Talk:Neuro-linguistic programming/Archive 3

message: It seems that one of the main edits in question is this.
I first learned of NLP from my optomotrist Dr. Erwin Jay; I later researched the topic that night. I researched this topic again, only to confirm that NLP is highly variant and vague in all but a few key points, such as program one's self(in one or more aspects) to perform more effectiviely by adapting a mindset modeled after one that already seems to work. I have seen nothing that says that NLP cannot involve such "energy"; such opinions will vary from one NLP enthusiast to another...
Comaze, I would have to say that your reversions are quite tedious and unproductive. While disagreement is fine, reverting articles all day does nothing but increase stress. For such a vague idea as NLP, you should not be so selective in which views you keep on the article.
Faxx, and anyone else for that matter, if you don't have anything constructive to add, then leave.
As for the others, making a dramatic list of criticism of Comaze, especially during edit wars, is extremely futile(see Talk:Ted Kennedy/Archive_5). I have been through this type of thing before and learned from it. Also, he has done nothing to get banned(indef. block), so such suggestions are just ridiculous. If you do want an RfC against Comaze, then put it elsewhere. Article talk pages are not the place for this.Voice of  All @|Esperanza|E M 03:33, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Voice of  All, thank you for your comments. I will focus my attention on discussing to establish consensus (especially on controversial issues). --Comaze 03:53, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This is an interesting topic, so I might stay, but I still have to bone up on some of the smaller details. I am considering archiving this talk so we have a clean slate; this helped out for the Ted Kennedy article (altough ultimately some disputes were never resolved due to trolls). I don't see Comaze as a troll, so this should work if executed, assuming everyone is willing to drop the hatchet...hopefullyVoice of  All @|Esperanza|E M 04:11, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Hi Justin, welcome to wikipedia. I agree largely with your assessment of NLP and of the article, though it is improving slowly. Please stick around and help, many hands make the job easier. (btw... use 4 tildes after your post and wiki converts it to your name and time of post... like my signoff now) GregA 06:47, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: This whole dispute is going nowhere

message: Well, I found that listing Comaze's activities helped progress a lot (the Comaze reversions/deletions were reduced to one or two daily).  I will move it to arbitration though just to see what they think of it.  I think its about time.  If it stops him from winding everyone up on their personal talk pages, then that would be great.
Totally grateful that someone else is writing about how vague and broad NLP is.  Some proNLP editors here seem to think that only a few obscure epistemology books are warranted, with the theoretical or scientific ones being automatically deleted.  I feel the page itself is coming along fine with NPOV (albeit quite slowly).  Hopefully proNLPers will also stop demanding umpteen refs per criticism.  Personally, I just want to keep it all in order. CheersHeadleyDown 04:06, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: "Totally grateful that someone else is writing about how vague and broad NLP is." I am not sure what you mean by that. (Nevermind, I thought I saw disgraceful, not grateful, I am too tired--need sleep:-))
NLP is basically like innovation in engineering--see what behavior patterns works and integrate it into your system. While spirituality can certainly be added, it is neither a contradiction to NLP nor an implicit feature.Voice of  All @|Esperanza|E M 04:15, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Keeping it productive; Voice_Of_All

message: Because NLP can use specific linguistic cues to elicit speech from designated subjects, a call-demand network operates methodically to collect words and phrases, primarily through the telephone.  Network operators can also be said to razz their subjects, in addition to other judgmental cues applied during call sessions such as scolding, condemnation, coaxing, cajoling, threatening, teasing, and wheedling.  All words and phrases elicited during each 'session' are used to affect social change in some way, using vocal demand strategies as evidence of the application of NPL to seek rewards, enrichment, or social approval outside the range of the subject respondent.
Beadtot 04:38, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Beadtot, Do you mean the other NLP (ie. Natural Language Processing)? --Comaze 05:04, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sounds like he means NeuroLP, in addition to various other strategies (eg the logical fallacies can be USED to argue - ie attack the man instead of what he says, etc), even all the things the wikipedia say NOT to use can be used by people to argue reasonably effectively (just not accurately). If you have effective patterns of communication (and influence), people who want to communicate effectively (and influence) will use them (for good and for bad). GregA 07:36, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  organized crime uses of NLP speech elicitations 

message: === Sensory acuity ===
I want to add something about sensory acuity. This may go in the NLP Modeling (or NLP training) section. Basically, sensory acuity emphasizes the development and calibration skills of five physical senses: visual perception, hearing (sense), taste, feeling, and olfaction. Comments please. --Comaze 22:47, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It would seem useful - it's another thing that differentiates NLP from other change work. I don't know where it would go - it's something crucial to modeling excellence as well as calibrating a subjects state for change work. GregA 23:09, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I guess we can find a place for sensory acuity now - if we're listing 5 elements of information gathering followed by "eye accessing cues" and "meta-model", it's worth having sensory acuity added (for detecting eye movements, subtle changes in physiology (breathing/posture/movement)(and voice tone). Headley also was saying earlier that perceptual positions doesn't belong in the presupposition area, it may belong here (as part of information gathering). It kinda brings the whole thing together in some way.. though again, I'm still working on the full form in my head (please comaze don't post anything yet - throw in some ideas!). ANyone?. GregA 22:49, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Merged.Voice of  All @|Esperanza|E M 00:50, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Merged.Voice of  All @|Esperanza|E M 00:58, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: NLP info

message: I want to add something about sensory acuity. This may go in the NLP Modeling (or NLP training) section. Basically, sensory acuity emphasizes the development and calibration skills of five physical senses: visual perception, hearing (sense), taste, feeling, and olfaction. Comments please. --Comaze 22:47, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It would seem useful - it's another thing that differentiates NLP from other change work. I don't know where it would go - it's something crucial to modeling excellence as well as calibrating a subjects state for change work. GregA 23:09, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I guess we can find a place for sensory acuity now - if we're listing 5 elements of information gathering followed by "eye accessing cues" and "meta-model", it's worth having sensory acuity added (for detecting eye movements, subtle changes in physiology (breathing/posture/movement)(and voice tone). Headley also was saying earlier that perceptual positions doesn't belong in the presupposition area, it may belong here (as part of information gathering). It kinda brings the whole thing together in some way.. though again, I'm still working on the full form in my head (please comaze don't post anything yet - throw in some ideas!). ANyone?. GregA 22:49, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sensory acuity 

message: I think we should look at merging the metamodel stuff from the parallel page.GregA 00:24, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Merged.Voice of  All @|Esperanza|E M 00:50, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Metamodel

message: I think we should look at merging the modeling stuff from the parallel page.
Also, Dilts just announced  that his previous modeling has often not been NLP-modeling, so we should include that. GregA 00:24, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Merged.Voice of  All @|Esperanza|E M 00:58, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Modeling

message: Hi everyone and VoiceOfAll.
When I put in a link, I read a passage and think "is there some more information that someone interested in this page would like to read, to further their knowledge of this subject". Often there is. There are also things we can link to that aren't really related - eg: Bandler taught a novice woman... - where it distracts.
... Where do you think a link belongs, and where doesn't it? I see VoiceOfAll putting links into years - like "Bandler 1988" - is this distracting as it doesn't further the readers knowledge of NLP or Bandler, or not? In the case of a year, I think the readers would notice that pretty quickly and know every year is just generic (as long as we never link to the actual "bandler-88" book).
... Thanks for your thoughts :)  GregA 23:09, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Come to think of it, it is a bit annoying, so away I go to edit page...this will take a while to delete though...:)Voice of  All @|Esperanza|E M 23:35, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I think that all the reference links are back to normal now.Voice of  All @|Esperanza|E M 23:56, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Useful links?

message: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Neuro-linguistic_programming/_archive2#Summary_of_reasoning_for_my_changes
Once again, I'll put a smaller amount of these in and also see if I can be even more neutral. If someone could comment specifically on disagreements this would be excellent. I firmly believe that a NPOV will only come about through discussing, I can't do it alone (it'll be my POV), and neither can anyone else. GregA 23:27, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Greg, Just write from a neutral point of view (NPOV). A test for good NPOV is that when a third party reads it, she cannot cannot detect bias. I am going to work on my style as well. For every change we do, let's consider it from the perspective of all major viewpoints. That is something we need to reach consensus on, what groups represent the major viewpoints for this article? --Comaze 23:51, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: agreed.Voice of  All @|Esperanza|E M 00:38, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

text: OK.Voice of  All @|Esperanza|E M 00:38, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Noted.Voice of  All @|Esperanza|E M 00:38, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I definetely agree here.Voice of  All @|Esperanza|E M 00:38, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

text: OK.Voice of  All @|Esperanza|E M 00:38, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

text: OK.Voice of  All @|Esperanza|E M 00:38, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I see this has been reverted. Not sure off hand who did. Anyone want to say where they get the idea that a practitioners goal is to change someone's state? As view-of-all says, that may happen (it may be what is done or a step towards the goal... but the goal is to help someone get their goal. GregA 13:30, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I think you might be confusing neutral wording with neutral POV. As you say - helping others is something EVERY care worker wants - and many NLP practitioners are care workers, I'd say it's a majority view and thus NPOV. Check out the wiki NPOV stuff - neutral doesn't mean giving all POV equal status, it means representing majority and minority viewpoints as such. Speed seduction is something where NLP processes can be applied and is a minority use (you are still using the word "NLP remote seducer" without reference or definition), and the minority use is already described elsewhere. If we want to get to what NLP practitioners want, checking out the advertising for NLP courses at least gives a clue to what trainers believe students want or will get out of it. I notice in the list I gave earlier a great focus on effective communication and development (both self and others - they often delete WHO it is applied to (eg: "reframe and reorganise perceptions" of who? self or someone else?). Most practitioners would never say the goal was to change someone's state - what would you want to do that for? It can often be a step towards the goal but saying it's the goal misses the point entirely. GregA 23:06, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Umm, Beadtot, can you clarify what you're talking about? I've got no idea. GregA 03:04, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOVing

message: Reposted user's edit explanations.Voice of  All @|Esperanza|E M 00:43, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: agreed.Voice of  All @|Esperanza|E M 00:38, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: OK.Voice of  All @|Esperanza|E M 00:38, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Noted.Voice of  All @|Esperanza|E M 00:38, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I definetely agree here.Voice of  All @|Esperanza|E M 00:38, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

text: OK.Voice of  All @|Esperanza|E M 00:38, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

text: OK.Voice of  All @|Esperanza|E M 00:38, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I see this has been reverted. Not sure off hand who did. Anyone want to say where they get the idea that a practitioners goal is to change someone's state? As view-of-all says, that may happen (it may be what is done or a step towards the goal... but the goal is to help someone get their goal. GregA 13:30, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I think you might be confusing neutral wording with neutral POV. As you say - helping others is something EVERY care worker wants - and many NLP practitioners are care workers, I'd say it's a majority view and thus NPOV. Check out the wiki NPOV stuff - neutral doesn't mean giving all POV equal status, it means representing majority and minority viewpoints as such. Speed seduction is something where NLP processes can be applied and is a minority use (you are still using the word "NLP remote seducer" without reference or definition), and the minority use is already described elsewhere. If we want to get to what NLP practitioners want, checking out the advertising for NLP courses at least gives a clue to what trainers believe students want or will get out of it. I notice in the list I gave earlier a great focus on effective communication and development (both self and others - they often delete WHO it is applied to (eg: "reframe and reorganise perceptions" of who? self or someone else?). Most practitioners would never say the goal was to change someone's state - what would you want to do that for? It can often be a step towards the goal but saying it's the goal misses the point entirely. GregA 23:06, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Umm, Beadtot, can you clarify what you're talking about? I've got no idea. GregA 03:04, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Summary of reasoning for my changes(REPOSTED)

message: On reading through I noticed a few common themes spread througout the article. I'm wondering if it would be useful to group some of those themes under a heading. For example - "NLP and Theory"
There are also certain things which simply repeat what is in another section. I know sometimes this is necessary, but should we move others to the appropriate section? In particular, I'm thinking in "Goals" section, the last paragraph is entirely criticism (which I'd say wasn't a goal of NLP)... perhaps that should be in the LGAT criticism section, and "extraordinary claims"?.
The line at the end of NLP Presuppositions that Dilts modeled Jesus seems to be perfect for the modeling section.
New Age stuff belongs under spirituality. 
As I said, sometimes it is necessary as a reminder (eg: under eye accessing cues we should note that PRS studies do not support PRS, see section X). Thoughts? GregA 02:36, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed the criticism paragraph from the "goals" section as it is redundant.Voice of  All @|Esperanza|E M 03:46, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grouping common themes? 

message: Hi Voice_of_all.  I think its fine to exclude the (quasi-spiritual) line, but it was there because it was quite scientific, and had a good description of what NLP is.  I suggest a more neutral line:  "NLP is a method proposed for programming the mind".  This is by far the widest perception of NLP, and it gives a very clear description of what it is.  The study of subjective experience is pretty unclear on its own, although it is also used as a technical explanation.  I will include it in the article.  Feel free to remove it if you feel it is not helpful.JPLogan 05:16, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The term "programming" is actually disliked in some NLP trainings, as it's a mechanistic metaphor for the work and implies the brain is like a computer (which was a more common metaphor 30 years ago). The existing "study of the structure of subjective experience" at least comes from multiple sources and is still current enough GregA 05:32, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  AliceDeGrey, "programming the mind" is a logical type error. Since in NLP we're dealing with logic, it is really not a good idea to start with an error in logic. --Comaze 07:35, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I agree with "NLP is a method proposed for programming the mind". It is short and concise. It therefore makes a good opening sentence.Voice of  All @|Esperanza|E M 11:05, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Who added "or a pseudoscientific self help development in the same mould as Dianetics" to the opening paragraph? Talk about bias. We need to revert the opening section back a couple of days. (including the interdisciplinary stuff) GregA 05:48, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggested opening line

message: ::I notice in the opening we are saying "processes include behaviour change... through techniques such as reframing". Behaviour change can be a goal someone has... reframing is a process (or technique... they're roughly synonymous) - what exactly are we trying to say?. I also notice that there's an emphasis on sense-based and the metamodel came before any of the representation system stuff... I've added "linguistic-based" though I'm sure that can be improved. GregA 07:02, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Damn... that whole 3rd paragraph repeats a bit of the 2nd paragraph... I'll revert and take another look. Comments/thoughts  please! GregA 07:06, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Process/technique

message: :(Interdisciplinary does not mean applied to many disciplines (as the link shows).) JPLogan 07:38, 22 October 2005
::(Excellent catch JP ('interdisciplinary'). The 2 points were combined but should have been separated. Have cleared it up.) GregA 23:06, 22 October 2005
::JP made a good point and we separated these 2 issues out. The page then read:
 --
NLP has been applied to a variety of contexts including business, sports performance, the development of psychic abilities, and covert seduction techniques.
It is claimed that NLP is highly interdisciplinary (Grinder & Bandler, 1975a; ch.1, Grinder & Bostic, 2001). In addition, NLP can be applied to multiple fields: 
*Modeling someone effective can be done in any field (including therapy, sports, business, sales, physics).
*Communication and change processes can be used personally and in business, sales, coaching, therapy, and so on (Bandler & Grinder, 1979, pg 133)
 --
::Then JP removed the whole 2nd paragraph... GregA
:(remove redundant line. previous line says it all) JPLogan 02:14, 24 October 2005
::(Agreed with JPs comment that both lines were equivalent. For clarity, I swapped which lines were kept.)
:(Mmm, this version is definitely more concise and accurate (variety of contexts is more neutral (less hype) than multidisciplinary)) Bookmain 3:49, 24 October 2005
::
::Earlier, JP made clear that "interdisciplinary" and "applied to multiple fields" were different. Now he says both points are included in the single sentence above, which is clearly not true. 
::In response to Bookmain - the point is that NLP processes can be applied to multiple fields, and making this apparent is useful. (multidisciplinary is a separate issue). Having 2 points also clearly separates NLP modeling vs NLP process. Listing psychic is not representative of common applications. I'm posting here, instead of reverting, to discuss. If you think the choice is important (either way), please give reasons GregA 04:56, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: "NLP can be applied to multiple fields"

message: The opening should tell what NLP is without multiple POV. Multiple POV have a place in the article, just not in the Opening. I have Introducing NLP, by Joseph O'Connor and John Seymour and am proposing an opening based on the opening of that book.
Neuro-linguistic programming (NLP) is a way of studying how people excel in any field and teaching discovered patterns to others. NLP considers personal excellence in terms of both art and science. Art because everybody brings their unique personality and style to what they do, and science because there is a method and process used to discover patterns used to achieve excellence. Hackwrench 15:35, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Opening

message: Hi Greg.  That modeling the mind stuff in the first line really is a bit silly.  I'd have it as it was.  A method proposed for programming the mind is totally clear and disambiguates the NLP subject much more clearly from nat-lang-programming computers and NationalLawParty etc.AliceDeGrey 06:53, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: My thought is that since modeling is distinct from NLP-processes it should be treated as such. I agree that there is a better way than what I wrote. I don't much agree with the opening at all ...  GregA 07:00, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: opening line

message: Should we use the term tenet or pattern?
I have done a search of my NLP books and have not found any major references to tenet, pattern seems to be more general and more widely used... google
*"neuro-linguistic programming"+tenet: 633 
*"neuro-linguistic programming"+pattern:58,800
--Comaze 07:51, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Headley.. You just added a Dilts reference to the tenets section. Is that for the whole thing, or just verbal predicates? Thanks GregA 11:25, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Thanks Headley. Does dilts call them Tenets too? GregA
Sure, Greg.  He uses the word tenet.HeadleyDown 02:12, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Someone said (Headley?) that calling it "early patterns" implied they weren't in use any more, etc... almost "historical patterns". I tend to agree with this. I also don't like the word tenet, given that the patterns aren't beliefs or principles. I also haven't heard NLP call them tenets, certainly not in core books. Has anyone got a "3rd option"!? :) GregA 11:06, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I'm thinking that, as presented, they look awfully like a summary of the observables used for information gathering and modeling. Not sure how that all fits together... but just a thought. GregA 13:13, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

text: hehe... I'm going to remove the wiki internal link to "tenet". Follow the link if you have any qualms about it :) GregA 22:56, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Can someone give me a definition of tenet as we are using it here? --Comaze 08:40, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  terminology: tenet or pattern? 

message: The lists of who does what are very arguable.  Bandler now teaches dhe, right, but he promotes NLP and writes books about it.  Same with Tony Robbins.  I think people understand that NLP is broad and mixed according to the present article, there is no need to make people crosseyed with acronyms.  You seem to want to turn criticisms into excuses.  DaveRight 04:21, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure how to approach the inconsistencies. The previous page listed "inconsistency" as one of the criticisms, but had no information at all. I AGREE that inconsistency is a criticism. I am happy to discuss it in a different way (eg remove all the DHE/NAC stuff). I think it's worth criticising, perhaps describing somewhere else, the wide range of trainer quality or practitioner standards etc. I'm surprised you don't want to discuss it.GregA 04:50, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I rewrote the inconsistencies, made it heaps shorter, but 211.x.x.x had edited just before me. Shorter version below: GregA 05:49, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I don't think we need an inconsistencies section at all.  Any neutral fact that is there could be placed in the buzzwords sectionAliceDeGrey 08:49, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, puting perhapses in really makes things unclear.  JPLogan 09:03, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

text:  Quality control is not the issue, or centralization.  The problem is more about lack of regulation.  This is not really an inconsistency issue. Inconsistency does not make it difficult to assess, rather spurious claims and misleading pseudoscience makes it difficult for non-scientific consumers to determine whether it is science or not.  It certainly doesn't make scientific review difficult.  There  have been quite enough reviews, and they say NLP is unsupportable.  So on reflection, the section is not needed at all.JPLogan 09:03, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Inconsistencies

message: In the 1980s Bandler attempted to control the term NLP - perhaps to guide the development of the field, or perhaps to make money through royalties. Grinder and other early developers fought him and the term NLP (and Neuro-linguistic Programming) was deemed to be generic. 
The term NLP is used inconsistently, and some practitioners tie the term NLP to their other fields of interest. There is no central quality control, so anyone can potentially say they are an NLP practitioner or trainer -  most trainers list their background and training as part of their credentials (the quality of training varies). Some NLP practitioners register themselves under psychotherapy or coaching which has greater quality control. The length of so called NLP Practitioner training varies from 7 days to 24 days.
These inconsistencies make it difficult to discern the quality of an NLP training or NLP practitioner. In addition, ""many of the NLP materials are proprietary (and) they are not available in the scientific literature or on the open market (Druckman & Swets, 1988, pg 144 ). Without access to this information, it is hard for customers to assess what a course teaches (and hard for scientific review).
:I don't think we need an inconsistencies section at all.  Any neutral fact that is there could be placed in the buzzwords sectionAliceDeGrey 08:49, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, puting perhapses in really makes things unclear.  JPLogan 09:03, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Quality control is not the issue, or centralization.  The problem is more about lack of regulation.  This is not really an inconsistency issue. Inconsistency does not make it difficult to assess, rather spurious claims and misleading pseudoscience makes it difficult for non-scientific consumers to determine whether it is science or not.  It certainly doesn't make scientific review difficult.  There  have been quite enough reviews, and they say NLP is unsupportable.  So on reflection, the section is not needed at all.JPLogan 09:03, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Inconsistency (shorter version)

message: I brevified the list of to dos at the top of this page because we have easily handled those tasks already.  NLP is scientifically unsupported full stop.  NLP has been defined for the article and we are writing about that.  We really don't need to be re-organizing the sections all the time.  The merging finished ages ago, and stuff was integrated from the alternative page even before the NLPpromoters started adding extra. I certainly saw no need to merge any more info or hype over two weeks ago.  All you really need to do is accept the facts and get on with NPOV.JPLogan 09:27, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you think that it would be useful to agree if something is agreed, rather than saying it is.?
Besides, someone just removed an important distinction from the opening section! GregA 11:32, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I'm happy to keep the PRS research if we include Heap & Druckman's say as I've quoted before. GregA 11:32, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Absolutely not. When it comes to Heap or Druckman quotes, I want to say enough that both you and I would say "yep, that's what they said". GregA 13:27, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I see you've expanded the science section, I'll take a look now. I think, and hope you'll agree, that if we start changing each others science section we'll get nowhere. I'd like to suggest I write an alternative to your POV... and that slowly we work out the differences till we reach what we and others consider NPOV. That's my best bet on a way of working together to get there, what do you think? GregA 23:09, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Hi 203.x. I think it very worthwhile to bring out as many sources as we can in order to make the article reflect what NLP is etc. It would not work to quote all the sources - but is there some way we can note what we base something on if we're making a statement about majority or minority views? IMO, there are lots of statements with negative inferences at the moment IMO. GregA 03:52, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

text: That's interesting. I'd like to learn more about what they say regarding nominalisations - could you tell me anything? THanks (you can use my talk page or email if you like to keep it clean here) GregA 11:32, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Thanks GregA
===Still disputed...===
I thought it worth starting a list of what is still disputed
#That engrams are part of NLP (no primary NLP sources, 1 NLP book)
#Tenets as a term, and concept.
#Background of NLP including heavy New age influence
#claim to science etc
#fair representation of criticisms
#Is NLP an organisation or an approach? 00:03, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: To do

message: I thought it worth starting a list of what is still disputed
#That engrams are part of NLP (no primary NLP sources, 1 NLP book)
#Tenets as a term, and concept.
#Background of NLP including heavy New age influence
#claim to science etc
#fair representation of criticisms
#Is NLP an organisation or an approach? 00:03, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Still disputed...

message: I redrew the Eye Accessing Cues chart and stuck it in . This replaces the chart with the multiple frowning faces. This is based on the chart most commonly found in NLP training. --Comaze 11:10, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:   The image I drew is similar to use in NLP. A quick google test proves beyond doubt. Maybe the image did not refresh for you yet. --Comaze 23:17, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redraw of Eye Accessing Cues chart 

message: I've have consulted the Wikipedia:WikiProject_Fact_and_Reference_Check policies. I think the best way to move the article forward is to use Harvard standard citations with Wikipedia:Footnotes. Are there any objection or comments on this? regards, --Comaze 05:51, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Would you care to elaborate... (I'll look it up when i have some time... a bit busy) GregA 06:35, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've added an example with the first referemce. This will help us with external fact checks. It is going to take some time to add notes for every reference. Then we can probably remove the references that are not actually used. --Comaze 23:10, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed standard for citation 

message: There are abundant sources of engrams within NLP literature (Certainly more than the ONE reference that Greg is trying to make everyone believe).  The sources that explicitly mention engrams are (excluding abundant weblinks):
*Sinclair. J. (1992) An ABC of NLP. Publisher ASPEN. ISBN: 0951366017 
*Dilts, R. (1998) Modeling With Nlp M E T a Publications ISBN: 0916990419
*Derks and Hollander (1998) Systemic Voodoo.  (published paper on NLP) 
*Derks, L. & Goldblatt, R.,(1985) The Feedforward Conception of Consciousness: A Bridge between Therapeutic Practice and Experimental Psychology. The William James Foundation, Amsterdam. (published paper on NLP)
*Levelt W. (1995) Hoedt u voor Neuro-Linguistisch Programmeren!  Intermediair 17 Nov pp113 (Published Paper)
*Overdurf, J, Silverthorn, J (1995) Training Trances: Multi-Level Communication in Therapy and Training Metamorphous Press; 3rd edition ISBN: 1555520693
*Drenth, J.D. (2003) Growing anti-intellectualism in Europe; a menace to science. Studia Psychologica, 2003, 45, 5-13 (Published paper with section on NLP)
Then there is the mass of German, French (PNL), Dutch and Spanish refs and links that also state engrams (engrammen).
:Yes, we knew the Sinclair one, that one minor author mentions Engrams.
:Dilts - please supply a page number. You could have one major source atleast who supports what you say.
:Derks and Hollander - I went to the link and it doesn't say Engram. Who's Derks anyway?
:Derks - minor source.
:Levelt - minor source. 
:Overdurf - is this an NLP source?
:Drenth - is this an NLP source?
:For these it would seem that Engram doesn't even deserve a mention as a minority view. Still, it wasn't you who said you had 10 good sources. GregA 02:27, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Those 3 links don't support your argument. The first one says that NLP doesn't talk about these things, but describes neurological theory. The second is a definition of the word Engram (nothing to do with NLP), and the 3rd is an extension to NLP they call "Humanistic NL Psychology". GregA 02:27, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  JPLogan, In this edit, you remove Transformational Syntax ? Does this conflict with your engram research? I have found over 70 books that cite Structure of Magic Volume which is based on Transformational Grammar. In the "Curriculum Journal" there is a published reponse that describes NLP as based on  Batesonian Cyberbetic epistemology, and Chomsky's transformational grammar   , this is consistant with what is published by Malloy (2005). I have found over 70 books that cite to Structure of Magic Volume I (Grinder & Bandler, 1975a); firmly on transformational grammar. --Comaze 04:16, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

text: JPLogan - give some references with page numbers... if NLP books talk about engrams in terms of engram circuits - give me a page number!? Could you also please tell me what an "NLP Theorist" is and does, who falls into that class, etc. You may say I'm being churlish, demanding so many references (hey... I didn't figure ONE primary NLP source was so many)... but what am I demanding to be deleted? You have said many times that more refs are on the way - please, I totally accept non NLP sources talking about NLP and engrams, that point is proven (IMO). I just haven't seen any primary NLP source (though apparently Dilts mentions it in his book, if you can give a page I can call someone to confirm... that would be ONE source :). GregA 05:49, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikipedia NPOV sources of engrams in NLP

message: ::Presups are background beliefs.  Books about NLP treat them variably.  Some say they are beliefs, and some "as if".  As far as I am concerned "as if" is just a technique to instill beliefs.AliceDeGrey 06:40, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: AliceDeGrey, To be precise, in NLP, a presupposition is a class of language pattern from transformational grammar. A belief is a type of quantifier. Both are members of a set of language patterns from transformational grammar. Do you need page numbers to check this? "As if" comes from Vaihinger, H. The Philosophy of 'As if.' (1924) which is referenced in Structure of Magic Vol.1 (Grinder & Bandler, 1975) --Comaze 06:50, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: (rv Presups are background beliefs. Deleting this clarifying fact is ignorant arrogant and narrow.) AliceDeGrey 06:37, 24 October 2005
Alice your sentence at the top of this section is pretty right. But calling them "background beliefs" on the page defines them incorrectly, especially for that context. Anyway I reverted, you reverted back. "Presuppositions" refer to a linguistic pattern, they refer to something that must be true for the sentence to make sense. That doesn't mean it is true, and some presuppositions are really obvious (like the classic "are you still beating your wife?" - which whether the answer is "yes" or "no", still assumes (presupposes!) that you have a wife and that you used to beat her.
People use presuppositions all the time, and they tell you something about the beliefs of the person using them. These are usually at a different level than the more commonly spoken beliefs like "Do you believe in God?" etc. When anyone uses a presupposition, the person listening may take on the speaker's belief. "Which dress do you like best?" presupposes the dresses are different and you like one better than the other. "What can I get you to drink?" - presupposes they want a drink etc.
NLP practitioners use presuppositions in 2 ways (as you say above)
#Listening to presuppositions of someone to detect their beliefs, and
#Use a presupposition, to perform belief change work.
When an NLP practitioner uses a presupposition, they may or may not believe it. "How would you like to explore this?" (presupposes it can be explored and there are multiple ways), "Are you aware of your positive intention?" (presupposes positive intent), "What did you learn from that mistake?" (presupposes they did learn). 
The practitioner might not believe the client had actually learnt, but they ask anyway so that the client explores something from a different angle (and so they will learn). There are many presuppositions built into NLP processes that are part of making the process more effective.
All the presuppositions that are built into NLP processes can be listed out.... and that's pretty well the list of NLP Presuppositions. We act as if these things are true, and change work is more effective. Some people also believe them. And some of the presuppositions are true.
Alice refers to background beliefs. I'm not sure what a background belief is, in contrast to a normal belief. Presuppositions either indicate a belief, or are a linguistic pattern for working with beliefs - by specifying one half, in the context of the OTHER half, he makes the article less clear.
Alice uses presuppositions of course. For instance "Deleting this clarifying fact" (above) presupposes that what was deleted was a fact. It also presupposes it was a "clarifying" fact - (which also means that there are other types of facts). He also says that me deleting it is ignorant, arrogant and narrow. So much for no insults. So much for staying neutral. And so much for his understanding presuppositions - Alice removes the whole importance of the Presuppositions of NLP when he uses the meta-model definition. Comments? GregA 09:03, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I'm "narrowing" the viewpoint? I was expanding it. You are quoting presuppositions out of context Alice. But you're also agreeing with me... which I'm confused about :). I said Presuppositions can be used for belief change... which you are also saying. NLP has no personal desires, but sure I guess NLP practitioners don't want to be seen as a cult any more than Psychologists want to be seen as a cult. I'm interested in your responses to comaze. Oh, and you ARE right that presuppositions generally are beliefs (still not sure what a background belief is, but fair enough:).... it's just that presuppositions can also be used to influence beliefs without believing it yourself, and in NLP we do at times do just that GregA 10:03, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Greg & Alice, Further I ask you to compare, what is the difference between a belief, a presupposition and a operational procedure? --Comaze 10:15, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Hi Alice - I don't know how to respond, when you say I'm narrowing to a narrow view, can you give some more detail? Presuppositions have 2 meanings, the original words encapsulated both, your change restricts it to 1 meaning... that to me seems to be narrower. Thanks GregA 13:05, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Presups

message: Comaze. Replace the original rich image showing multiple faces for eye accessing cues.  OR did you find a way to destroy it forever?AliceDeGrey 07:05, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I personally think it's a bad habit to alter your POV based on other users. Write an article that is good. GregA 10:32, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I agree, Greg.  I will no longer compromise.203.186.238.157 01:07, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Eye Accessing Cues Image

message: Ok, I've just completed some minor copyedits. In the middle of this AliceDeGrey reverted offering this comment, "12:17, 24 October 2005 AliceDeGrey (Reverting blatantly biased headlining)". IMO I was within wikipedia copyedit guidelines making sure that I keep the meaning (unless it is false). I've removed all shortened words such as "you've" except if in quotes. Changes to headlines follow the wikipedia standards, "Headings should generally be nouns (History) and not prepositional phrases (About the history of...), and have only a single capital letter (apart from proper nouns, etc)."Wikipedia:How_to_copy-edit  best regards --Comaze 12:53, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Headlines 

message: Hi VoA.  You wanted to know about who gives negative reviews of the research on NLP (I think you asked JP, but here is my offering)
Here is a good recent review.
Von Bergen, C W, Barlow Soper, Gary T Rosenthal, Lamar V Wilkinson (1997). Selected alternative training techniques in HRD. Human Resource Development Quarterly 8(4): 281-294.  
Von Bergen etal give a good overview and quite recent, showing in relation to other dubious techniques how NLP is pseudo.  Makes wild claims, but then it goes through an overview of the research.  It quotes both Druckheim and swets 1988 Sharpley 1997 plus others.  The three questions it asks are; Is nlp based on real knowledge of how the brain works neurologically?   Do the proposed relationships in NLP really exist?  and does NLP produce the claimed results?  It gives a negative on each (1no it is in error, 2no, and 3no). 
Scott O. Lilienfeld, Steven Jay Lynn, and Jeffrey M. Lohr (Eds.) (2003) Science and Pseudoscience in Clinical Psychology. Guilford Press, New York. ISBN: 1-57230-282-1,
NLP is classed as a pseudoscientific subject based on it being scientifically unsupported despite the constant claims that it will work miracles and is probably the best synthesis of psych available etc.  It goes into depth about the silly claims made even by Bandler who talks about photographic memory, curing people forever of alcoholism even after a single chat etc.  It also explains further how NLP is pseudo because they try to immunise against testing by claiming it is not science but art or magic etc and that they refuse to accept the actual results and simply go on with promotion and making money.  
Drenth, J.D. (2003) Growing anti-intellectualism in Europe; a menace to science. Studia Psychologica, 2003, 45, 5-13
Drenth 2003 is also a good source.  He made a broad review of the research and came to the conclusion that it is pseudoscience.  Odd pseudo theories, outdated metaphors of the brain, no sense of neurology, nominalizations and other such vagueries.  No scientific support!
Anyway, there seems to be many more that can be added to this. ATBDaveRight 03:19, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If you want to alter the criticism section then put the new draft here. Thank you.Voice of  All Talk|@|Esperanza</Sup> 03:37, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: NLP and science again