come across this level of self-delusion from time to time at work but it's always fascinating to watch(for a short while).Fainites 08:09, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The idea is to have a section for mainstream psychology research, reviews and commentary. Then have different sections for other disciplines.

Psychology research and reviews

More than three decades since it's inception, the broad judgement of the evidence-based psychology community is that NLP is scientifically unvalidated as to both underlying theory and effectiveness. There are many pleas for further research and much criticism of the failure of proponents to undertake adequate research. Some go further and criticise it as a pseudoscience in that proponents claim a scientific basis that is not supported by research or current knowledge, and for spreading misconceptions about how the mind works.

Elich et al (1985) tested the model that proposed a relationship between eye movements, spoken predicates, and internal imagery, and found no support for this model. They added "NLP has achieved something akin to cult status when it may be nothing more than a psychological fad" (p625)". Krugman et al (1985) tested claims for a 'one-session' treatment of performance anxiety against another method and a control group and found no support for claims of a 'one-session' effective treatment. They argued for further research into NLP amongst other treatments that have "achieved popularity in the absence of data supporting their utility".

In 1984, Sharpley undertook a literature review of 15 studies and found "little research evidence supporting its usefulness as an effective counseling tool" and no reproducible support for preferred representational systems (PRS) and predicate matching. Einspruch and Forman (1985) broadly agreed with Sharpley but disputed the conclusions, identifying a failure to address methodological errors in the research reviewed. They stated "NLP is far more complex than presumed by researchers, and thus, the data are not true evaluations of NLP" adding that NLP is difficult to test under the traditional counseling framework. Moreover the research lacked a necessary understanding of pattern recognition as part of advanced NLP training and furthermore, that there was inadequate control of context, an unfamiliarity with NLP as an approach to therapy, inadequate definitions of rapport and numerous logical mistakes in the research methodology. Sharpley (1987) responded with a review of a further 7 studies (totalling 44 including those cited by Eispruch and Forman)on the basic tenets of NLP and stated "there are conclusive data from the research on NLP, and the conclusion is that the principles and procedures of NLP have failed to be supported by those data"... "certainly research data do not support the rather extreme claims that proponents of NLP have made as to the validity of its principles or the novelty of its procedures." Also that NLP may be untestable stating "perhaps NLP principles are not amenable to research evaluation. This does not necessarily reduce NLP to worthlessness for counseling practice. Rather, it puts NLP in the same category as psychoanalysis, that is, with principles not easily demonstrated in laboratory settings but, nevertheless, strongly supported by clinicians in the field." Sharpley states that a number of NLP techniques are worthwhile or beneficial in counselling, citing predicate matching, mirroring clients behaviors, moving sensory modalities, reframing, anchoring and changing history, but that none of these techniques originated within NLP, saying "NLP may be seen as a partial compendium of rather than as an original contribution to counseling practice and, thereby, has a value distinct from the lack of research data supporting the underlying principles that Bandler and Grinder posited to present NLP as a new and magical theory". He concluded that the techniques and underlying theory of NLP, as a counseling tool, were both empirically unvalidated and unsupported.

A study by Buckner et al (1987), (after Sharpley), using trained NLP practitioners found support for the claim that specific eye movement patterns existed for visual and auditory (but not kinesthetic) components of thought, and that trained observers could reliably identify them. This study did not cover whether such patterns indicated a preferred representational system and also made suggestions for further research. In a major review the following year, Druckman and Swets (1988) NRC found that "studies fail to provide an empirical base of support for NLP assumptions...or NLP effectiveness. The committee cannot recommend the employment of such an unvalidated technique". They also concluded that matching representational systems to gain rapport was ineffective, however the idea of modeling of expert performance "merits further consideration". In a follow up study on modeling (amongst other matters) by Swets and Bjork (1991) NLP was not included except by way of acknowledgment for the idea. Thereafter it would appear that although individual studies continue to be undertaken in a variety of fields, no further major research reviews have been undertaken and NLP was dropped from the experimental psychology research stream. Similarly in the field of psychotherapy it is stated that the "original interest in NLP turned to disillusionment after the research and now it is rarely even mentioned in psychotherapy".

In 1990 Beyerstein categorised NLP as a ‘neuromythology’ and pseudoscience. Beyerstein asserts that "though it claims neuroscience in its pedigree, NLP's outmoded view of the relationship between cognitive style and brain function ultimately boils down to crude analogies." With reference to all the 'neuromythologies' covered in his article, including NLP, he states "In the long run perhaps the heaviest cost extracted by neuromythologists is the one common to all pseudosciences—deterioration in the already low levels of scientific literacy and critical thinking in society. " That judgement has been supported by others from the mainstream, empirically based psychology community, such as Lilienfield (2002), Drenth (2003) and Devilly (2005) in peer-reviewed journals, and by commentators on the fields of psychology, psychotherapy and counselling such as Eisner in 'The Death of Psychotherapy', and Singer and Lalich in 'Crazy Therapies'. Devilly (2005) states that "at the time of its introduction, NLP was heralded as a breakthrough in therapy and advertisements for training workshops, videos and books began to appears in trade magazines. The workshops provided certification... However, controlled studies shed such a poor light on the practice, and those promoting the intervention made such extreme and changeable claims that researchers began to question the wisdom of researching the area further and even suggested that NLP was an untestable theory"..."NLP is no longer as prevalent as it was in the 1970s or 1980s, but is still practiced in small pockets of the human resource community. The science has come and gone, yet the belief still remains".

As an alternative, we could just remove the commentary from the research section but otherwise leave it as it is, and put the commentary in a criticism section.( By the way, both the reviews in "traumatology', a peer-reviewed journal, describe VKD as effective for PTSD. This should probably go in with psychology.)Fainites 22:20, 11 February 2007 (UTC)All this is referenced by the way.Fainites 23:26, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, the Heap link leads to a typewritten document called 'Chapter 25'. Chapter 25 of what? It claims to be the written version of a conference address and looks to be heavily sourced in itself. Does anybody knpw what this is published in?Fainites 13:32, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fainites. This is the source: Heap. M. (1988) Neurolinguistic programming: An interim verdict. In M. Heap (Ed.) Hypnosis: Current Clinical, Experimental and Forensic Practices. London: Croom Helm, pp 268-280. --Comaze 07:43, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is it peer-reviewed? Fainites 21:01, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Numbers, your opinion please on the summary, or have we moved onto higher things? Fainites 19:44, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Fainites. Thanks for asking. In general, I think it's great. Well done. I think it reads a lot better in the second half. I found the direction a little unclear in the first half and perhaps the opening paragraph doesn't reflect what follows well yet. The Sharpley paragraph might do with a sentence at the beginning that summarises his opinion... i.e. he says basically, "the non-original parts of NLP work. the original parts don't." Doesn't he?

There is certainly some copy editing that will happen when it gets posted, and some passive voice phrases and long sentences that we can tighten up. Again well done. Here's some ideas for the first para -- but you know, whatever:

Presently, the indication from the evidence-based psychology community is that NLP is scientifically unvalidated in underlying theory and effectiveness. Amid support by clinicians using NLP in their fields, there are pleas for further research to address the failure of NLP proponents to undertake adequate research. Some critics label NLP as a pseudoscience, citing that many proponents claim a scientific basis for NLP that is ultimately not supported by current scientific knowledge.

I've left off the "misconception about how the mind works" statement because that is too much like elucidating the meaning of pseudoscience, and that seems beyond the domain of the section to me. Hope this all finds you well. 58.178.140.91 08:38, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Numbers. I think your opening paragraph reads better, but I'm not sure 'indication' is strong enough. The conclusions of Sharpley and Druckman appear to have been accepted and acted upon by psychology, hence the later commentary's by Beyerstein, Lilienfield and Drenth etc. My word 'judgement' may be a tad dramatic but I can't think of an alternative at the moment. Any ideas? As for Sharpley, how about, in 1984 and 1987 Sharpley undertook literature reviews of a total of 44 studies and concluded that the techniques and underlying theory of NLP, as a counseling tool were both empirically unvalidated and unsupported, but that it also contained many techniques already in use elsewhere in counselling practice and so could be seen as a 'partial compendium' .Fainites 14:45, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All good. I'm fine with the word "judgement", yet when I saw the phrase "broad judgement" I replaced it with "indication", which is certainly what a broad judgement is. I guess it depends how broad you mean; also could be "overview", "opinion", "feeling", "consensus", and so on.

The particular phrase that caught my attention in Sharpley was "Sharpley states that a number of NLP techniques are worthwhile or beneficial in counselling..." and goes on to say but these results were discarded 'cos they weren't strictly NLP. This highlights for me that Sharpleys results and Sharpleys interpretation of results are two different beasts. I think our paragraph needs to be completely clear not to mislead people (given that Sharpley appears to have discarded results that are attributable to sources before NLP). So where we say Sharpley found yada yada yada, we could highlight Sharpley's criteria as a prelude. I.e.:

In testing the uniquely NLP techniques, Sharpley found yada yada yada.

I'm a bit hurried but I think you get me. 58.178.140.91 16:57, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually that bit where he says it's ineffective but then lists half a dozen 'beneficial' counselling techniques and says it has 'distinct value' as a compendium was always a bit of a puzzle.Fainites 18:10, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Me too. I'd feel a whole lot more comfortable with Sharpley if someone could explain that to me.

Comaze? 58.178.133.41 21:14, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are some inconsistencies here. Ashley Dowlen (1996) states "the [Sharpley (1987)] conclusion in this second review is summed up by his statement that: If NLP is presented as a theory-less set of procedures gathered from many approaches to counselling, then it may serve as a reference role for therapists who wish to supplement their counselling practice by what may be novel techniques to them."(p.31) --Comaze 08:52, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So, if I'm making sense of that (which is tricky enough): In Sharpley's 1985 statement "little research evidence supporting its usefulness as an effective counseling tool", it seems that Sharpley is saying he requires a criteria of both valid theory and effective techniques in order justify an assessment of something being an "effective counseling tool". Since he found only the techniques of NLP worked (and the theory was bogus) he hence said NLP is not effective. Is that what we are to understand by all this? 58.178.133.41 10:17, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sharpley (1987) stated that the experimental and psychological research on the principles (or theory) underlying is "without general support". He concluded that "future research that can contribute new data on this issue via methodological advances or consideration of different aspects of NLP may be justified". This illustrates that further research should be carried with advances in methodological as raised by Eispruch et al (1985). At the same time Sharpley suggests that the existing data should be analyzed further. It is then up to the practitioners and researchers to present their clinical data and devise more appropriate methodology. --Comaze 11:24, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks. So all that beings the case, this quote:

"little research evidence supporting its usefulness as an effective counseling tool"

Is easily interpreted to mean that NLP is utterly ineffective. Since that isn't what Sharpley means I think a better citation would be appropriate in the opening sentence. 58.178.133.41 11:53, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The actual quote should read, Buckner et al (1987), "NLP [had] gained popularity among practitioners (Harmon & O'Neill, 1981). NLP's popularity [had] developed in spite of little research evidence supporting its usefulness as an effective counseling tool (Sharpley, 1984)." Here's another quote from Sharpley 1987 that is quite strongly worded. He states (1987) As I shall point out, research on NLP has consistently shown very few significant effects that lend support to claims of therapeutic magic (or even any degree of effectiveness at all), either in research designed to evaluate the basic principles of NLP or in the treatment of both "laboratory" and real clients. Perhaps some additional context could be added as well as the later commentary about future research. --Comaze 12:21, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This gets worse, not better! Sharpley lists the techniques he says are derivative. I think we could be more careful about the selection of quotes. He's quite clear about PRS and predicate matching (ie underlying theory). He's quite clear about the rather extreme claims of a magical new theory. Where it falls apart is effectiveness in relation to the counselling techniques nicked from elsewhere and new ones. The key to this is the studies. On a quick run through all of them relate not only to the underlying theory of PRS from eye movements etc, but also the effectiveness of working in an identified PRS. "Data collected in 44 studies clearly indicate an overwhelming finding that (a) the PRS cannot be reliably assessed; (b) when it is assessed, the PRS is not consistent over time; therefore, (c) it is not even certain that the PRS exists; and (d) matching clients' or other persons' PRS does not appear to assist counselors reliably in any clearly demonstrated manner." The list of useful techniques pinched from elsewhere is "predicate matching, mirroring clients behaviors, moving sensory modalities, reframing, anchoring and changing history". I think this is our answer.

Further, 'modeling' is not mentioned. Nor is there any comparison of whether NLP versions of old techniques are new improved versions. It's the whole PRS thing that's junked. The Buckner study is interesting but limited.Therefore the passage should reflect the findings in relaion to the underlying theories of PRS, identifiying a PRS and effectiveness of working in a PRS.[User:Fainites|Fainites]] 17:50, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

In the closing paragraph of discussion Graunke and Roberts state "that Graunke (1984), in a summary of seven NLP interventions (meta modeling, matching, overlapping, disassociation, resolving incongruencies, anchoring, and changing history), suggested that none of those interventions were based on the PRS concept. For example, Dilts et al.(1980) recommended matching a client's visual-auditory-kinesthetic strategy with a statement like "It looks [visual] like our talking [auditory] about your problems can help you get a handle [kinesthetic] on possible changes." This statement seems contradictory to the past PRS concept but consistent with the recommendation to continuously track and respond to clients' use of sensory predicates. The present authors suggest that further research is required to determine whether sensory predicates or other behavioral cues suggested by NLP are useful as phychotherapeutic tools."(pp.529-530) Bruce Graunke and T. Kevin Roberts (1985) "Neurolinguistic Programming: The Impact of Imagery Tasks on Sensory Predicate Usage" Journal of Counseling Psychology 1985, Vol. 32, No. 4, 525-530. --Comaze 23:14, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So comaze, fainites. Let's get on track. What's some wording we can use to accomodate these observations above? 58.178.141.124 06:56, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've adjusted the summary above to incorporate a more accurate presentation of Sharpleys research and Drucman etc. I know it makes the whole thread look a bit weird but it seemed easier than posting the whole thing again :-) Fainites 15:46, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about an opening paragraph that says Some critics have described NLP as pseudoscience while others have suggested that its claimed effectiveness results from it's reliance on a range of therapeutic techniques gleaned from other methods rather than any new theories or techniques. Fainites 21:28, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, you should have posted the whole thing again. This seems to be an ongoing issue here. Talk pages should only be refactored as a very very very last resort. I'm afraid comaze set a precedent earlier, and I didn't help by removing Headley's crap. I'll make clear what wikipedia policy is: Talk pages should almost never be refactored! The best thing to do is to post a new topic called "New summary".

The opening you propose. I assume it is intended as an opening sentence for the Sharpley paragraph. 210.50.114.65 01:14, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree I set a bad example by refactoring early. Is it ok to use strikethrough? Refactoring ones own posts are ok with me. --Comaze 05:30, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mea culpa Headmaster. I've restored the original and put the new one below. Please don't put Comaze in detention for leading me astray. It was my own post.

On the issue of content, I've tried it in the opening paragraph of the whole section. Thinking about it, something similar could go in the opening paragraph of the whole article. I've long thought it may be the explanation for why NLP is so totally panned by psychology scientists on the one hand yet continues to be apparently useful in so many contexts on the other. A number of the articles in Comazes list of PMID etc publications point out that the techniques are similar to techniques elsewhere, eg CBT. Fainites 11:11, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Psychology research and reviews

The broad judgement of the evidence-based psychology community is that NLP is scientifically unvalidated as to both underlying theory and effectiveness. Amidst pleas for further research there is much criticism of the failure of proponents to undertake adequate research. Some classify it as a pseudoscience citing that many proponents claim a scientific basis that is not supported by research or current scientific knowledge. Others have suggested that any claimed effectiveness results from it's reliance on a range of therapeutic techniques gleaned from other therapies rather than any new theories or techniques.

In 1984, Sharpley undertook a literature review of 15 studies on the existance and effectiveness of preferred representational systems (PRS), an important underlying principle of NLP, and found "little research evidence supporting its usefulness as an effective counseling tool" and no reproducible support for preferred representational systems and predicate matching. Einspruch and Forman (1985) broadly agreed with Sharpley but disputed the conclusions, identifying a failure to address methodological errors in the research reviewed. They stated "NLP is far more complex than presumed by researchers, and thus, the data are not true evaluations of NLP" adding that NLP is difficult to test under the traditional counseling framework. Moreover the research lacked a necessary understanding of pattern recognition as part of advanced NLP training and furthermore, that there was inadequate control of context, an unfamiliarity with NLP as an approach to therapy, inadequate definitions of rapport and numerous logical mistakes in the research methodology. Sharpley (1987) responded with a review of a further 7 studies on the same basic tenets (totalling 44 including those cited by Eispruch and Forman). This included Elich et al (1985) who tested the model that proposed a relationship between eye movements, spoken predicates, and internal imagery, and found no support for this model. They added "NLP has achieved something akin to cult status when it may be nothing more than a psychological fad" (p625)". Sharpley stated "Data collected in 44 studies clearly indicate an overwhelming finding that (a) the PRS cannot be reliably assessed; (b) when it is assessed, the PRS is not consistent over time; therefore, (c) it is not even certain that the PRS exists; and (d) matching clients' or other persons' PRS does not appear to assist counselors reliably in any clearly demonstrated manner."and "there are conclusive data from the research on NLP, and the conclusion is that the principles and procedures of NLP have failed to be supported by those data"... "certainly research data do not support the rather extreme claims that proponents of NLP have made as to the validity of its principles or the novelty of its procedures." Also that NLP may be untestable stating "perhaps NLP principles are not amenable to research evaluation. This does not necessarily reduce NLP to worthlessness for counseling practice. Rather, it puts NLP in the same category as psychoanalysis, that is, with principles not easily demonstrated in laboratory settings but, nevertheless, strongly supported by clinicians in the field." Sharpley states that a number of NLP techniques are worthwhile or beneficial in counselling, citing predicate matching, mirroring clients behaviors, moving sensory modalities, reframing, anchoring and changing history, but that none of these techniques originated within NLP, saying "NLP may be seen as a partial compendium of rather than as an original contribution to counseling practice and, thereby, has a value distinct from the lack of research data supporting the underlying principles that Bandler and Grinder posited to present NLP as a new and magical theory". He concluded that as a counselling tool, the techniques and underlying theory unique to NLP, were both empirically unvalidated and unsupported but that "if NLP is presented as a theory-less set of procedures gathered from many approaches to counselling, then it may serve as a reference role for therapists who wish to supplement their counselling practice by what may be novel techniques to them."

A study by Buckner et al (1987), (after Sharpley), using trained NLP practitioners found support for the claim that specific eye movement patterns existed for visual and auditory (but not kinesthetic) components of thought, and that trained observers could reliably identify them. However, the study did not cover whether such patterns indicated a preferred representational system. They also made suggestions for further research. Krugman et al (1985) tested claims for a 'one-session' treatment of performance anxiety against another method and a control group and found no support for claims of a 'one-session' effective treatment. They argued for further research into NLP amongst other treatments that have "achieved popularity in the absence of data supporting their utility".

In a major review in 1988, Druckman and Swets NRC found that "studies fail to provide an empirical base of support for NLP assumptions...or NLP effectiveness. The committee cannot recommend the employment of such an unvalidated technique". They also concluded that matching representational systems to gain rapport was ineffective, however the idea of modeling of expert performance "merits further consideration". In 2004 Druckman said of the 1988 study "Our experiences with NLP led to two different conclusions. On the one hand, we found little if any evidence to support NLP’s assumptions or to indicate that it is effective as a strategy for social influence. It assumes that by tracking another’s eye movements and language, an NLP trainer can shape the person’s thoughts, feelings, and opinions (Dilts, 1983). There is no scientific support for these assumptions. On the other hand, we were impressed with the modeling approach used to develop the technique. The technique was developed from careful observations of the way three master psychotherapists conducted their sessions, emphasizing imitation of verbal and nonverbal behaviors (Druckman & Swets, 1988, Chapter 8). This then led the committee to take up the topic of expert modeling in the second phase of its work." The follow up study on expertise by Swets and Bjork (1991) concentrated on cognitive apprenticeship. NLP was not included except by way of acknowledgment for the idea of modeling. Thereafter it would appear that although individual studies continue to be undertaken in a variety of fields, no further major research reviews have been undertaken and NLP was dropped from the experimental psychology research stream. Similarly in the field of psychotherapy it is stated that the "original interest in NLP turned to disillusionment after the research and now it is rarely even mentioned in psychotherapy".

In 1990 Beyerstein categorised NLP as a ‘neuromythology’ and pseudoscience. Beyerstein asserts that "though it claims neuroscience in its pedigree, NLP's outmoded view of the relationship between cognitive style and brain function ultimately boils down to crude analogies." With reference to all the 'neuromythologies' covered in his article, including NLP, he states "In the long run perhaps the heaviest cost extracted by neuromythologists is the one common to all pseudosciences—deterioration in the already low levels of scientific literacy and critical thinking in society. " That judgement has been supported by others from the mainstream, empirically based psychology community, such as Lilienfield (2002), Drenth (2003) and Devilly (2005) in peer-reviewed journals, and by commentators on the fields of psychology, psychotherapy and counselling such as Eisner in 'The Death of Psychotherapy', and Singer and Lalich in 'Crazy Therapies'. Devilly (2005) states that "at the time of its introduction, NLP was heralded as a breakthrough in therapy and advertisements for training workshops, videos and books began to appears in trade magazines. The workshops provided certification... However, controlled studies shed such a poor light on the practice, and those promoting the intervention made such extreme and changeable claims that researchers began to question the wisdom of researching the area further and even suggested that NLP was an untestable theory"..."NLP is no longer as prevalent as it was in the 1970s or 1980s, but is still practiced in small pockets of the human resource community. The science has come and gone, yet the belief still remains".

It's gone in, with refs so you can now all play with it. I've removed the duplication from Mental health. Also Figley who's been rather superceded. It needs a ref for Druckman 2004 added please Comaze. Mental health needs some attention I think. It's a bit of a dumping ground. This is where any notable users in that field ought to go. We also need to add VKD to techniques.Fainites 22:51, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Having to concentrate so much on the misrepresentation and falsity surrounding the existing citations has resulted in a skewed article, (although hopefully the false and misleading citations are now all gone). The main view currently represented is empirically based psychology, which tho' important is not the whole story, and the last major review appears to have been 1988. Research has clearly continued thereafter in a variety of fields. The usage list is excellent. How about sections for the research, commentary and usage in different areas?Fainites 13:43, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem, of course, is that NLP is a fringe view that is not generally accepted in the community of clinical psychology. So, aside from the need to accurately describe NLP and its techniques, it's also important to not try and indicate a greater level of validity than the level NLP actually enjoys. Contrary to your statement Fainites, "empirically based psychology" is, in fact, the whole story as psychology is just as subject to the scientific method as medicine, especially in the clinical field. If something cannot be supported by empirical evidence, it is either pseudoscience, protoscience, purely theoretical, or quackery. siafu 13:49, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It might be the whole story as far as science is concerned but that doesn't mean it's the whole story as far as an encyclopaedic entry is concerned. NLP is only one of many scientifically unvalidated 'therapies' used in mental health. You may well think for example, that the NHS and the police are unwise or worse to use unvalidated methods but if it's a fact that they do why should this be excluded? As for the research that's been undertaken after Druckman, surely that can speak for itself, negative or positive?Fainites 14:04, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As you can see in my comment, I do believe that it's equally important to accurately describe NLP and its methods. Of course, given that there already exist more than twenty articles (in four categories) on NLP and its methodology, there is potentially a serious NPOV problem of undue weight already. siafu 14:08, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. The subsidiary articles I've seen rather overdo it. If we can get the balance and the sources right on the main article it should make it easier to clean up the daughter articles. Can something still be a 'protoscience' after 40 years?Fainites 14:18, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems unlikely to me that something can retain "protoscience" status for so long before simply falling into pseudoscience, but that's just my own opinon. siafu 14:22, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Same here. Even if the underlying theories aren't particularly amenable to empirical research, there's always outcome studies of which not enough were done.Fainites 14:49, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please clarify:

The evidence seems to be that NLP is widely used in contexts that suggest a wide range of notable current users consider it credible in some way or another.

What do you mean by "widely used" and "wide range of notable current users" and "credible in some way"? It's certainly not widely accepted by the mental health community at large; NLP therapy modalities are not covered by medicaid in my state at least, not covered by medicare anywhere, and most likely not covered by private insurance companies in the United States. That is, if it's only available to those wealthy enough to pay out of pocket in the first place (not many), just how widely accepted can it be? siafu 23:28, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose this is what I meant by clinical psychology not being the whole story. I think I wasn't being clear above. As far as I am aware, the NHS do not offer it as a therapy. Bits of the UK NHS use bits of it for stress issues, communication and staff training. It would be misleading to just say the NHS uses it as that would imply therapeutic use. On the other hand, they are a pretty notable organisation. This kind of use should not be overstated but it does exist. It ought to be possible to ascertain for certain whether any aspect of NLP would be covered by USA private health insurance. Other uses of NLP and research into this is scattered across a variey of fields that have nothing to do with psychology or therapeutic use. Fainites 07:22, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually you referred to "empirically based psychology", not "clinical psychology". The former is, in fact, the whole story, the latter is just a branch of psychology-- but a branch to which NLP belongs, nonetheless. What "bits" of NLP does the NHS use, specifically, and are they uniquely associated with NLP? siafu 12:59, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. I thought you were referring to clinical psychology. Is NLP only a branch of clinical psychology? Anyway, try this. Page 28. Rapport and pacing. [2]I suppose you could say that's Erikson. If you look in the article under 'technology'you will see a quote from Sharpley to the effect that many 'NLP' techniques' are not new to NLP. Or this. Page 27 [3]. Or this [4]Fainites 18:47, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The point of my question is that if the techniques being used by the NHS from NLP (which need to be explicitly laid out, if at all possible) are not unique to NLP, it needs to be established that the NHS is using these techniques from NLP specifically and not from their original source(s). If we can't do that, we can't asser that NHS is using NLP techniques. siafu 22:08, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The three examples I gave here all specifically refer to NLP as such.Fainites 22:16, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would there be any merit in a list of NLP techniques that already existed in other forms, in which they may or may not be validated? (eg is 'Parts Integration' 'Ego-State Therapy' from Psychoanalysis. 'Anchoring'predates NLP.) Or is this all too esoteric?Fainites 22:22, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It only has merit inasmuchas as it speaks to the claim that NLP is used by various notable individuals or organizations. siafu 01:50, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm enjoying following this discussion. Much thanks. I read the three citations Fainites provided. It occurred to me that perhaps what matters most is what the organisations themselves believe about the origins of the NLP techniques they use. The first group Fainites posted [5] believes Rapport originates with NLP. Should we take care to highlight how they're wrong? Or should we just report it as they say it? In other words; how do we report noteworthy yet ill-formed citations? 58.178.140.220 09:29, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, what the source referred to specifically says is:

Building rapport is a technique described and practiced in Neuro Linguistic Programming (NLP).

Technically this is true, but it's rather meaningless as building a rapport is described almost every modality in existence. I just skimmed, but is there anything specific to NLP in the following paages about rapport, or is it simply general? siafu 14:24, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The first one covers rapport, pacing and leading, all of which I understand come from the Milton model, i.e. Erickson did it, NLPers copied it and reduced it to a reproducable pattern. The other 2 cites seem to cover a broader gamut of NLP. The third one (for Guys, Kings and St Thomas's, three teaching hospitals in London, now merged into one)refers to 'medical NLP' and talks about effective communication skills. There are other citations aswell.There doesn't seem to be any reason not to suppose that both providers and users believe they're using NLP. If in fact what they're using is all the bits of NLP that already existed in other branches this could be pointed out. This brings me back to the idea of a list of NLP techniques borrowed from elsewhere. However, would I be right in thinking that modeling as practised in NLP really originated with NLP, even though the idea has been taken up in other disciplines? (I think there was an earlier thread that discussed this weird mixture of pseudoscientific underpinnings, borrowed techniques and possibly new ideas).Fainites 17:25, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It appears from these quotes that anchoring and reframing was imported from Satir:

• "Virginia received notoriety by Neuro Linguistic Programming (NLP) researchers (Grinder, Bandler, & Satir, 1976) for her uncanny ability to reframe even the most dire circumstances."(p.31)
• "Bandler and Grinder also noted Satir’s ability to anchor desired experiences. By consistently referring to the good feeling of the hands when they lovingly enveloped the face, she anchored a new way to make contact. By repetitiously inviting each parent-child dyad to practice this type of touch, she further anchored a new interpersonal possibility for each of them."(p.32)Haber, Russell (2002) Virginia Satir: An integrated, humanistic approach Contemporary Family Therapy. Vol 24(1), Mar 2002, pp. 23-34 ISSN 1573-3335 doi:10.1023/A:1014317420921 --Comaze 23:20, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And modelling? Is it original to NLP? 58.178.141.124 06:59, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NLP modeling was imported from various fields. In structure of magic it credits Korzybski for human modeling methodology. --Comaze 00:23, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear. How much imported?Fainites 22:02, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So far we have "meta modeling, matching, overlapping, disassociation, resolving incongruencies, anchoring, and changing history," from Graunke as not based on PRS and "predicate matching, mirroring clients behaviors, moving sensory modalities (Gestalt therapy), reframing (5 other therapies), anchoring and changing history" from Sharpley as not new. 'Parts' seems to come from Virginia Satir too although it is remarkably similar to ego-state therapy. Is there anything in Graunkes list that isn't in Sharpleys list and was new? Is there anything else new at all (except PRS (apparently discredited))?Fainites 16:08, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some of these overlap. There may be some more. Labouchiere talks of the NLP techniques of 'anchoring, isomorphic metaphor and goal setting'. Miller talks of 'changing submodalities'. As these are the only two positive research papers we have in the article so far it's quite important to ascertain whether or not these are NLP techniques. Can somebody who has studied NLP please fill in the ?'s and add any more techniques. I hope the point of this makes sense. Fainites 19:51, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by "Original NLP technique"? --Comaze 11:45, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, what was new I suppose, as opposed to 'early'. New in the sense of new as useable in therapy or PD. It's often described as a 'toolbox'. You wouldn't expect a toolbox not to contain hammers and screwdrivers, but then you wouldn't credit the collator of the toolbox with inventing hammers and screwdrivers. Similarly, if anchoring, reframing and rapport are all validated and useful you would expect to find them in any number of personal development systems or therapies. The point is twofold. 1. when people say NLP has been disproved by research, what exactly are they talking about? and 2. what was new in NLP that hadn't been thought of or done in a comparable way before?Fainites 15:51, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Next question Comaze, is isomorphic metaphor the same as resolving incongruencies?Fainites 17:21, 24 February 2007 (UTC)I think submodalities could be an important one. Fainites 19:54, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re modelling, had a look at Swets and Bjork in the follow up study to Druckman and Swets which acknowledges NLP gave them the idea of modelling. In the follow up they looked at 'cognitive apprenticeship' which includes modelling, coaching, scaffolding, articulation, reflection and exploration. They talk of '2 decades of cognitive science literature on expertise' (in 1991). Looks as if Bandler and Grindler might have been in the vanguard on this one but then outstripped by people who actually do the research. Fainites 18:14, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've broken my own rule and edited your table above according to what I think you meant. I found the "yes + not" combo and layout could be bettered. Hope that's okay. Now I'm in trouble for refactoring I'm sure. I changed some ? to yeses here and there so that we don't fence sit too much on one side. :D 210.50.232.201 23:12, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is what I had in mind when I started but lacked the essential skills.You are forgiven.Fainites 23:14, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just as a matter of common sense I can't see how VKD, Swish, ecology, parts, modelling or reframing are based on PRS though presumably the practitioner is supposed to keep the supposed PRS in mind throughout.Fainites 23:36, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is a myth that people are defined by their PRS, ie. an "NLP practitioner" might say "I'm a visual person" (ie. I think in pictures) or "I'm a kinesthetic person" (ie. I'm think primarily with my feeling). In contrast, the New Code approach seeks to help people gain access to all representational systems. New Code of NLP also stresses the importance of context and that people are constantly using all representational systems. The NLP spelling strategy holds that poor spelling primarily use auditory when encoding and recalling words. The intervention to improve spelling is geared toward helping the client use multiple sensory systems when encoding and recalling the words. This spelling strategy was also part of classic code and demonstrates that Bandler and Grinder understood that people are conscious of different representational systems depending on context. --Comaze 00:40, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I guess one distinction we should make is whether NLP proponents would concede some techniques as flawed if PRS was ever utterly disproven; which is what Sharpley seems to claim. So which techniques are independent enough of PRS to be excluded from Sharpley's research findings? Isn't that what Fainites is trying to establish? 210.50.232.201 09:37, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Come on Comaze. You're the NLPer! Which techniques don't rely on/use/have anything to do with PRS? Fainites 17:42, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are many different descriptions and misinterpretations of PRS, there is an recent article by a cognitive scientist who reviewed the research literature[6] (I was partly involved in that research project). I learned PRS as part of sensory acuity and calibration training. I have used PRS to help people access past resource states. It is not required but seems to help people access the states smoothly. A typical change process will involve helping people recall and access past resource states. Starting with the preferred system, you ask the person to remember the resourceful state, see it from your own eyes, hear the sounds around you, and feel what is like to embody that now. When the person is in the desired state it can be anchored for later use. I'm not sure if PRS is required for any process, but sensory acuity, and the ability to shift between sensory modalities most certainly is required. I highly recommend that you read the preferred-rep-system article It has quotes showing the varying interpretations from Bandler & Grinder's original conception as well as the subsequent research literature --Comaze 00:21, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK Comaze. I've read the preferred rep article. Even if PRS is not 'required', we need to express in the article the extent to which research on PRS affects NLP processes and techniques. Are you saying you can do the entire gamut of NLP without any reference to or recourse to PRS? I also note that the daughter article on PRS says it was mainly dumped (by Dilts and Bandler no less) in the 80's. Also, where did 'representational systems' come from?Fainites 22:58, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried to flesh out the paragraph on representational systems in the current article. It needs some work and so does the section on PRS and submodalities. Submodalities is very important to many NLP practitioners, especially those trained in the Bandler (or Andreas) lineage. I think this is necessary next step. --Comaze 03:10, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure that representational systems rather than preferred representational systems came in with NLP? Fainites 07:51, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Something similar to Representational systems can be found in gestalt therapy and can be traced further back to the founder of modern psychology, William James. --Comaze 13:01, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a bit more to Rep systems and PRS. We need to make sure there are explanations in non-NLP language for the uninitiated. I also tried to express the different views on PRS. Is this a fair representation? It probably needs some refs, ie Grinder and Bostic St Clair. Any advances on the table? In particular, what about submodalities?Fainites 00:13, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've added some more detail to submodalities. If you could do the same sort of edit from a non-NLP perspective that would be great. --Comaze 00:45, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comaze; goal setting seems to be common to personal development. Is 'well-formed outcome' basically the same thing? Fainites 22:15, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A simple way to describe the well-formed outcome process would be to say it extends the idea of goal-setting in personal development. It adds the meta-model to get very specific about the evidence and criteria. It also seeks to discover discover what states and other resources would be required to achieve the outcome. During the process sub-goals may be discovered that required further investigation. So, yes, it is basically the same thing are goal setting, however, there are some important distinctions that would be useful for contrast. --Comaze 11:27, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So goal setting was not new with NLP but they've expanded it a little.Fainites 18:14, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One important difference is that NLP process is content free. This means that the practitioner guides the client through the process without suggesting a solution. This allows the clients to take ownership and discover the pathway on their own. Classic NLP uses the "Present state"->"Desired state" model which is more general used than well-formed outcome. Essentially both the present and desired states are defined and the steps in between are explored. --Comaze 00:32, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think we need to add short sections on ecology and well-formed outcome. Anything else?Fainites 22:52, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about metaphor? --Comaze 00:32, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comaze, can you add a ref for New Code de-emphasising PRS if that's what it did. I added O'Connor and Seymour as a standard work still emphasising PRS as it's a book that's endorsed by Dilts and Grinder.Fainites 21:48, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll look it up and get back to you. --Comaze 01:08, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone here have enough German to extract whatever is useful from the German NLP article? If not, I will submit a translation of it about a week from now. Sometime after that I could also translate the Russian article on NLP.Jbhood 11:36, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to cast my net as wide as possible. There are hundreds if not thousands of references back to NLP from other subject areas. The babbelfish translations of the German and Russian articles do look promising. Esterbrook (2006) doctoral dissertation has a literature review of both western and Russian perspectives on NLP (full text available via Proquest/UMI). --Comaze 08:37, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need to translate the Russian Wikipedia article, because it had already been translated from an older version of this article. But you may translate the English article into Russian, at least parts of it (the latter needs restructuring according to English-article standards), because I completely lack of time to do so. Eli the Barrow-boy 00:40, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eli, thanks for the info. As it turns out, I also lack the time to translate the German article any time soon, and translating *into* Russian is not my usual direction in any case. Let us hope some one else can tackle that one. Jbhood 02:16, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re your edits, Comaze, thanks for the refs. The whole psychology section is about the 'evidence based' or 'experimental psychology' research and view. We don't need to characterise each scientist within it. I would have thought that Counselling is included in this, provided it's evidence based. The Mental Health section should show what actually happens in practice, ie it isn't all just evidence based interventions. Where we need different sections is learning and human resources.Fainites 07:31, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would you consider Sharpley to be an experimental psychologist? By the way, I just read through the article. It is really starting to take shape. Good work. --Comaze 07:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Wouldn't you? (I mean about Sharpley, not taking shape). Fainites 22:50, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Sharpley gave preference to evidence from experimental psychology. He was also looking for aspects of NLP that could improve the practice and theory of conselling psychology which I assume also preferences experimental evidence above qualititative, case studies or outcome based studies. The SAGE handbook on conselling and psychotherapy (2006) which says that research requirements for boundary conditions in traditional conselling psychology is somewhat incompatiable with NLP. Ref: Cooper and Seal (2006) "Theory and Approaches - Eclectic-intergrative approaches: Neuro-linguistic programming" In Feldtham and Horton (Eds) The SAGE Handbook of Counselling and Psychotherapy 2e --Comaze 03:05, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is fairer representation of Bandler and Grinder's argument about theory and it puts it in context of conselling psychology and the APA. Here is a quote from "Relation of theory and epistemology to clinical practice":

The relation between theory and clinical practice is an issue that repeatedly permeates serious discussion of family therapy. For example, Whitaker (35), Haley (14), and Bandler and Grinder (1) have all protested, in different ways, that theory can hinder clinical work. Unfortunately, their theories about the relation of other theories to clinical practice may lead the reader to overlook the necessary connections between ideas and action or, more broadly, between aesthetics and pragmatics. Any effort to disassociate this relation reinforces the false occidental dualism of mind and body. This epistemological error may consequently lead to maintaining various forms of pathology at individual, social, cultural, and planetary levels (see Bateson, 2).

When therapists argue that “theory” is not immediately useful to clinical practice, they are partly correct in the sense that a theory of therapy (or diagnosis or research) is of a different logical level from therapeutic action. However, to regard theory (whether organic, psychodynamic, behavioral, or systems) as completely irrelevant to the clinician ignores the ways in which theory and clinical practice interact. An earlier work on the relation of ecosystemic epistemology to family therapy (17) suggested that it is impossible to have no epistemology, for even the idea that one has no epistemology arises from a particular epistemology. Therefore, a therapist must always be operating from an epistemological base. Reference: Keeney, Bradford P; Sprenkle, Douglas H (1992) Ecosystemic epistemology: Critical implications for the aesthetics and pragmatics of family therapy In Miller, Ronald B. (Ed). (1992). The restoration of dialogue: Readings in the philosophy of clinical psychology. (pp. 477-495). Washington, DC, US: American Psychological Association. xx, 654 pp. --Comaze 03:38, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't lump outcome studies in with qualitative research or case studies Comaze. Nothing wrong with outcome studies from the empirical point of view or indeed to an experimental psychologist as long as they fulfil basic scientific requirements and are repeatable. This is made clear by amongst others, Drenth and Beyerstein.Fainites 12:20, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fainites, you're correct. I've striked out that bit about outcomes studies. I'll reply to your other thread when I can. --Comaze 12:47, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Thats why the founders and proponents are criticised. It may be true that NLP theories are not amenable to scientific research but anybody can do outcome studies with a bit of care.Fainites 15:17, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a few simplistic descriptions of outcome, VK/D, ecology and metaphor. Feel free to rewrite. Fainites 15:44, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Found a reference.pp's 99-102 [7]. It's the French anti-cult body report. They're complaining about the lack of regulation and quality control of therapists making it possible for guru type groups in more fringe therapies like NLP and TA to become cult-like.Fainites 21:39, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In my view, the last remaining jobs to do are 1) expand the section on modeling as this is really the focus of NLP. 2) complete the refs, ie page numbers, PMID's etc, 3)add more verifiable users under Human resources etc, 4) make the 'science/humanism/technology sections more readable. Any thoughts? Also, I've added in bits to the techniques about the source of the techniques. Does anybody think a completed version of our table should go in the article?Fainites 22:23, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to see the table in the article. Perhaps it could also have what year the technique was developed or imported for use in NLP and by whom. It would be nice to acknowledge the original sources. I'll work on fixing up the references and add the PMIDs / page numbers. --Comaze 07:20, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, if you think you can work out what year what technique went in where, then good luck to you Comaze! More power to your elbow! I think the important point is that these are all models which is the basis for it all. Fainites 22:33, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Someone has removed the criticism from the lead section and placed it in a separate paragraph. I have no problem with a section for criticism if required, but in my view a summary of the main criticisms/controversies should be in the lead section.[8] There has been extensive previous discussion about this and consensus was reached. Unless there is any opposition I propose to put the summarised criticism back in the lead section.Fainites 22:26, 16 March 2007 (UTC) Reverted Fainites 16:39, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the "Religiosity and Spirituality" section, there does not appear to be much of genuine substance and relevance. The links between NLP and religion given in the sources cited are tenuous, and it's debatable whether they are notable enough for inclusion in the article. Looking at each part in turn:

• "Sociologist and Christian scholar, Stephen J. Hunt states that NLP "is a technique rather than an organised religion and is used by several different human potential movements" yet that it has an "implied religiosity". The "implied religiosity" quote is potentially misleading, as could imply to some readers that Hunt thinks that NLP is a religion in some sense. However, the whole point of Hunt's book is to explore similarities between different things and religion, and sees religiosity in a lot of places; for example, he also says dieting fads have an "implied religiosity". I don't think you can conclude from the book that Hunt sees anything but a few extremely tenuous similarities between NLP and religion, and the case for including it in the article is not very strong.
• "Skeptics have described NLP as simply a "New Age" development citing the USNRC study which found no hard empirical evidence for its efficacy." The source given, Beyerstein, doesn't have anything much to say about religion or spirituality; its main conclusion is that NLP is unscientific.
• "Dilts states that John Grinder was influenced by Carlos Castaneda's Don Juan in developing the double hypnotic induction, perceptual positions and rechanneling of attention and energy to more appropriate contexts." Not obvious what the relevance of this is.
• "David V. Barrett (2001) in his work The New Believers: A Survey of Sects, Cults and Alternative Religions, describes NLP as a technique or series of techniques, or a process, and notes it is sometimes used by some religious sects. He states that while "the brief biographies of NLP Trainers susually give the names of the people they have trained under... could be seen as similar to new eastern origin religions tracing themselves back through a progression of gurus", and that NLP as a philosophy does exhibit some characteristics which are sometimes found in some religions, "overall the balance comes down against it being labeled as a religion." Another source, similar to Hunt, that explores whether different ideas are religious or similar to religions. Again, the conclusion from the source is that NLP is not a religion, and it's not obvious why we are quoting the sentence which makes the tenuous link between NLP and Eastern religions.

Overall, the sources don't have much to say about NLP and religion/spirituality, other than a fairly consistent conclusion that NLP is not a religion anyway. I would suggest that the whole section is removed, or at least slimmed down. It's potentially misleading and is just not adding much of interest to the article. Any comments? Enchanter 23:00, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I think, like a lot of older versions of this article, the religion section is a left over after all of the fake and misleading citations have been removed. Taking each point in turn;

• I don't see the point of Hunt
• There may be some point in the New Age idea if NLP is part of a whole gamut of ideas/philosophies etc that can be loosely characterised as New Age. The phrase 'New Age' seems to have a more pejorative meaning in the USA than in the UK though. Beyerstein has a slot in the psychology section calling NLP a 'neuromythology' and pseudoscience. It would make more sense to put him altogether.
• Castenada is worthy of inclusion somewhere but I don't see what it's got to do with religion.
• I don't see the point of Barratt as he presumably decides NLP is neither a cult, nor a sect nor an alternative religion. We did have a discussion at some point, given how many people think NLP is a cult, as to whether we should include anything about cults and the fact that major cult commentators such as Singer and Hussan do not say NLP is a cult, but decided against it. Fainites 14:49, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Section now removed. Enchanter 19:30, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Enchanter. I suggest a slightly different and perhaps more subtle approach. The information may turn out to be quite crucial, albeit under a different title. My worry is the information will most likely come back and be presented as out of context as it was before. So I have been working on how to best frame the article, and I see that the later research is more focused on belief change, change at work, and epistemology. As it is we need information that makes the belief aspects of NLP clearer. Here is my bias - I personally feel that NLP is a belief change method par excellence. It is one way to increase all sorts of confidence effects which go beyond placebo. There are also NLP inroads into sports psychology, in one form or another. I think my feeling also reflects the more recent attitudes in NLP and I've looked into NLPworld to find support for this. So here's my proposal:

Title - Beliefs and performance; NLP has been described as a new age therapy but NLP uses beliefs for belief change (described by Barret) at work, Grinder talks of ethics, and NLP is actually a technique (Hunt). Confidence and beliefs are known to be used to increase performance in sport, work, and so on. NLP has been used by ----- in order to increase performance via belief change.

What do you think? Steve B110 03:59, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good suggestion Steve B110. I made a change as appropriate. 144.214.54.82 05:03, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Well its a bit better than before but I had some more information from Barrett in mind. For example he is a lot more positive about NLP than the present line states. He writes about belief change for coping and for increasing performance. Bandler also has some key developments in belief change relating specifically to submodalities. I think the Dilts line could possibly go altogether. Also I think we should probably discuss this in more depth before making changes on the article.Steve B110 05:20, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello everyone. I found an even fairer appraisal of NLP in relation to belief change. Here is the perspective: NLP is only mentioned in books about new religions because of the belief change aspects. Humanistic psychology is also mentioned there usually for the same reasons. Here is a quote from an author called Partridge (2004) the most recent view on the subject:

"NLP may be best thought of as a system of psychology concerned with the self development of the human being. It claims to provide a set of skills and techniques that enable its practitioners to achieve competence and excellence in any field"(page 402). "It is concerned with the function of belief rather than its nature. It is not concerned whether a belief is true or not, but whether it is empowering or disempowering"(page 403).

I suggest the first line is an absolute must. I don't think the article can get away without handling the belief change aspects and "spiritual psychology" aspects. So I think it would be best to handle it properly for good. I think the belief information should be added to the humanistic psychology section. What do you think? Steve B110 05:56, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again everyone. Here is my suggestion I've been working on:

Humanistic psychology handles the issue of beliefs is a functional way and this is reflected in the way belief experts view NLP. For example Partridge (2003) states that "NLP may be best thought of as a system of psychology concerned with the self development of the human being" and "It is concerned with the function of belief rather than its nature. It is not concerned whether a belief is true or not, but whether it is empowering or disempowering". Similarly, Stephen J. Hunt states that NLP "is a technique rather than an organised religion and is used by several different human potential movements"^[1]. David V. Barrett (2001) also describes NLP as a technique or series of techniques, or a process. He states that that "the balance comes down against it being labeled as a religion."^[2]. Beliefs can be altered or enhanced by using NLP in order to improve performance and health usually using such submodality interventions, or through reframing (Bolstad et al 2001).

As I said, it should go in the humanistic psychology section I think. havn't checked that last reference by Bolstad, but he's a good developer and it looks ok. Other references may help a bit. Tell me what you think? Steve B110 09:24, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I like the Partridge bit. The second sentence is as important as the first I think. Not so sure about Barrett when he says it's not a religion. Well who ever seriously said it was? I think we need to keep a very clear distinction between the notion of 'belief' as in personal belief system (Partridge) and 'belief' as in belief in an outside entity or force. Hunt and Barrett (the bit that was in) were considering the latter issue whilst Partridge (and Grinder) are talking about the former.Fainites 20:34, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Fainites. Well unfortunately a lot of misguided people do tend to call NLP a kind of new religion. I think it would help the Wikipedia reader if we cleared that up using a reputable ref. Its confusing to some people to talk about belief change. They often jump to the conclusion its about some sort of wierd spiritual conversion. If we have a good source putting it right, the misconception can be squashed in good time. A few sources together saying its not considered a religion or cult is pretty informative. Steve B110 07:39, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I decided to try out my proposed paragraph in the hum psych section. I think it goes well but it could be a bit more brief. I also think its a good explanation for the LGAT misconception. In reality, NLP can be confusing and I think this article needs to spend more time on explaining the actual intentions of NLP, rather than just quoting the misconceptions of academics out of context. Steve B110 06:46, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article has been edited and re-edited, but it reads like arcana. I honestly don't think the basic concepts of NLP are that difficult, although both friends and enemies have made them obscure at times. I realize there is an ongoing battle raging, which has left the article a bit technical. That's unfortunate. Let's make it readable. Yakuman 20:53, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi.Nice to see you here. All suggestions gratefully received. Fainites 20:54, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have cleaned up the lead and plan to work my way through everything. My intent is to leave fact claims intact, but to make the article more accessible to the intelligent reader. A big part of this is cutting back on jargon and technical terminology. My own views are that while I am not an NLP advocate, I believe that the structure of subjective experience deserves study. While this system may not have the answers, it asks many good questions that researchers should examine under more structured conditions, using traditional canons of examination and scientific method. I believe I can help clean up this article without unfairly biasing it toward one side or the other. I assumed our common goal is a fair, NPOV overview of the subject. Yakuman (数え役満) 10:57, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Yakuman. I have no idea what this article is on about. Please continue with cleaning it up. Nobody else seems to be botherd about it. Looks like its designed to be as clear as mud. At first I thought it was about programming computers. From then on it got more confusing. I think half the terms don't even exist in dictionaries. Good luck. Mibmub 15:03, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Yakuman. The edits are fine. Articles that have been as heavily edited as this one always need a fresh eye. My quibbles would be 1)Devilly does not just say the techniques are scientifically unvalidated. The vast majority of the research was about PRS which was very important in NLP but none of the research supported it. Most of NLP's actual techniques are taken from other therapies, some of which are scientifically validated elsewhere, and 2) Perls, Erikson and Satir are not just inspirations. They modelled them and derived their patterns from the models. If you propose changing anything else factual it would be a good idea to raise it here first as most factual issues have been heavily researched and discussed in the past.Fainites 15:53, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This seems to be part of the problem. I have no idea what you are on about. You seem to be talking in absurdities. NLP doesn't work, but NLP techniques work? Is that what you are saying? Because that seems to be the gist of the article as it stands. I think Yakuman is doing fine without the illogic. Yakuman, please continue. Mibmub 15:13, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you read the earlier talk page? The article has to be understood by the average intelligent reader but it also has to be accurate. There is obviously a difference between whether something 'works' and whether or not underlying theoretical principles are scientifically validated. Important underlying theoretical principles of NLP such as the existence of a preferred representational system have not been supported by the scientific research. That doesn't mean none of it 'works'. The fact that NLP borrowed many techniques from other therapeutic systems is not a difficult concept to understand.Fainites 14:21, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right! The problem I see with this wikipedia article is its not telling the whole story. The bottom line is that NLP is widely accepted. It doesn't matter how many science studies have been published. The fact is it works! I noticed that there are a whole lot of facts missing from the article. OK some studies obviously say that some things about NLP don't show up on the meter. But the brain is more sensitive than the meter. NLP works in real life. NLP authors have turned the tables on the research every time. That hasn't been fairly shown yet. We should see a lot more of the real views on the article I think. Starting with the fact that its about the most popular change technology on the market. I know there are a lot of powerful new technologies out there but NLP really is the most widely accepted. Steve

Hi Yakuman. I added more cleanup and put the views and answers the right way round. I really would like to help out here. Theres a lot of balancing to do. I think the science stuff has the article totally out of joint. I heard a lot of really convincing reasons why the science is all wrong. Its not going to take long to get them into the article as answers. I'm sure they can be quoted from the recent NLP web pages and books. Steve

Hi Steve. Facts stated need to be verified (referenced) and credible. Some of your changes have left references that do not justify your edits. Currently the two references for NLP being popular are Sanghera and Singer. If you want to add stuff about popularity and wide acceptance then you will need some sources to back this up. For example, see the references in the human resources section to the NHS. Fainites 20:14, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Fainites. Yes I have some books in mind. I'll add the ref soon. Steve B110 03:54, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Yakuman. I see you have made some changes to my yesterdays edits. Thanks, they look better. Steve B110 11:10, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

the techniques of neuro-linguistic programming are not new. i use most of the techniques. i've learned to call it "meta-programming" or "meditation" or "whatever".

so there should be two articles: one should deal with neuro-linguistic programming techniques; the other should deal with the marketing aspect of it. that is, an instructional and a bullshit one respectively.

i think i might just redo the fuck out of all of this because it's so unbelievably unacceptable as is.

user harlequence

Hi Harlequence. I'm totally with you on that last line. I think Fainites and other authors have been around a while though. So I think its going to need some careful writing. I want to get it right.Steve B110 03:57, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Yakuman, Fainites and harlequence. I can see there are quite a few references that need checking over and there is info from refs that really doesn't need saying at all. Do you know which refs are accessible via the web? That Sharply ref basically concludes what I would say is the overall fact:: that NLP is a collection of diverse useful techniques that can be synergistically used for change under the right direction. But I want to read the thing in full because there seems to be a lot of irrelevant stuff there. There are also some negative reviews that really have been answered many times over by NLP authors. If there are any web access ones I'd be happy to give them the answers I collected over the years from various authorities. Steve B110 11:49, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Steve and Yakumen. I can send you the Sharpley papers by e-mail if you enable your e-mail. Have you looked at earlier discussions? There is a whole discussion on this page about where the various techniques come from. I've added the verified ones to the article in the techniques and concepts section. Do you have any others? You will also see that for ages the article just said NLP had been disproved by science but in fact if you look carefully at the research about the only thing they ever really researched was PRS. The full quote from Sharepley about it being a compendium of techniques is already in the article.Fainites 12:46, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also Steve, I think all the references have been checked recently. I checked most of the science and all the cult ones myself. This site was under constant attack for about 18 months by an abuser and multiple sock puppets. The POV pushed was that NLP was both completely unvalidated rubbish and at the same time a powerful, evil and dangerous cult! Citations were invented and peverted. Hence the recent checks on references. On the other hand it also gets attacked by people who htink that whether or not it is scientifically validated is the only thing to say about NLP. I think the section on religiosity could probably go altogether. The quotes in it are accurate because they are what is left after all the mad cult nonsense was removed, but they don't actually say anything of any real relevance or interest. What do you think? Fainites 13:46, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK Fainites. Whether we add more recent info from NLP authors or doublecheck to see if there were mistakes made with research, it looks like things can only get better. It seems that we can probably clean up that previous abuse fairly pronto. I put my email on my talkpage. Steve B110 14:46, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The research has been cleaned up in the sense that they are now valid quotations and summaries from genuine sources and the more minor critics have already been dumped. I suppose the issue is whether the science is over or under emphasised and whether there are valid replies to the criticisms made. I think the views of the 'psychology community' are important, particularly given NLP's use in therapy. I think the later section on science/pseudoscience/technology etc is a bit of a mess though. It was an attempt to deal with both what NLP actually is and what it says it is.Fainites 14:55, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well thats good to know, Fainites. At least we know these are certain statements placed into a certain perspective. I'll see how that perspective looks when other solid statements are placed alongside. Steve B110 16:23, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see no cited references, and thus no rationale for including this article in the LGAT category. I propose that it be removed. Lsi john 04:35, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello LSI John. From my experience NLP is run more as a workshop than a large group. Its also a set of specific skills rather than just awareness. It doesn't fits the category. Steve B110 09:48, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Steve, it turns out that Smee has defined the category for Large Group Awareness as any group or article which references a group or article already in the LGAT category .. thus making it very easy to qualify for the category. I'm waiting to see if she permits that fact to stay on the LGAT category page. Lsi john 12:59, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again Lsi John. I guess solid refs will be the measure. The cat will probably only apply if a good reference quotes that the subject is related to LGAT. I'm sure its not a long term problem. Steve B110 14:42, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've read Singer on LGAT's and she definately does not include NLP. There is a brief reference in her book to some LGAT's using some NLP techniques. I can give you the full quote of you wish. My understanding is that a key note of LGATs is that they push a particular spiritual, philosophical POV. They are also a means to an end. If anybody can find a verified credible source to name NLP as such as LGAT or significantly rleated to LGATs then fair enough, but otherwise there's no basis for including it here. We had the same issue with cults only more so as there is definately evidence that some cults use NLP techniques. Well they would wouldn't they. But no evidence that NLP itself is a cult a was previously claimed on this site.Fainites 15:35, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right Fainites. I still think its highly doubtful that there are any reliable refs saying NLP is LGAT also. It certainly not my experience. Steve B110 07:41, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I have included (2) reputable citations that mention NLP as an LGAT. Smee 23:06, 20 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Well OK (until we present some contradicting evidence) but you also included a pretty dubious link to a New Zealand cult awareness body in the references. Really NLP is not even similar to a cult and you are seriously misinforming the article by posting that link. Steve B110 06:20, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the passage from Du Merton, Smees first citation. It is a doctoral thesis, not on NLP or LGATs but on optimism. The description of NLP as a LGAT comes in a passage where he's describing Choices seminars as a LGAT. Whilst strictly speaking he does refer to NLP as a LGAT, it's very much a side comment and not at all the subject matter of the thesis. It certainly is not justifiable to place it in the introduction! I leave it here for other editors to comment as to whether it's inclusion is justifiable at all. p 39 by the way everybody)

"The researcher contends that the Choices seminar is a type of Large Group Awareness Training (LGAT) program. LGAT was a name coined for personal development programs in which many people at one time receive intense, emotionallyfocussed instruction over a period of hours or days to help them begin to discover the full potential for their lives. Described as part psychotherapy, part spirituality, and part business (Langone, 1998), notable LGAT programs, which originated from the human potential movement of the 1950s and 1960s, include the Erhard Seminars Training (est), Landmark Forum, Lifespring and Neurolinguistic Programming (NLP). These simplistic, highly structured and lucrative methods have spawned hundreds of take-offs on the original seminars, each attempting to create their own unique version."

Fainites 18:25, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The definition for LGAT has been revised. To be included in LGAT, you must qualify to be in the LIST for LGAT. As only organizations specifically cited to be LGAT can be included in the list, this article would not qualify for Category:LGAT because it is not an organization. Lsi john 18:36, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked up the other cite from Smee (Partridge). The passage on NLP does not state in any way shape or form that NLP is a LGAT. However, in the passage on LGATs it says 'both Landmark Forum and est could be clasified as LGATs, a sociological grouping that includes neurolinguistic programming...Insight Training Seminars and a whole plethora of sales and motivational courses.' This is a better reference than the first (which does not in my view count as a source). However, this seems to be rather a sidewind reference. Presumably if any of the major researchers and authorities on LGAT's had included mention of NLP as a LGAT you would have mentioned it Smee? Can we therefore assume that they don't? Hardly sufficient to justify including in the introduction but may well be worth a mention in the appropriate paragraph. Fainites 18:47, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• As I said, its a moot point. The requirements for the category are that the article qualfies to be on the LGAT LIST. The requirements to be on the LIST of LGAT are that an organization, itself, be ciated by WP:RS as being/using LGAT. This article is about a technique, not an organization therefore it can be removed from the LGAT category. Lsi john 18:55, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By the way Lsi, what list? Who's revised the definition of LGAT? This seems to be an ongoing argument between LGAT specialists being conducted on the NLP page! Could you be a little more informative please?

• It was discussed in the talk section of both? articles. As Smee was the one who originally created the category (and list), I deferred to her for clarification on what she intended that should be included in it. She clarified both pages with specific inclusion comments. Category:Large Group Awareness Training and List of Large Group Awareness Training organizations Lsi john 18:55, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One of the problems with all this is that NLP is not an organisation. It's a loose, diffuse collection of techniques, propositions and aphorisms. There's no controlling body, no central philosophy, no aim, no plan. It's actually extremely difficult to define. It also gets used by large numbers of people who have different aims. On the one hand, some cults use it's more hypnotic techniques to further their non NLP aims. On theother hand, for example, the police here use it to conduct seminars on the use of body language and spoken language to reduce conflict in difficult situation. Doctors use it to improve their rapport with patients in consultations. How it can be said 'NLP is a LGAT' is difficult to understand. I can quite see however how LGAT organisations may use NLP techniques. Fainites 00:02, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Lsi. I've looked at the list you mentioned. The two citations given to justify NLP's inclusion in the list are both 'Cults in our Midst' by Lalich and Singer. This was previously cited on the NLP page as stating that NLP was a cult. This was put in by the permanently banned long term abuser HeadleyDown and was in fact entirely false, as were 7 out of 8 other 'citations' naming NLP as a cult. Singer and Lalich neither name NLP as a cult, nor as a LGAT. Smee may have been mislead by this false citation. I think it needs more than the two refs given above to name NLP as a LGAT. Fainites 00:12, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• She has changed the definition for inclusion, to include methodologies. Now it is not as clear a decision. Without reading the text, I cannot say whether or not those two books #63 #63 make a clear and specific claim that NLP fits in the LGAT model. IF they do, then NLP would qualify to be on the LIST, as the list now includes methodologies.

Perhaps Smee has read them, or has access to them and can address this question.

Lsi john 00:23, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. My main concern is that any misinformation link about NLP being a cult should be stricken from the article. Here is my evidence: [9]. It should be avoided at all costs. The Partridge book may be a good source and he states his view its a LGAT as it is in the book. However its only one source. The other source seems dubious. So I would only accept the LGAT sentence if there is another good source alongside. I'm not sure why the LGAT category would be useful to any reader but as long as its out of the way at the bottom of the article it might not look too bad. Most people don't know what it means. Steve B110 02:42, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IMO, LGAT is often used as a pseudonym for cult. However, the term has been used by WP:RS individuals and my opinion is irrelevant. In my limited experience here, if even one remotely citable source says something, it can be included in an article. My suggestion is to do your homework, do your research and present the evidence. The wiki-reference you gave states that articles cannot say "XYZ is a cult", but it also clarifies that articles can say "XYZ has been called a cult by ABC".

That same issue is one of my current arguements with many of the LGAT articles. However, unlike cult, it seems that LGAT gets to be both a training methodology and a brand for companies. It is this branding that I believe replaces the word cult. LGAT is a methodology, yet many of the articles say "XYZ is LGAT".

All we can do is work to get the bias out. We must do our research and read the citations. In the case of cult, it is a much easier task because of the rule you cited. In the case of LGAT, it must be done on a case by case basis to determine whether the author said "XYZ is LGAT" or "XYZ uses LGAT methods" and then enforce the rules to prevent abuse and bias.

If you question the other source, document it here. Quote the text exactly, and explain why you believe it should not be referenced. Once you do that, it can be discussed. If you are still unhappy, a third-party opinion can be requested.

04:44, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

• We have (2) reputable citations that utilize this term to characterize NLP. I do not understand what the confusion is here? Smee 05:04, 22 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

OK Smee. I personally think not many people see LGAT as meaning cult. I want to repeat my experience that NLP in any forum can be beneficial to anyone, and that view needs to be emphasized a bit more fairly on the article. I think its innocuous enough to have LGAT where it was but only as somebodys view and not as an absolute fact. Large Group and Awareness are ok. Perhaps I was a bit hasty about the other reference. It does seem to be ok and another backup ref is mentioned (Langone) who gives a reasonably fair categorization of LGAT (nothing to do with cults per se). But I still have to emphasize that I don't think that NZ cult link should stand as it was. I think that compromise will be ok. Steve B110 05:18, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What compromise is that? (Sorry, I had not had this page on my watchlist, so I was confused)... Smee 05:20, 22 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Well actually I have read Singer and it does not by any stretch of the imagination characterise NLP as either a cult or a LGAT. Of the two references you cite, one mentions it merely in passing and it is not remotely the subjest of the thesis, therefore I do not supoport it's inclusion. The policies do not mean that any passing reference, however pasing, superficial or irrelevant should be cited a s source. Your second citation has more weight, but even so, it's the only reference found so far, it is again pretty much in passing and difficult to understand given that no mention of LGATs is made in the NLP section. It may well be appropriate to include a fair summary of this in the sections that discuss what NLP is but it's certainly not a view or criticism worthy of inclusion in the introduction. (If Singer or somebody equivalent had named NLP a LGAT or cult and why that would be very different. She's hardly unaware of it. There's a whole section on it in her book 'Crazy Therapies' which is used in this article') Fainites 10:25, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes I understand your feeling Fainites. There is safety in categories though. From my view if NLP is in the category LGAT, then that moves it away from the cult category. I have to admit that Partridge seems to be categorical about NLP as a LGAT. He handles it nicely though and describes it away from the cult label. I do think Singer is dismissive of NLP. She does come from a very behavioral background though and she probably doesn't take into account the complexities of modern psychological methods. She describes it under the umbrella of LGATs. I don't mind such cynical researchers having their views heard. As long as the misleading cult information is removed I don't mind the LGAT category. Actually I feel the only way NLP can be fairly presented here is if it is presented as a popular development that a lot of people rate highly. The LGAT category makes it obvious that its popular and that a lot of people find it helpful I think. I'm not sure about Wikipedia rules on support but it would be nice to see more references supporting the view. Steve B110 12:43, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe there is a guideline that states that citations need to be on-point with the article. My personal opinion (which counts for nothing) is that if we cite something, then the specific citation we use needs to be on point with our article and a significant amount of the material in the overall article we are citing should be on point with our article. Casual comments, not directly on-point with the cited material's subject, might be out of the author's field of expertise and thus non WP:RS inside an otherwise unrelated but WP:RS article on another subject.

It would probably be very improper to cite a casual remark about trees, in an article about the reproductive habits of dogs. It might also be improper to cite a remark about dogs' toenails in an article about reproductive habits of dogs, unless toenails were somehow on-point with a dog's reproductive habits. Unless some verfiable research is included in the article which supports the remark or the author is otherwise-qualified to make such a remark about toenails.

Unfortunately, this is where the area gets grey. Who is qualified to make what remarks without providing any scientifically verifiable research to support it? Who is qualified to claim LGAT without defining it at the time of the claim?

Since LGAT has no universal definition, if an author claims LGAT without defining it in the article where the claim is made, would it then be appropriate to require a citation which shows where they have previously defined it? (in order that the reader be able to understand which definition is being used?)

One rule allows us to cite WP:RS material, but other guidelines suggest that the material should be on point. Now the question is, if a citation is only mentioning our article's subject in passing, and no background or buildup or verifiable research is included in the cited material, is it usable on wiki?

And, if we can use it, does that mean we should use it? Does it actually add significant value to the article? If only a single author, mentions something in passing, and there is not a substantial amount of other works which are in agreement, then I'm inclined to say that the information does not bring significant value with it and thus is not relevant. If the author's book is directly on-point with our article, then it might be appropriate to include a passing remark, but probably not even then. If it were significant to the author, they would spend considerably more time on it than a passing remark. Lsi john 13:08, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We musn't start calling NLP a LGAT to protect it from being called a cult! On both points, either there are verified and credible sources stating one way or the other, or at least discussing the issue, or there aren't. I'm not that up on LGAT's but it seems odd to me that two such thin sources should be provided. Surely if NLP as such is a LGAT then some major commentators in the field would have noticed? Singer is only one example. She does not describe NLP as a LGAT. There is one passing mention of some NLP being used amongst a list of other things being used, by a LGAT unless there's some more material of her's beyond 'Cults in our Midst'. If there is, bring it on. I think the reference that's a passing mention in a thesis on a different topic should go, and the other should be qualified.Fainites 19:59, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right Fainites. Only Partridge and Langone qualifies so far. Just because the thesis mentions Langone, I don't think it should qualify. Steve B110 01:46, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd still quite like to know from Smee, if it was you who set up the LGAT list, why NLP is included on the basis of a citation of 'Cults in our Midst', when that book does not name NLP as a LGAT.Fainites 18:28, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• That is not one of the 2 citations utilized at the moment for inclusion of that entry. Smee 18:30, 23 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

When i looked at the link provided by Lsi 2 days ago both citations were Cults in Our Midst. Can you give me a link please. This LGAT argument between you and Lsi has obviously been going on a while and it will take time for us mere NLPers to catch up.Fainites 18:38, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So am I right in thinking then that the only basis for inclusion in the LGAT list are Du Merton, a passing reference in a thesis on another subject, and Partridge, a book thats a sort of digest of hundreds of new religions, sects and spiritualities? Plus, now I look at Partridge again the passage is not even on LGATs. Its on Landmark forum. They don't have an entry on LGATs. If your basis for inclusion in the LGAT list is any published reference anywhere on whatever, then it would pass to be on your list, but that's not my reading of WP:RS. I think it needs a little more to warrant a serious discussion on the NLP page. I've looked at Langone on LGATs that is cited on your list in the refs and he does not mention NLP there at all. My understanding is that there are some serious commentators on LGATs. Nlp is a substantial and well known phenomenon. I would have thought that if it were seriously thought that NLP were a LGAT, the mainstream, academic researchers in this field would have noticed.Fainites 19:14, 23 April 2007 (UTC)Fainites 18:55, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On balance I am doubtful also. Well it is written pretty clearly that NLP is a LGAT, even more in the category than Landmark (which I'd say is more of a cult), and its a Oxford University Press book that uses academic peers as contributors. But as an editor though Partridge seems to be unqualified with no academic standing. He's the main guy. That does seem to cast doubt on RS. Steve B110 02:17, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• However, this does not get around the fact that both citations do satisfy WP:RS, and are reputable secondary sourced citations. Smee 05:34, 24 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Actually the first one almost certainly doesn't. See;

"Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy, or are authoritative in relation to the subject at hand.

The reliability of a source depends on context; what is reliable in one topic may not be in another. A world-renowned mathematician may not be a reliable source on topics of biology. In general, a topic should use the most reliable sources available to its editors."

As for the second one, it probably does qualify, just, but would certainly also need qualifying itself. Am I right in assuming that as it seems to be your intention, for what ever reason, to name NLP as a LGAT, you would have used better sources if you had any? Fainites 08:26, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, as we already have 2 reputable citations, if we found more references, I would be inclined to simply mention those as well. Smee 08:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Hello Smee. Perhaps as a compromise we could call by its more appropriate title: Personal Growth Seminar (PGS) [10]. It actually quite inocuous and normal by business oriented seminar standards. Steve B110 10:16, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Smee, the citations need to be more than 'reputable', they need to be authoritative. It's a straight forward point. You're obviously very interested in LGATs. Do any of the major researchers/writers on the issue of LGATs name NLP as a LGAT and if so, can we have the source. If not, then we have have to consider the quality of these. Fainites 20:47, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Making NO specific reference to the current contents of this article:

I think they should also be relevant to the article and should contribute significant value. Just because something is a published work, by a reputable source, and we technically can include it here, does not mean we should include it here.

Wiki articles should tell the story about the article's subject (using reliable sources) in a smooth continuous flow. I don't believe wiki articles are intended to be a disjointed collection of statements, made by random authors in unrelated articles which may (or not) have been intended to address our article's subject. Lsi john 20:54, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Based on the way I read wiki rules for inclusion; Unless there is significant other supporting evidence which supports the conclusion, a single statement, in a minor work, by a minor author, not only can, but probably should, be excluded from the article. Lsi john 20:59, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Based on the policies of WP:RS, we have at least (2) reputable sources that back this up already. Smee 06:49, 25 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Here's an explanation. Theres a lot of misconception about NLP as it quite clear from the article. I admit its not an easy subject to grasp. But the view that NLP is a LGAT can easily be explained in terms of the potentially good aspects of LGATs. For example, NLP provides a philosophy that allows the individual to better cope in the world and allows for a feeling of purpose, connectedness, and resourse. Thats what the larger NLP seminars provide in abundance. Its also what is pretty core to humanistic psychology. I think an NLP developer would probably accept that NLP has been taught to large audiences in marathon sessions. But thats only to provide the peak experience that is required for change. Its all quite easy to explain from a humanistic psychology perspective. Steve B110 06:56, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're not answering the question Smee. I take it therefore that major commentators on LGATs do not name NLP as a LGAT. My proposal would be that Du Merton is not an authoritative source at all. Partridge could be included on the following basis;

Partridge, in a compendium called "New Religions: A Guide; New Religious Movements, Sects and Alternative Spiritualities" names NLP as a LGAT in his section on Landmark Forum, but no major commentators on LGATs cite NLP as a LGAT.

Unless you point us to a major LGAT commentator who says otherwise. Fainites 16:28, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm opening this as a new section.

After reading the citation http://skepdic.com/lgsap.html I am convinced that this emphatically does NOT meet WP:RS guidlines. There are no verifiable sources and the entire page appears to be opinion. Though some is factual, to me it is clearly not WP:RS.

Lsi john 14:39, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The actual book looks self published to me. I picked it up in the library the other day and it was full of all sorts of nonsense. What are the author's credentials? If its just a skeptic I should think the book doesn't qualify. Steve B110 15:45, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:RS

What is a reliable source? - Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy, or are authoritative in relation to the subject at hand.

Who wrote this particular definition at skeptic.com? Is the author regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand?

The reliability of a source depends on context; what is reliable in one topic may not be in another. A world-renowned mathematician may not be a reliable source on topics of biology. In general, a topic should use the most reliable sources available to its editors.

I do not see that any single-author (skeptic.com) can be an expert RS for every subject. I also do not see verifiable research in this specific skeptic reference for LGAT.

Aspects of reliability - Scholarly and non-scholarly sources

Wikipedia welcomes material written by scientists, scholars, and researchers, particularly material published by peer-reviewed journals. However, these may be outdated by more recent research, or may be controversial in the sense that there are alternative scholarly and non-scholarly treatments. Wikipedia articles should therefore ideally rely on all majority and significant-minority treatments of a topic, scholarly and non-scholarly, so long as the sources are reliable.

This does not appear to be a scientific document or anything which falls under a peer-review process.

IMO, it should be removed.

Lsi john 15:56, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't actually any material from Skeptics Dictionary in the actual article. Its just a link. Do the same rules apply for links as for sources in the article? Fainites 20:06, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The subjective guidelines for External Links are HERE. Lsi john 21:44, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right, I don't think Carroll qualifies either. He's not even a psychologist, just a philosophy professor. I think he probably wouldn't know the first thing about NLP or LGATS. Steve B110 01:49, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I removed the other link from within the citation as well. The citation itself is all that is needed here. Smee 02:38, 23 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I don't think there's a particular problem with using broad commentators as a secondary source provided you have a decent primary source. A commentator like Carroll must get his information from somewhere. He's not doing studies on several hundred entries himself. I don't think it is appropriate to use something like Skeptics Dictionary as the primary or only source for any particular proposition. The question is whether he fulfils the 'link to avoid' criteria of Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research. See Reliable sources. I'm referring in particular to his opening line that NLP is a LGAT. [[[User:Fainites|Fainites]] 20:59, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree. If it is Carrol's opinion (as a skeptic) it must be characterised as such. If he has cited another work then the primary source should be used. If there is no primary source published in peer-reviewed journal (or another reliable source). If it is from a less reliable source it should be characterised as such or excluded. --Comaze 22:54, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The catch here is that self-published authors are accepted as reliable-source in their field. In the WP:EL section, it would be proper to add a descriptive tag which indicates that skeptics is a negative opinion.

Now the question might be, is Carrol's field directly related to LGAT, or is that a reach for him?

And I believe it is reasonable to ask for reference material.

But I'm not really sure this is a tree we should be barking up.

I suspect there might not be any cheese down that tube. Lsi john 23:52, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Fainites 22:11, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a later development of NLP, should it not go in the history section, perhaps linked to its own article, rather than popular culture and media ?Fainites 22:11, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the length tag; the most unwieldy section is probably the 'Classifying NLP' section. Any ideas? Fainites 22:35, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just edited all the technical psychology stuff out of Methods, and moved it to a separate article to help you out a bit. I originally put the tag on the article, by the way.

Doing the same with Reception and Classifying will do the trick.

--User:Krator (t c) 23:41, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Krator. BIG changes also. I moved some to the NLP and Science section and deleted some. Please review my changes carefully. I moved over the technical psychology discussion and deleted some information that seemed unnecessary or repeated. I guess some of it could be summarised nicely and put back into the main article. The article is a bit smaller now - the length is down to 56. Steve B110 02:21, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again Krator and everyone. I moved informtion from mental health section to wider critiques. I really feel that the article could be fairer to NLP. Think if NLP is used by a group of psychologists or helpers then it should be up front somewhere. Otherwise that information is just getting drowned out by negative comments. All the positive adoption of NLP should be shown away from the critiques and preferably just after the concepts and methods section because its those reputable organisations who actually like and use NLP's concepts and methods.

Steve, reducing Sharpley in size is fine. You're probably right that it does need simplifying, but the paragraph you left actually made no sense, grammatically or factually. Also, Sharpley did not conduct research, it was a review. You left in a bit of Einspruch and Forman but removed the ref. Can we discuss the reduction here first please? An awful lot of work went into writing an accurate psychology section which was posted above for discussion for 10 days. It's quite important to retain the information that the research all related to PRS only as Sharpley is usually cited by sceptics as supporting the proposition that the whole of NLP has actually been disproved by science. Also, Von Bergen is not psychology. There's been some discussion before about whether or not he's notable enough to be in at all. Also, whats the rationale behind removing any mention of ongoing positive research? Fainites 19:30, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Krator, do you not think we need something on methods and techniques? At the moment someone could read the entire article and come out at the other end saying 'yes but what is it?' I like the expanded use section being moved up though. Fainites 20:01, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fanties, I'm not familiar with NLP. After reading through the article, I would have expected a better description under Concepts and methods of exactly what NLP is. Be Bold and stick to cited facts. Remember that we cannot create the work and publish what we know, but we can summarize other reliable sources who have written about it. Write from neutral (don't stick in how wonderful (or crappy) it is, just stick to the facts). Just my opinion. Lsi john 20:08, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeh this is a good point. I was expecting some of the cnocepts and technqies bit to come back but only as a summarised set of sentences. I'll have a go at making it summarised. Steve B110 06:08, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I think the section on humanistic psychology could go with a new paragraph on techniques: E.g. techniques like mirroring, reframing, and so on, then the humanistic explanation, and then the paragraph on beliefs to explain that its not religious but functional. What do you think? Steve B110 06:23, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lsi if you click on the link under 'concepts and methods' called 'methods of NLP' you will see what the 'concepts and methods' section used to be until yesterday, complete with multiple refs! Fainites 20:30, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Fainites. People keep telling me to be bold. I think the changes you made are also bold - and constructive on the whole. The file size is still better than before. The only think I am not happy about is the Bergen ref in the uses of NLP and the cults information there. I would put it later with all those critical views and I would label them critical views. Right now they seem to really break up the reading and make it look inconsistent. There are other positive views I would bring to the top also. Perhaps we could rename the uses of NLP. Steve B110 01:30, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well there isn't now a specific section for the likes of Bergen or Langone as they've been removed! Length is not a god. I think there should be a section somewhere to deal with the whole belief issue. But Bergen does not belong in the psychology section. The psychology section is important because NLP began life modelling therapists and essentially being 'therapeutic'. There was alot of excitement and alot of research in the early years until Sharpley, Druckman and Swets, and its been panned by evidence based psychs ever since. 19:43, 3 May 2007 (UTC)Fainites

I believe the reason Krator moved some of the sections, was due to their length. Not because they were too long, but because once a section gets to a certain length, it deserves its own article. It's my understanding that wiki (main) articles are not intended to be an end-all for every speck of information about a specific subject. Perhaps the NLP article can be very short and simply discuss an overview of what NLP is, who uses it and why, and then link to new pages/articles with an expanded description of those sections. Lsi john 21:06, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Lsi john that was my thinking. Bergen and langone are both talking about psychology also, especially Bergen. I still feel the article flows better with the negative comments al together. I agree the psychology lot have panned NLP. I'm researching for more positive views from NLP oriented professionals. I will also work on adding techniques in short form. I don't think we need more than a paragraph for it as above. Steve B110 01:24, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spot on. Just too long. Move per wiki policy. I am out of here, too, as I decided beforehand I would do that if my edit was reverted. --User:Krator (t c) 17:44, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well Krator, you removed the entire concepts and methods section without any discussion, despite being invited to discuss it here. What did you expect? It wasn't put back for 6 days.Fainites 23:14, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think people who know nothing of NLP when they read the article will come out the other end none the wiser if there is not a reasonably comprehensive section on what it is and what it does. This article now gives no idea what to expect if you went to try NLP or if you met soemone who said they were a practitioner. It would be better to shorten the rather esoteric arguments on science -v- humanism -v- technology but givemore information on what it is in practical terms. Also Steve, Bergen is talking about human resources, not psychology, and the Langone quote comes from a book on cults etc, nothinbg to do with psychology. You really need to read the sources before shifting them around or deleting them. It's better to discuss things first because if you just delete whole chunks, other editors will simply put them back.Fainites 16:06, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would propose copying back the methods and concepts section and then working on reducing and simplifying it in situ. Reducing the overall length of the article is a good aim but there's no big rush. Fainites 22:54, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No worries Fainites. I'm working on a smaller more compact version. I'll add it soon. Steve B110 01:09, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I put the techniques back in but in a shorter form because there are separate articles for them already. I think it injects a bit more interest into the article this way so its not so dry any more. I think it could be written more compactly still and even add more in there that way. The filesize is about 65 now up from 58. Not too much of a jump but I think we can take it back down past 50 focusing on other sections. Steve B110 01:52, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where have you put the techniques back in shorter form? Its not coming up on my screen! Don't hesitate to ask if you need any help with anything technical. We don't have to go mad about length you know. Its an aim, not an instant requirement. This article used to be even longer and we spent about three months reducing to the size it was when you arrived. I would have thought techniques and methods were more important than the long discussion about science/humanism/technology.Fainites 20:16, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've put the concepts and methods back in for now. Please discuss shortening or summarising this here before removing it. We can't just leave the page with absolutely nothing about what NLP actually is and does, even if it is a bit long. Fainites 22:00, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Fainites. Comaze removed my short form version. I thought you guys would improve instead of just deleting or reverting. I guess we can shorten from the current long version though. Steve B110 02:52, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I had no choice but to revert. The edit had syntax errors. --Comaze 03:22, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Steve. If you look at your version you'll see it accidently messed up all the refs. Don't hesitate to ask if you need a bit of technical help.Fainites 08:45, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The (2) LGAT citations have been restored. Smee 01:56, 4 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Hi Smee. I'm not going to take the information away but in the interests of the article I think you need to do some more work on gaining consensus. I for one would require more support for the sentence if you can't convince me that the one's there already are sufficient. Steve B110 03:28, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will look on finding more citations. But in the meantime, (2) should be plenty. One citation from a reputable secondary source should be plenty, but no worries :) Smee 09:46, 4 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I have removed Du Merton as he is not an adequate source (see earlier discussion on this and the LGAT talkpage) and qualified Partridge. You really need more than a passing mention in a compendium to call NLP 'a LGAT', as opposed to saying it is sometimes taught as a component of LGATs or taught in LGAT form. No doubt if NLP is a LGAT as such you will be providing these citations from major commentators and researchers in the field in due course :) Fainites 21:56, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Smee. I don't think you can leave the information as is. Its going to need proper refs otherwise it'll just get removed. Steve B110 05:50, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Claims of genius critera are unsourced and seem over stated. If this is the correct word, please provide WP:RS citation which backs up the claim. Otherwise the proper wording should be used and cited. Lsi john 21:32, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the unsourced claim about genuises and replaced Bteson who was an important influence. There is already a passage about the modelling of the the three therapists who were considered to have achieved 'excellence'. Fainites 21:52, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. The word Genius seemed a bit over-stated and hence my challenge. Lsi john 22:22, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re your last edit Comaze, I take your point, but I think there may be a better way of expressing it. Has any substantial research been done outside the field of psychology? There are various papers from education and the like but I'm not sure it adds up to scientific validation or the opposite. How about 'remains scientifically unvalidated within the field of psychology'. Fainites 11:26, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I would agree with Comaze in that it is more specific to say psychol science. Its specific and covers all the areas of the research. Joseph.

Somebody removed the only bits of ongoing research I could find on NLP from the science section and put them in the science article. Do you think we should put them back or is it too esoteric? It was this bit:

Examples of ongoing research include the following: an empirical study using a heuristic qualitative methodology in which the submodality change process was tested for treating grief and mourning and which suggested that manipulating certain submodalities can help the subject shift into more resourceful state and speed the healing process,^[3] a study incorporating a number of NLP behaviour change techniques (anchoring, isomorphic metaphor, goal setting) into a program for learning about and preventing the spread of AIDS which recommended that these tools be promoted and adopted internationally,^[4] and a review of several small studies on the effectiveness of Visual/Kinesthetic Dissociation (V/KD) which suggested that V/KD, although currently at an experimental level of efficacy and in need of further well-designed empirical study, may be a promising treatment for at least some forms of Posttraumatic Disorder.^[5]

Fainites 21:17, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By the way Joseph, if you sign yourself with 4 of these things ~ it automatically puts in your registered name or IP number and links to your userpage etc. Fainites 21:20, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've overlooked the links at the end of the article but I found an important one missing:

http://www.nlpweekly.com

It is a very useful resource for information and has a mostly (which is seldom enough) nice community. And it has helped my a lot, what I can't say about other nlp-related pages. So .. pls give it a look :)

greetings

ps. I hope I did this right and this is the correct place for this kinda thing ..

62.178.96.157 02:56, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I noticed this reversion [11] I think it does need some sourcing. Its the kind of thing that I have heard though in many areas of NLP. There are a lot of amazingly good facilitators out there that can do great things with your potential. I'll have a good dig around for similar. Steve B110 13:42, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I saw the recommendations to make the concepts and applications a bit more snappy have not really been followed through. I know there is quite a lot on most editors plates but I think I can suggest some points. But first, I think there is a lot more "delivery" to do there. It really should be a bit more upbeat (with good encyclopedia writing in mind though). Fainites and Comaze or anyone else with experience; What do you think? Steve B110 13:46, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Steve. Nice to see you back. I agree it could be more readable. It's difficult though to squash sufficient info. in to something snappy. We're aiming for intelligent readers who may have no prior knowledge but wish to be informed but not patronised. I tried the other day to cut down the concepts a bit but only managed a few lines. I still think it's the 'what is NLP section that could be cut down. Fainites 17:20, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I remember a professors saying to imagine that you are writing for an intelligent ignoramus (not an expert). --Comaze 17:29, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Fainites and Comaze. Nice to be back. Great to see things are even more positive. Shame about the dissers in the background. I noticed your work on improving things Fainites. Great stuff. Nice one Comaze:) Steve B110 05:10, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Steve or should I say Headley? I don't think anyones going to be convinced by your efforts to pretend that you, me and Comaze are all jollily working together to make the NLP article ever more positive, least of all your target audience (editors on the pseudoscience page). If you want things to be more positive, find some decent sources. But decent sources are not really your thing are they Headley. Whichever team you pretend to bat for. Fainites 21:35, 29 June 2007 (UTC) (one of the 'dissers')[reply]

I have indefinitely blocked the accounts called Maypole, Steve B and Newtonspeed after discussion.

There are fairly obvious others but -- festina lente...

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 23:26, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks FT2. These socks don't half clutter up the talkpages. Fainites 23:28, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Has it dawned on anyone that most of the adjectives used in the following sentence are subjective? "NLP teaches that a person can develop successful habits by amplifying helpful behaviors and diminishing negative ones. Positive change can come when one carefully reproduces the behaviors and beliefs of successful people (called 'modeling'). It also states that all human beings have all the resources necessary for success within themselves." •Jim62sch• 03:01, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yerse. Seems a bit clumsy to keep repeating 'NLP teaches' though. How would you put it? Fainites 13:03, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"NLP advocates hold that"; "practitioners of NLP believe that", etc. BTW, NLP cannot teach, we need to be careful with allowing anthropomorphism to creep in.

In any case, I was referring to the following words: successful, amplifying (OK, not an adjective), helpful, negative, Positive change (which just happens to be jargon), successful. If the statements are a direct quote, it should be cited. Otherwise, we need to show that these adjectives (and the one verb) are being used subjectively. What is a successful habit? Who defines successful? Isn't "success" defined societally and culturally, rather than scientifically? After all, a successful habit in the US, might be tabu in China.

This sentence shows precisely why NLP is pseudoscience, "It also states that all human beings have all the resources necessary for success within themselves." Science doesn't do touchy-feely feel-good stuff. •Jim62sch• 13:18, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What the hell are "Evidence-based psychologists"? •Jim62sch• 13:34, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NLP isn't a science so it does do the touchy feely stuff. The 'all human beings have all resources' bit is one of its aphorisms. I think I might dig up an earlier intro. from before SteveBrand etc. Fainites 15:11, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some editors think commentators ought to be characterised as to what angle they are coming from. I don't think its necessary as 'psychology' purports to be a science in any event but feel less strongly about saying 'evidence based' as opposed to 'skeptic'. Fainites 15:33, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What about "mainsteam" (as much as I dislike that word, it seems to be applicable here)? •Jim62sch• 17:31, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Better. The one I don't like is the pysochology 'community' though it seems to be common usage. It sounds like a parish council. Fainites 19:03, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See [12] •Jim62sch• 13:30, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ooh yes! I wonder who put that in?

Anyway, here's the previous opening para from before the recent wave.

Neuro-linguistic programming (NLP) is a set of techniques, axioms and beliefs that adherents use primarily as an approach to personal development. It is based on the idea that mind, body and language interact to create an individual's perception of the world and that perceptions, and hence behaviors, can be changed by the application of a variety of techniques; in particular, "modeling" which involves the careful reproduction of the behaviors and beliefs of those who have achieved 'excellence'. The early focus of NLP was the study of the underlying patterns in the language and techniques of noted and successful therapists in hypnotherapy, gestalt therapy and family therapy. The patterns discovered were adapted for general communication and effecting change.

Despite its popularity^[6][7] NLP continues to be controversial, particularly for use in therapy, and after three decades of existence remains scientifically unvalidated.^[8] NLP has been criticized for lacking a defining and regulating body to impose standards and a professional ethical code.^[9]

Preferable I think. Fainites 15:16, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually Jim, looking at it, it's the other way round. That website has been copied from this article. There's parts of it that I know were put together by several different editors with discussion, at various different times, including me. Fainites 16:06, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm...then the website is a copy-vio. Under GFDL they're free to use it, but must attribute it. The article's looking a bit better though, so I guess it doesn't matter which was the copy-vio. •Jim62sch• 17:29, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Except insofar as its a serious allegation. The intro was largely rewritten recently by Yakuman but I don't think he did much with the rest of the article. SteveB110 messed it about alot. But some of the bits I recognise from further down that article are quite a bit older than Yakuman. Fainites 19:08, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A big problem with this article at the moment is length. Fainites 19:15, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, length is one of the problems. Undue weight is another. NLP is pseudoscience -- parts of this article still read like a PR firm's NLP wet-dream. •Jim62sch• 21:58, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well pseudoscience or not, we still need to say what it is, what it does, what it purports to be and do etc etc. It's also a little anomalous as so much of it is simply lifted from other therapies. If you look further up the talkpage you'll see a table wherein we attempted to ascertain what came from where. Fainites 08:29, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, of course we must define it, but in a much more NPOV manner, and yes, we need to be more succint -- the article is too long. Also, any cases of "we" and "our" need to be excised. •Jim62sch• 15:52, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fine by me. Keep up the good work. I've always found it rather difficult to define NLP as it seems very amorphous to me. Fainites 18:59, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dowm from 83 to 80 kilobytes now. Fainites 21:59, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've shifted things round a bit to put the Psychology section immediately after the Concepts and Methods, and History down towards the end. I've also restored the statement that psychs call it pseudoscience and moved Drenth and Singer from the 'what is NLP' stuff to join the other psych views in the psych section. I think there's some more stuff that SteveB110 got rid of in his 'NLP is wonderful' campaign but I haven't had time to look through it all yet.Fainites 22:32, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Down to 78 kb. Fainites 23:00, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well I've reduced everything I can think of reducing and its down to 77 kbs in total but thats only 41 kbs of readable prose which is the relevent figure. Perhaps someone else would like to have a go. Fainites 11:10, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NLP seems more pseudo-science than an accepted domain of psychology. At the very least there has been some real controversary here. Why isn't there a specific Controversary section? DPeterson^talk 13:12, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Action man. I've asked Jonathon on his talkpage if the Aaron beck cite is intended to be for all the statements. We'll see if he comes back to us. Fainites ^barley 00:38, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This section should be deleted or kept?

This entire section really does not belong:

In contrast, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy is a mainstream branch of psychotherapy which is conceptually similar in many ways to NLP.^{[citation needed]} For example, both are based on the idea that people act and feel based on their perception or maps of the world rather than the actual world (the map is not the territory), both involve techniques to find and modify harmful beliefs, both discuss "reframing", and both advise that behaviour change greatly facilitates the integration of new, more beneficial beliefs.^{[citation needed]} However, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy and its forerunner Cognitive Therapy now have a history of more than 40 years of experimental testing, verification, and refinement by many different individuals -- all of it performed not-for-profit and published publicly in peer-reviewed journals. Thus there is good reason to believe the claim that Cognitive Behavioral Therapy is currently the most effective type of psychotherapy known for depression and other mood disorders.^[10]

for several reasons:

1. .There is not basis to say NLP is similiar to CBT.
2. . What is cited as evidence is OR.
3. . The rest of the section about CBT is not relevant to NLP...reads as if it is saying that the only reason CBT has evidence is it's 40 year history and so implies NLP is will be "valid" with time.

DPeterson^talk 01:13, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just checked the cited Beck reference and there is no mention of NLP there at all. Perhaps we can rely on Walker for the comparison. I believe Walker cites Beck and Walker is published by a reputable book publisher: I added some of this quote from Walker to the article: "As I began to research CBT methodologies, I found that NLP and CBT had not only paralleled each other's rise over the years, but also shared similar basic assumptions about information processing in individuals in health and disease. Indeed, it became clear to me that there hads also been a major cross-fertilsation of ideas and techniques between the two therapies."(Walker 2006). Most of the other results in psychotherapy seem to be psychotherapists who combine NLP with CBT (and other approaches), eg. "Dr. Poteryko uses a combination of 'insight-oriented psychotherapy, motivational therapy, cognitive behaviour therapy (CBT) and neurolinguistic programming (NLP).'"(Sylvain 2006). Also, "Thelma Dabor is Vice Chair of the Association for Rational Emotive Behaviour Therapy, which is a Member Organisation of the United Kingdom Council for Psychotherapy (UKCP). She is qualified in hypnosis and NLP and is UKCP Registered (CBT & REBT)."[13].

References:

• Lewis Walker (2004) Changing With Nlp: A Casebook of Neuro-linguistic Programming in Medical Practice
• Matthew Sylvain. (2006) Snuffing out smoking in Nanaimo Medical Post. Toronto: Jan 10, 2006. Vol.42, Iss. 1; pg. 6, 1 pgs.

I borrowed the new Sage Handbook of Counselling a while ago. It has a chapter on NLP as an approach to psychotherapy which might also be useful to put it in perspective. Unfortunately the Google scholar preview is limited. Colin Feltham, Ian E. Horton (2006) "The Sage Handbook of Counselling And Psychotherapy" ----Action potential ^{t c} 02:18, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi AP. I was hoping that new editor might come and discuss this but the aggressive tone of the above delete proposal may have put him off. I'd be interested to see the Sage thing. Fainites ^barley 10:49, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Remember this AP? We got quite a way as well with trying to work out where various NLP techniques came from, given it's somewhat parasitical nature, but I don't think it was ever finished. I'm not sure about some of the entries either! I did put those bits we had sources for in the article. I'd be interested to know where reframing actually started. We could narrow the PRS column and have another column showing verified sources of techniques.

Fainites ^barley 12:55, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]