Talk:Neuro-linguistic programming/Archive 8

message: How does everyone like the current proposal?
Voice of AllT|@|ESP 18:32, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Article unprotected. Please make only minor changes to it without agreement. Larger changes can be made to the working article. Also, lets just keep the tag there since there is discussion. If Comaze or someone would like to replace it with sectional tags for certain areas, then please do so.Voice of AllT|@|ESP 03:28, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, yes Voicofall.  Improving using incrementals is good.  Also, I think the pseudoscience section can have info added.  I have some European journal papers that explain more.  But to be added piece by piece.  HansAntel 03:42, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Great, we need the highest quality references we can find. I've added NPOV sectional tags to the section that require higher priority of attention. --Comaze 04:27, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: "Higher", I take it there are other sections you have qualms with? Is it a general style or ref. issue, as the other sections seem like they could only use minimal work.Voice of AllT|@|ESP 04:33, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The current structure and layout of the document is fine, except I still think that the "Questionable applications" can be connected to the "Applications section". "False claims to science" can be merged with "Pseudoscience". In terms of refs there are still many over-generalisations that need to be connected to aspects or specific schools or authors of NLP because they are not shared by the entire field, this can be done by tracing back the citations in the references. Generally the style and prose can be more encyclopedic, and kept consistant throughout the entire document -- this might need to be delegated to an external wikipedian. Some of the less-notable references and content can probably be removed in favour more reputable sources that is both for definitions and criticism of NLP. In some cases the references do not closely match the attributed statements, we'll need to work on this one-by-one. --Comaze 05:26, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revisions 

message: :#Include peer-review journals  and . Identify verifiability and notability of sources listed in those links. 
:#Include relevant findings APS conference, "Neuro-linguistic Programming (NLP) Pseudoscience or Topic of Peer Reviewed Academic Merit"
:#include some information about proper experiment design as defined by Grinder and Bostic St-Clair (2002)
:#Distinguish between clinical psychology studies and outcome based studies.
:#
Comaze, these issues have been discussed before multiple times, and your persistent denial shows that you are only here to enlarge the article.  None of the studies you present are conclusive.  They offer no proof.  The current scientific analsysis is conclusive and based on expert (clinical psychologists) views. Your addition of those refs will lead to  multiple explanations being added and a much larger section. Considering your bad faith actions, I will remove the NPOV tag.  HeadleyDown 02:45, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: HeadleyDown.  I've added point 4 based on your feedback. I'm still working on a paraphrase of the APS convention paper, we might be able to insert some relevant findings --Comaze 03:42, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Scientific analysis of NLP

message: :#Include findings 17th American Psychological Science conference, "Neuro-linguistic Programming (NLP) Pseudoscience or Topic of Peer Reviewed Academic Merit" - a poster can be found on Michael Foley's site .
:#Correction to ref Lilienfield et al 2003 p.248 criticism is connected to VK/D (Grinder & Bandler 1979) that is used in workshops (eg. Figley) to treat PTSD, anxiety and trauma while VK/D lacks substantive clinical support Herbert, Lilienfeld et al. p.964
:#
-----
If any relavent findings can be found then add them, but that first link is just an event summary. This may have very limited use then.
If the criticism refered only to one/several aspect(s), then reword the section on the working article.Voice of AllT|@|ESP 23:48, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've been forwarded the paper from the APS convention so I can paraphrase some relevant findings from there. --Comaze 00:08, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I still doubt this will make much improvement. As for Lilienfield, I dont see what is wrong with the two areas he is cited at in that section. Do you not want the ref for the "self help delopement" part or at the list?Voice of AllT|@|ESP 04:29, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Lilienfeld specificially criticises VK/D (Grinder & Bandler 1979) for treatment of trauma as taught in workshops, he says without substantive evidence. Lilienfeld does not study the entire field of NLP, at the moment Lilienfeld is overgeneralised. --Comaze 05:02, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Show how you would reword it one the workin article.Voice of AllT|@|ESP 05:15, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry VoA, everyone: I've run out of time today. Should have some time tomorrow. --Comaze 10:27, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: As usual, Comaze is advocating that highly respected clinical psychologists should not have their views represented.  And that NLP and turing machines should be. Go figure!  HeadleyDown 16:33, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Based on your feedback I modified the Lilienfeld point to make it more specific. --Comaze 22:42, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Pseudoscience

message: #What authors, techniques or specific aspects of NLP are cult-like? All criticism needs to be connected to specific aspects of NLP.
:#If NLP is a set of techniques what techniques are cult like, or used by cults? Is this just an opinion of the author, or is this cited? This needs to be balanced with Hassan and Prof. Charles Figley who consider techniques of NLP useful in helping people leave cults and the view that NLP is promoted as a way to encourage independant critical thinking 
:#Hassan is aware of some cult leaders that have trained in NLP, he is not aware of any cults that use NLP as a central part of the indoctrination methods.
:#Some prominant trainers are Christian (eg. Dilts) some are Agnostic, some are against any sort of indoctination. At the moment the Cult section 
:#Gary Tippet is misrepresented. He basically state that some cult leaders are training in NLP.
:#Crabtree is not notable, this reference and attributed statement can be removed or truncated into the first sentence in that section, "NLP is referred to a technique used by both mild and aggressive cults".
:#Singer, Margaret & Janja Lalich are given alot of weight in the article. What aspects or schools of NLP are they criticising? 
:#Navopashin (2004) is a violation of "guilt by association" or Wikipedia:No Original Research see  for details
Its no good claiming that things are not notable.  You must explain why.  And considering the demands Comaze has made, you have to explain for MONTHS.  These pointwise assertions are facile.  The cult section could do with expanding in response to this censorious nonsense.JPLogan 03:34, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: JPLogan, are you claiming that Crabtree is a notable author in this field? What is your evidence? --Comaze 01:19, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Commercial cult is already mentioned in order to distinguish the sect/religion/cults from commercial cults.  The term 'new age' could be useful there though.HeadleyDown 02:53, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've modified comments about Hassan, added Crabtree, and Tippet while you were editing. Based on your comments I'll refactor the list accordingly. I'll be back later . Can you change your comments after it has been refactored? :) --Comaze 00:08, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Can we agree to remove or truncate Crabtree ref , and reword Tippett? This should be fairly simple. Then we can cross out those two points and move forward --Comaze 09:48, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No Comaze, but most of us have agreed that your are bent on censorship/whitewash.  You are ultimately destined for disappointment.  JPLogan 03:23, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: What points are you referring to here? --Comaze 01:19, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Cult characteristics

message: FT2 has "given up" on this article. Fuelwagon won't be back anytime soon . Where the others?Voice of AllT|@|ESP 05:14, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: My primary focus now is accuracy; closeness of attribution to the actual source. --Comaze 22:46, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, Comaze's focus in actual fact is just the same as it always was; To remove criticisms of NLP.  This is quite a dry season, but I will be checking up on things at least once a week - forever.  And any facts I see that should be in the article, I will paste right back there.  You hear that Comaze?  JPLogan 03:22, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other editors 

message: NLP fanatics make demands for more evidence, more evidence is presented, and NLP fanatics don't like it.  Thats the history of this article.  I quite like the process.  It is a win-win-win.  I win because it makes a clear article, and humanity wins because it makes a clear article, and humility wins because dickhead NLPbrains get to look really stupid:)  DaveRight 04:04, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi VoiceOfAll.  Your edits work well, as we are trying to keep things brief. Changes to your edits are only made when an editor has more info at hand than you.  Regards Camridge 06:00, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Mmm!  I wonder.  I think Comaze's months of creating annoyance and extra work is extremely uncivil.  Especially when those annoying incidences are highlighted by his daily and mostly unwarrented accusations of personal attacks (slur campaign).  We know Comaze's game all too well. I don't think any editor is going to see his edits or suggestions as anything more than a desire for censorship. We all have to live with that, including him. Camridge 06:00, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This is on topic Comaze.  Your activities highlight the pseudoscientific attitudes and cultlike nature of NLP proponents.  And any solutions to reduce your antagonistic and conflict provoking efforts have always been useful for the advancement of this article. Bookmain 08:26, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There is nothing strict about discussions pages Comaze.  People here are doing their best to cope with your censorship and your fostering of wikispam/promotion/confusion.  I think anything that helps avoid such confounding nonsense is a good thing for the article.  HeadleyDown 03:23, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: By refering to your agenda, Comaze, nobody is being personal.  And by refering to your agenda here, rather than on personal pages, you will have less chance of creating conflict with your multiple unreasonable objections.  HeadleyDown 04:50, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: History repeating winwinwin

message: I've created a page to document any inaccuracies, overgeneralisations, misleading statements or statements that do not have proper citations, see Talk:Neuro-linguistic_programming/inaccurate. This will take some time to document all the sections, but will help us sort out the content disputes and prepare for a fact and reference check. Any assistance would be greatly appreciate, anyone want to join me on this project? Please assist by adding references and page numbers to all facts -- the quick test is, can someone verify this in 10 years time? I've just added some page numbers for your reference. Also marked REF or PAGE where page number or REF is required as per the proposed decision of arbitration. We also need to be careful because some of the current statements use "guilt by association" to connect NLP to negative things, this would be covered under verifiability and  Wikipedia: No original research. I've also made some changes to the Neuro-linguistic_programming/Working version to mark out some missing references and proposed changes to that "questionable application" section. --Comaze 11:50, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Comaze, you are obsessed.  Trying to recruit more cronies?  This is really funny.  In the process you will undoubtedly uncover plenty of extra criticism towards NLP.  Do you care to share it on your new "advocate censorship" article? HeadleyDown 03:07, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I modified the Brain laterilization section for 1 of the 4 request. The other 1 was already fulfilled. I dont see how the issue with the first 2 however: "some" is due to books by major NLP writers mentioning it, but not everyone using it, and it is an oversimplification, that is well known by now.Voice of AllT|@|ESP 04:38, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Accuracy, Verifiability and No original research 

message: Let's tone the discussion down and discuss how we can improve the article. I've done alot of work cleaning up the references today, removed unused refs, and provided URL link to sources for verifiability. Let's see if we can implement some of arbitration's proposed recommendations such as the suggested citation style.  --Comaze 04:34, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Alternatively, lets revert all of Comaze's attempts to transform scientists and other experts into narrow minded fringe web page writers.  There have already been many deleted views of scientists and other such experts.  These were deleted through Comaze's advocacy for censorship.  His attempts at censorship have sometimes been rewarded, and thus reinforced.  If this article is further clarified by briefly placing the views of experts, then the NLP fanatics will be punished.  In fact anything that clarifies the article will lead to NLP fanatics being punished.  Looks like we have no choice but to torture Comaze and co by clarifying the article some more.  Camridge 06:26, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: References

message: Current statements attributed to: Hardiman (May 1994) NLP background and issues. Industrial relations review and report. No.560 Publisher: London: Industrial Relations Services and Personnel Publications, Ltd.
:#management experts such as Hardiman (1994) have criticized quasi-spiritual and unethical uses within management and human resources developments. 
:#It has been found that NLP certified practitioners often show a weak grasp of ethics (Hardiman 1994)
:#Its various forms, such as those promoted by Grinder, and Tony Robbins are said to be ill conceived and coercive in some business settings (Hardiman 1994)
:#There is a general view that NLP is dubious and is not to be taken seriously in a business context (Hardiman 1994; Summers 1996)
;Comments by Comaze
:#There are no citations on google scholar or citeseer for Hardiman (1994)
:#What is the URL this author's bio? (Camridge says this author is notable)
:#What is the full name of Hardiman? 
:#What is the page number?
:#What is the country or state of the "Industrial relations review"
:#an opinion of Hardiman (1994) or reference to scientific research?
:#There are no results for Hardiman 1994 in the British OPAC (http://catalogue.bl.uk)
:#
;Comments by Camridge
Comaze, you and other NLPbrains have tried this trick too many times.  It does not work.  The ref exists in the literature, and the google spambot is not designed as a tool for determining verifiability.  Normal people use libraries in order to do research.  Your persistent argument for the censorship of criticism is ignored. Camridge 06:29, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Comaze, I just looked up Hardiman on the web.  She is both notable and quotable.  Stop trying to waste my time.  I will revert your edits and ignore your ridiculous requests.  Camridge 07:32, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Comaze, you are the googlefan.  Look it up.Camridge 08:08, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Comaze, Wikipedia verifiability is not to be equated with the existence of an online reference.  Certainly online references are preferred (because they allow instant verification) but they are not mandatory.  Not every relevant source is online (yet).  Excising sections of the article because your're unable to locate an online version of the cited work is devious.  In the spirit of co-operation (which I expect you to reciprocate) can I suggest you use the OPAC (Online Public Access Catalogue) of major libraries rather than just Google for basic investigation?  To locate some journals you will have to use the various abstract indices available in academic libraries.  Can I also suggest that if you would like to cultivate the co-operation of editors then don't be antagonistic.flavius 09:54, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Hardiman (1994)

message: ;Current statement attributed to Summers, L. (1996) Training & Development. Alexandria, VA: American Society for Training: Jan 1996. Vol. 50, Iss. 1; pg. 30, 2 pgs 
:#"There is a general view that NLP is dubious and is not to be taken seriously in a business context (Hardiman 1994; Summers 1996)"
;Comments by Comaze
:#This ref needs to be checked. Google scholar not citeseer does not return any citations for this  article. Lynn Summers, PhD appears to be notable, we just need to verify what this author actually says about NLP. Who here has access to American Society for Training articles and can check this? Should we use RfC (HR) to check this? --Comaze 09:40, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Summers, L. (1996) 

message: What else can I say.  Just look at his history.  And look at the past versions of the article.  There is a whole lot of support for the views that are present on the article.  All we need to do is revert it.  Comaze and the other NLP fanatics are their own worst enemy.  If they like, they can have all the past criticisms reverted back to the present artcle.  HeadleyDown 13:15, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Dejakitty, there is no point in you trying to remove facts from this article in order to promote NLP.  If you want to discuss various NPOV issues then go ahead.  But don't be surprised if somebody takes your tags off when your arguments have been covered before multiple times in the archives.  Persistence does not pay on wikipedia. The only things that count are the facts. Certainly persistence towards censorship does not pay.   Comaze has been trying it on for months, and all it has led to is clearer evidence that NLP is pseudoscientific and cultlike charlatanry.  If you want to help here, then stop parroting the same old delusional rubbish as all the previous NLP fanatics.  HeadleyDown 06:23, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Dejakitty, your suggestion is ridiculous and borders on delusion.  This is not my article.  It has been developed by many editors and through substantial mediation.  Your urge towards arbitration is just as futile as the prior NLP promoters urge towards mediation and arbitration with the view to kicking out multiple non-promotional editors.  And your suggestion that arbitrators have every right to censorship is about the stupidest thing I have heard this week.  Censorship is against NPOV policy.  You (and other NLP fanatics) have verified your overzealous NLP fanaticism, and highlighted the cultlike nature of NLP.  You clearly want to censor the article and boot all neutral editors off wikipedia.  You are starting to look desperate.  HeadleyDown 00:21, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey Dejakitty, this is really funny.  You seem to think ALL organizations have some kind of self interest and are willing to censor facts in order to further that selfish interest.  Really! NLP has done nothing for you.  You got conned into thinking that it works somehow, you got deluded into publicly babbling like a scientologist, and you still havn't woken up.  Your presuppositions, (that you threaten to conduct an edit war, that arbitrators are going to support pseudoscientific cults, and that posting factual information is against wikipedia interests), are not working.  If the research shows anything, it is that NLP is unconvincing.  You would probably be better off with Hubbard's Dianetics 55 (the technology of communication).  
Your slavish advocacy for neoDianetics (NLP) is really not doing you any good at all.  DaveRight 01:42, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Everyone. please calm down and avoid personal remarks. May I suggest a wiki break to cool down? --Comaze 05:39, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Comaze, stop pretending that discussion is heated.  These are all matter of fact statements about behaviour.  Pointing out bias and working towards neutral articles is the general effort.  Camridge 08:52, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Ignore Comaze's Pretence at Rigor

message: I came here searching for "Neuro linguistic" stuff, not in the NLP sense of the word. Maybe there should be a link for "neurolinguistics".--Ratone 21:34, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neuro-Linguistic Truths 

message: I flagged the unsuitability of Crabtree as a source on either NLP or cults earlier and received no response on this matter.  I have removed the citation and the opinion attributed to Crabtree.  "Vexen Crabtree" is punk/Goth guy with a vanity web page, he's not an authority on cults, NLP, psychology or any other relevant matter and furthermore he's not cited in any reputable cult literature I have searched.  I found it embarassing that the opinions of some narcissistic -- for all practical purposes -- nobody were being cited in the same paragraph as Singer.  flavius 12:43, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No problems here :).Voice of AllT|@|ESP 16:46, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Crabtree Cult Reference 

message: I've skim (re-)read all of Frogs (what a tedious book) and am unable to locate the quote attributed to that text in the article: "However, Richard Bandler and John Grinder have also stated that "NLP is not a science... we are not scientists" (Frogs into Princes, 1979 REF PAGE)".  I did find "We are not psychologists, and we're also not theologians and theoreticians." (p.7)  Can someone else confirm my results.  Personally I can not imagine B&G uttering something as modest as "NLP is not a science...we are not scientists" especially since Bandler in his pompous seminar sermonising has claimed to be a scientist of one form or another (physicist, information scientist, computer scientist, linguist). flavius 12:53, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's expand that p.7 quote, it is quite obvious that in 1979 Bandler and Grinder do not appeal to the scientific method, "We call ourselves modelers. What we essentially do is to pay very little attention to what people say they do and a great deal of attention to what they do. And then we build ourselves a model of what they do. We are not psychologists, and we're also not theologians or theoreticians. We have no idea about the "real" nature of things, and we're not particularly interested in what's "true." The function of modeling is to arrive at descriptions which are useful. So, if we happen to mention something that you know from a scientific study, or from statistics, is inaccurate, realize that a different level of experience is being offered you here. We're not offering you something that's true, just things that are useful." (1979 p.7) --Comaze 10:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is that you HeadleyDown?  I was thinking along the same lines when I discussed the matter with Comaze on my talk page.  Although it doesn't explicitly state "we are not scientists" that statement can be reasonably inferred from the expanded quote.  flavius 03:49, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it's me who expanded the p.7 quote.. :) I forgot to sign it. --Comaze 10:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

text: DaveRight, my now deleted subsection Atheroretical Pretence contained the expanded form of the p.7 quote and it clarified the distinction between model, theory, law and hypothesis.  Comaze commented that it was OR, VoiceOfAll commented that it was OR  and that it didn't make sense.  I remain of the view that it did make sense (no-one else commented that it was nonsensical; perhaps it would have been more appropriate for VoiceOfAll to state "I don't understand it) yet I eventually came around to the view that it comprised OR and didn't not contest its deletion.  The now defunct subsection was thoroughly cited so you may want to salvage parts, it will save you some work.  I'd do it but I don't fully understand your proposed composition (or perhaps I can phrase that in an ego syntonic form as per VoiceOfAll and write, "what you are proposing doesn't make sense". (-;) flavius 03:49, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, flavius, I think the Atheroretical Pretence section was excellent and well sourced, I commented that some (not all) was OR. I don't think the entire section should have been -- it was the most intelligible piece in the entire article.. --Comaze 10:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Flavius, I've also skimmed Frogs and I am unable to find the alleged quote. There are a few quotes that indicated B&Gs stance on the topic of science. The opening page of Structure I states, "The behavioral sciences, and especially psychiatry, have always avoided theory..." (1975a p.ix). There is a quote from Patterns 2, "Erickson has dedicated his life to the exploration of these phenomenon, and if half of what he has incorporated into unconscious patterns of his own behavior can be formalized it will make a solid foundation for a science of communication" (1977 p.81).  --Comaze 22:46, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Criticism section contains the statement: "However, Bandler and Grinder in the Structure of Magic Volume I claim that, "The behavioral sciences, and especially psychiatry, have always avoided theory..." (1975a p.ix).  That is incorrect.  That quotation is from the introduction penned by Gregory Bateson.  Virginia Satir wrote the Foreword (pp.vii-viii) and Bateson wrote the Introduction (pp. ix-xi).  Both prologues are clearly signed.  I'm reluctant to edit the paragraph because I'm uncertain of the authors intent. Can the responsible person please correct this misattribution. flavius 14:07, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: HeadleyDown can you please correct this. It is in fact Gregory Bateson who wrote the introduction to Structure of Magic Vol.1. regards, --Comaze 02:55, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alleged ''Frogs'' Quote 

message: NLP is a fringe and psuedoscientific subject.  At one time or other, desperate fanatics have written extra articles on NLP bits and pieces because they were not allowed to promote on this article.  Everything can be dealt with on this article.  NLP is not rocket science.  The principles are explained very well on this article already.  HeadleyDown 02:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: NLP Principles article - just another attempt at promotion

message: How come there isn't any mention of this in the article ? Intersofia 04:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Brevity.  Anchoring isn't mentioned either.  Embedded commands and anchoring are two of many techniques.  YOUR UNCONSCIOUS mind... ;-) flavius 05:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  IMO the B.A.G.E.L. model is far less relevant than anchoring. Anchoring seems to be the one thing that all NLPers teach in the same way. --Jens Schriver 19:48, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree.  Anchoring is just classical/Pavlovian conditioning (B&G explicitly state this much in Frogs I'll provide the page ref later) and it is unrelated to NLPs core, i.e. its information processing "model" of mind and that model's central notion of memory and experience being encoded in terms of sensory information.  Although anchoring is widely and consistently taught by many trainers it is actually peripheral to NLP: it is content (a "pattern") and its teaching or explanation doesn't communicate anything of what distinguishes NLP.  flavius 22:56, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Anchoring is a different feast to Pavlovian conditioning --- each has its own unique criteria and the use is also unique. I'll provide page numbers as evidence. --Comaze 10:15, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In its basic form anchoring is a form of classical conditioning and B&G concede that much (see page 84 of Frogs).  The more fanciful "enhancements" of anchoring such as "sliding anchors", "stacking anchors" and "collapsing anchors", I agree are not classical conditioning they are rituals just like the "Lesser Banishing Ritual of the Pentagram". flavius 08:18, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

text: HeadleyDown, BAGEL is not widely taught in NLP. BAGEL model was developed by Robert Dilts and in that form is not widely used in NLP. It is generally taught as part of "sensory acuity and calibration" or other key exercise. Shall I make the necessary changes on the article? --Comaze 21:31, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Comaze, you are looking for trouble.  BAGEL may have been an acronym invented or promoted by Dilts.  But the principles are taught throughout by each and every trainer even after they were found to be total nonsense.  You are deliberately clouding issues and whitewashing once again.  I read that you are a member of the harmonious editing club.  You have just written something to cause intense antagonism and irritation.  So, now you had better kiss my ass really thoroughly. Or else!DaveRight 03:00, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Charming, Dave. I attended an NLP Practitioner course (Bandler/McKenna) last year and have read a couple of introductory books on NLP and I never heard about the BAGEL model. HeadleyDown still thinks the model is a core tenent in NLP and I frankly think he knows more about NLP than I do - so maybe the model is relevant. And Dave is right, according to my experience, that some of the principles of the BAGEL model are taught (at least 2 of 5, 'eye accessing cues' and 'language patterns'), but these principles are described elsewhere in the article, so the BAGEL section just seems like a spacefiller to me. (at least liberate the text from that awful yellow table) --Jens Schriver 19:54, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we can probably merge BAGEL with eye accessing cues and language patterns, and add a small section on sensory acuity and calibration. --Comaze 22:45, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Comaze and Jens, I suspect that you are confusing form with content.  BAGEL itself -- the mnemonic -- may be a relatively recent invention of Dilts but the content is common to all NLP ("classic code" and "new code").  I have seminar notes from Tad James, Bandler/Lavalle, Bandler/McKenna/Breen and Hall and although BAGEL doesn't appear anywhere the content does (in varying degrees depending on the teacher).  All of the elements of BAGEL are present in Grinder's approach to modeling.  It is desirable to retain the content re BAGEL even if the presentation changes because of the mnemonic value of the acronym.  Presenting all the aspects of human behaviour that are claimed to reflect the form of internal representation in a mnemonic form has pedagogic value.  Furthermore, Dilts is significant in the development of NLP and he is generally good at organising, systematising and teaching.  So reformat the BAGEL section to bring its aesthetics into line with the rest of the article but retain the content. flavius 04:51, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Good points. --Jens Schriver 18:56, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Comaze, I am happy to ignore or ridicule you and your guruworshiping quest to whitewash the psychobabbling and moneygrabbing cult of NLP.  Behavioural sciences generally avoid theory?  Thats gotta be one of the most stoopid things NLPbrains claim in order to make excuses for their own banal rituals.  DaveRight 03:23, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Comaze, I've discussed the matter of theory vis-a-vis NLP more than I would have liked in an (apparently vain) attempt to demonstrate to you that the claim to being atheoretical is false and is merely a philosophically naive means of evading justification and substantiation.  NLP is theory laden both implicitly and explicitly.  I remind you that you are yet to answer my criticisms which you concede are significant and substantive.  I listened to the recent Bandler MP3 and the Grinder Quicktime that you referred me to and in both of those interviews B&G communicate more than one theory in their explanantions of NLP and modeling.  For example, they both contend that all behavior is learnt, that poor performance and mental disease is learnt and that the remedy is more learning (Grinder is more concerned with excellence than disease but the message is the same).  For those that are interested the media are to be found at www.nlpmp3.com (Bandler interview) and www.inspiritive.com.au (Grinder interview).  Both are recent interviews and provide useful checkpoints of confirmation that the critical content of the article is "on track".  The usual pattern of B&G is that they will happily enunciate theories about mental illness, performance, neurology, cognition, memory, ethics and everything else but when they are met with contradiction they retreat into the "we don't do theory" defence.  It is also noteworthy that in the interview Bandler claims that advances in neurochemistry and neurology confirm NLPs implicit theories of learning, memory and cognition.  Beyerstein and Levelt's criticisms thus remain especially relevant.  The amount of shit pouring out of Bandler's mouth in that interview is disgusting. Both B&G explicitly reference naive pop-neurology brain lateralization ideas in their interviews.  flavius 05:36, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Embedded commands 

message: I don't think that Platt (2001) holds enough weight to be referenced alongside Sharpley. If Platt can be included Sue Knights reply published in the same magazine can also be included. To be fair if Knight is not allowed then Platt should also be removed. Given that there is a reluctance to include Downlen, let's compare and contrast Platt with Dowlen (1996). --Comaze 11:39, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Comaze, Platt actually came to your alternative promotional article to explain his research according to your wishes.  I believe you are acting churlishly and the Platt ref will remain.  Some explanations can be made concerning his method, but you ask for more evidence, you are going to get it.  I have been counting how many criticisms and negative facts I have collected that have been left out of the article.  They are on the verge of being reinstated into the article.  Or are you going to act harmonious and kiss my arse? DaveRight 03:04, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes Comaze is removing citations based on the fact that they have been removed from the refs section.  If Comaze or anyone else removes any other ref from the ref section, just revert them.  Comaze is playing his normal sneaky deletion game.  Delete something sneakily, then delete the rest of its associations later.  Comaze needs deleting and indeed punishment is on its way.  Camridge 03:30, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just don't think we're being fair here. Platt is being given too much weight to be included alongside Sharpley. I think we can remove most of the Platt references and keep Sharpley. --Comaze 22:54, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Whoever removed the Singer and Lalich 1999 ref, replace it immediately.  Camridge 03:41, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While Crabtree does appear to be highly unnoteworthy, Platt seems fine. Just because he is near Sharpley(more credible) does not mean that his refs should be deleted. If you agree to "X says Y" (A yyyy)(B yyyy) why remove B just because A is more notable B? Maybe I am not picking up on something, so correct me if I am wrong, but this seems fairly minor, especially when we still have "REF" on the page and a cleanup tag; methinks it best if we focus on those.Voice of AllT|@|ESP 23:35, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree let's focus on the more important issues. If later we could get an opinion  from an expert on wikipedia citation standards, that would be great. --Comaze 00:17, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Comaze. How about the issue of you and other NLP fanatics persistently advocating censorship? Perhaps we could place a label at the top of the article that statey your name and the fact that your history is one of persistent censorship and promotion! HeadleyDown 02:06, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Comaze, stop your antagonism.  Behaving like a fanatical zealot and deleting or advocating deletion of criticisms for 6 months, and then telling people to stop pointing it out, is either whitewash or trolling behaviour. It is intensely irritating.  Pointing out your biases, and keeping you and all the other fanatical wouldbe censors in line is the duty of every neutrally oriented editor.  HeadleyDown 01:41, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: HeadleyDown, Please avoid personal remarks, thanks. --Comaze 01:25, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Platt / Knight 

message: Here is the way it works:  
*NLPbrains demand stuff, 
*it gets provided through the hard work of neutrally minded editors, 
*then they want to delete it.
*then everybody realises that NLPbrains are zealots, and are only interested in NLP cult promotion/censorship of criticism
It happens all the time.  Do not let the NLP fanatics waste anybody elses time.  It is fine to allow them to talk gibberish, and to subsequently poke fun at them (point out their biases), but it is not ok to allow excessive censorship to appease their grubby little pseudoscientific and warped demands for myth over fact.   Already facts have been censored to keep them happy.  Those facts are on the verge of reappearing according to NPOV policy.  Just stay cool and point and laugh whenever Comaze or Dejakitty fall on their faces with their feet in each other's gob. DaveRight 03:45, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: NLP fanatic demands for arbitration/mediation/peer review are just distractions and time/effort wasting trolling tactics

message: I've done my best at merging the BAGAL/rep system section. Can someone please fill in the REFs and clean it up to make it more intelligible. and also check it for NPOV. cheers --Comaze 02:46, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Lets try to reword our put in some of these refs, as it is just a quick(hopefully) lookup. Some of the claims, while likely true, are bid too broad and sweeping.Voice of AllT|@|ESP 02:50, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks VoA, I've just heavily simplified that section. The last paragraph also still needs to be reworked. I dropped some of the 4-tuple stuff and redundancy. If I've removed anything important please correct it. I do think the criticism of rep systems and accessing cues should be mentioned. --Comaze 03:30, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Its all been reverted. Since no can make any kind of edits/cleanup/formatting or removing of excessive refs for one idea(even the featured article voter pointed this out) without an automatic blanket revert, this article is protected. Either way it would end up as it is now through reverts.Voice of AllT|@|ESP 03:42, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: VoA, I asked if anyone thought if anything removed was important, please put it back in. The changes were designed to merge BAGEL with accessing cues and rep systems to remove redundancy and simplify the description of same idea with different names. Can we work together here? This is not a newsgroup. --Comaze 04:21, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

text: DaveRight, please avoid personal remarks. thanks --Comaze 04:11, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Perhaps, but I am trying to kill things like "this is y"(reference yyyy; reference yyyy; reference yyyy; reference yyyy; reference yyyy) or "(reference yyyy) says". It is excessive, looks bad, and some of it is against format guidelines. However this all just gets reverted when I change it. I re-arrange a paragraph and it gets reverted.Voice of AllT|@|ESP 03:58, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If two credable refs are listed for a statement, then the statement is solid and no reasonable person should challenge it, especially if they know that other sources can be found.Voice of AllT|@|ESP 04:43, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  BAGEL / Accessing cues and representational systems 

message: Since pretty much every behaviour guideline is being broken (with no apparent consequences) on this talk page and because the tone is so foul and negative, I thought it would be good with some on-topic entertainment. Here the fabulous  Derren Brown works his "magic" in a staged NLP/self-development seminar (complete with eye accessing cues, anchors, language patterns and embedded commands). Interestingly, I think both camps will feel validated by watching it. Oh, we also get to see a reenactment of the (in)famous Milgram experiment. Enjoy! --Jens Schriver 20:46, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Jens, I'll excuse the smarmy and self-righteous "finger waving" of your post (which is entirely consistent withe the Scandinavian ethnic stereotype) to point out that (a) you haven't supplied the URL for the media you are referring to; and (b) you are one of the people behind CheatHouse.com a site dedicated to profiting from academic plagiarism -- your moral admonition is as credible as Bandler's claim that he wanted to take ownership of NLP for the good of the people. :-)flavius 02:58, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Here's a hug for you, flavius. And the missing link . --Jens Schriver 04:07, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't worry about the hug :-) Do you know anyone sufficiently competent in English and Dutch that can translate Professor Levelt's NLP article ? flavius 09:16, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My Dutch is good enough to extract the main points, but I can't do a proper, full translation. Yes, I know people that can. Would the whole article need to be translated word-by-word or just some parts? --Jens Schriver 11:59, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The whole document would be ideal.  If you could place it on one of your web sites so that we can link to it from the article that would be great (it would also bring traffic to your site). flavius 13:56, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Commercial Break 

message: Flavius presents a good comprimise, so I will unlock the article on the condition that only reference conversion to superscripts and end notes is permitted. This is a good guideline to cleanup and to prevent edit wars.Voice of AllT|@|ESP 13:30, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good. First go over the ^ on the references section and see what code name I assign it (like frogs). Then replace the corresponding Harvard notes with .Voice of AllT|@|ESP 03:09, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I'd like to request editors use html comments around any citations they plan to remove (in leiu of deleting them). These citations carry strong evidence of the edit history on the article and are useful for future editors. I trust all editors will find this suggestion amicable. Peace. Metta Bubble 04:49, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Unprotected on one condition

message: I suggest that we should all stop doing edits and lets give VoA complete freedom (referencing, restructuring, cleanup, etc) to improve this article, if he doesn't mind undertaking this task. We can comment on the final draft using the peer review page. I don't mind further personal attacks as long as you can bring yourself to consider this idea in a positive way. --Dejakitty 17:48, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Any help converting references would be welcome, preferably from the anti-NLP group, so as to avoid accusions if an error where made. The subarticle is still there, and can be edited as desired.Voice of AllT|@|ESP 17:52, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Lets stop doing further edits and give VoA a freehand to improve the article