Talk:Neuro-linguistic programming/Archive 5

message: This archive page covers approximately the dates between 3 November 2005 and 13 November 2005.
Post replies to the main talk page, copying or summarizing the section you are
replying to if necessary.
Please add new archivals to Talk:Neuro-linguistic programming/Archive06. (See Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.) Thank you. FuelWagon 05:28, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

message: So, here is another blatant example of POV pushing against NLP. The article contains a section that says "Behind every behavior is a positive intention". I added an explanation that this is sometimes called reframing. . This gets blanked reverted by DaveRight  simply saying "You are erroneous" and reverting multiple edits.
Case in point, DaveRight is in fact erroneous. According to Dilts, the "Behind every behavior is a positive intention" concept is called "reframing". You can verify this by going to an article written by Dilts titled "The NLP Pattern of the Month: Reframing" subtitle The Principle of Positive Intention . 
THere is no excuse for this blanket reversion approach by DaveRight. There is no justification for deleting this parenthetical that is it sometimes called "reframing", given that a notable NLP source specifically associates the "positive intention" thing with the term "reframing". And yet, the anti-NLP editors are deleting accurate reporting of a pro-NLP source. FuelWagon 04:12, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Many NLP items fall under multiple headings. Thus its core principles are also, functionally, presuppositions, and may be used as reframes since they put existing information into a new frame (viewpoint). This is a bit like saying "See, its not a Catholic, its an African". In other words, pointless to argue, both are right, it is a concept that is a principle, and also a reframe, and also a presupposition. FT2 05:25, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: reframing

message: Hello all.  The proposal to merge a speculative and promotional NLP site with wikipedia is completely unacceptable.  The information is conflicting, mixed up, unverifiable, unfairly presented, unfactual and so on.  It is not up to wikipedia to rescue failing websites and wikispam is also completely unacceptable. Lets just get on with resolving those 2 remaining issues. HeadleyDown 06:33, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey headley, what are you talking about? what site? GregA 02:45, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed merger of promotional NLP site

message: I removed all of this text from the document. It is such a minority view that it is not relevant to the article. 
--start text removed---
The term "neuro-linguistic programming" includes three ideas: 
#Assumes that from birth, our unconscious creates and develops behavioral programs. Sometimes named automata, these programs are called thus in reference to the operation of the computers.
#Any behavioral program rests on a neuronal basis; the product of an engrams resulting from our sensory perceptions.
#Language reflects the internal states of the person, internal states resulting from the neuronal or engram programs. NLP is thus proposed as a study of the way in which the human beings structure their perceptions.
The methods of NLP involve programming and reprogramming habits and mental associations, which some NLP practioners consider to be individual engrams (Sinclair, 1992;  Overdurf & Silverthorn, 1995; Drenth, 2003). Engrams are a scientific term for a theoretical neurological mechanism considered by some scientists to be the means by which memory traces are stored in the brain. (Note: Dianetics uses the term but in a different way). Engrams, give a patterned response which has been stabilised at the level of unconscious competence and involve beneficial automatic activities as well as pernicious ones like addictive behaviour (Sinclair, 1992)(Derks & Goldblatt, 1985).  The engram has been used to explain the NLP anchoring process that underlies patterns such as the "swish" process. As such it is a theoretical concept that people used to understand NLP (Drenth, 2003)(Levelt 1995).  For instance, Sinclair (1992) theorises that NLP processes are explained through the neurological concepts of programming and reprogramming engrams  of the mind/body connection in order to effect change, to develop unconscious competence, and to treat traumas (Andreas & Faulkner, 1994). Other explanations of anchoring include: a form of Pavlovian conditioning, or "consciously creating the placebo effect" (Rex & Carolyn Sikes). O'Connor and McDermot (1996) state that NLP works through reframing and belief change methods. 
--end text. --Comaze 06:08, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Some of this text could be merged into lower sections. I also noticed that "programming" is already mentioned in the intro, so then I don't the removal of "programming and re-programming", since it was redundant.Voice of All(MTG) 06:16, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Engram is such a minority view that is does not belong in wikipedia. Contact ANY reputable NLP trainer such as Robert Dilts, John Grinder, Richard Bandler, Jonathan Alteld, Steve Andreas, Connirae Andreas, Joseph O'Connor, Christina Hall, Leslie Cameron-Bandler, etc. Read the foundational NLP books (Structure of Magic Vol 1 & 2, Patterns 1 & 2, Frog into princes, NLP Vol 1 (1980) -- no mention of engram. Search the Dilts encyclopedia (online). Read ANY popular book on NLP. Search on Google Print. This is a deliberate attempt to link NLP to scientology. A straw man argument. Compare this "neurolinguistic programming"+engram -wikipedia" 29 results vs "neurolinguistic programming"+engram" 382 results. Someone is using wikipedia to create a neologism. A serious wikipedia violation. Compare "neuro-linguistic programming" +enneagram (11,000) with "neuro-linguistic programming" +engram -wikipedia (271). NOTE: enneagram is not even used in NLP anymore! But I think this may be source of the confusion. --Comaze 06:32, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Engrams (removed)

message: One can set up a straw man as follows:
#Present the opponent's argument in weakened form, refute it, and pretend that the original has been refuted.
#Present a misrepresentation of the opponent's position, refute it, and pretend that the opponent's actual position has been refuted.
#Present someone who defends a position poorly as the defender, refute that person's arguments, and pretend that every upholder of that position, and thus the position itself, has been defeated.
#Invent a fictitious persona with actions or beliefs that are criticized, and pretend that the person represents a group that the speaker is critical of. 
Do you recognise a pattern here? --Comaze 11:21, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Definition of Straw man (from [[straw man]] article)

message: ::The localisation of memory or storage of memory (engram) is of no interest to an NLP practitioner who is responding only to what he/she can see, hear, feel, touch or bite. You cannot see the storage of memory (engram). Repeating the word engram 10 times throughout the article is giving it undue weight. The idea of engram is not compatiable with idea imported from Noam Chomsky and transformational grammar that the mind is essentially a turing machine. The neuro is referring to the neurological transforms (F1 transforms) that occur before first access (FA). This idea is best represented by Korzybski's map/territory distinction and Gregory Bateson's criteria of mind (1979). According to Grinder the scope of NLP covers the linguistically mediated maps of first access, what Freud named primary experience (Grinder & Bostic 2001). This is a strict view, that is consistent with other NLP developers and originators dating back to 1975 (and 1933 if you count Korzybski). If the European sources you mention are using engram as a theory to explain how NLP works, then they are not making the disction between what is, and what is not strictly NLP. --Comaze 12:35, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Engrams incompatiable with Turing Machine

message: I'm going to keep cleaning up the references and add links and notes where appropriate. I want to get he article to the stage where anyone can come in and easily check the sources. I'm going to stay out of any content disputes for a while until it cools down :) --Comaze 14:16, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: Hello.  I noticed that the opening really did not represent the article as a whole.  So I added another paragraph in order to represent the article properly.  I think more critique can be added.  We have 3 large paragraphs giving NLP its say, but had only one little concise one saying what the scientists say.  I added one for the critics. Regards HeadleyDown 14:05, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: PRS seems fine to me right now(I made a few edits).Voice of All T|@|Esperanza 03:37, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

text: I see someone has added a few NLP Applications. While I applaud the introduction of the multiple serious fields in which NLP is being applied, I think it's worth separating out the broader contexts (eg Therapy/Coaching/Self development) from specific organisations (eg FBI, Mental Health orgs). I don't know how to do that at this point... but I think it's worthwhile. Any comments (agree/disagree) and/or ideas on how to do that? GregA 11:24, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Representing the article properly in the opening

message: Hello.  Yes they are used all the time and are in the new books and editions on NLP.  They are also used as the tests have tested them in the research.  Here is evidence:
a.  NLP coach  uses the eye diagram  lead/preferred/primaryRS, and says that people can be primarily one or the other also.
The NLP Coach: A Comprehensive Guide to Personal Well-being and Professional Success  
Ian McDermott, Wendy Jago 
b.  Molden. Managing with the Power of NLP  / eye diagram lead/preferred/primaryRS, and has a lot of information on preferred
1996
c.  Dilts Bandler Metastates in A User Manual for the Brain Vol 2 2000 page 270
Diagram placing PRS as core to NLP.  This puts prs and rs at the core of NLP in the recent model.  
I was taught the primary representation system recently and it is still used in modeling according to my trainers (Grinder trainers).  Sincerely.  HansAntel 02:58, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: PRS seems fine to me right now(I made a few edits).Voice of All T|@|Esperanza 03:37, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Basic Tenets

message: Could use more clarity, some POV remains, to much use of "many".
This one looks to me to be resolved after Headley's editing.  What do you think VoiceOfAll? Regards JPLogan 09:07, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent Developments

message: Had some POV, could use minor style rewordings.Voice of All T|@|Esperanza 03:41, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I see someone has added a few NLP Applications. While I applaud the introduction of the multiple serious fields in which NLP is being applied, I think it's worth separating out the broader contexts (eg Therapy/Coaching/Self development) from specific organisations (eg FBI, Mental Health orgs). I don't know how to do that at this point... but I think it's worthwhile. Any comments (agree/disagree) and/or ideas on how to do that? GregA 11:24, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: NLP Applications

message: * We don't need to name all five senses in the intro - space waste, and people will know what "the senses" are.
* "Tenet" means "An opinion, doctrine, or principle held as being true" (dictionary.com). I would have thought that "experience is subjective" and similar were far more fundamental than the left-right hemisphere theory if we're discussing "basic" tenets. The tenet behind the left/right brain and eye movements, is essentially, that body language can be observed. if someone else can sharpen this section, please do so, it still needs cleanup.
* NLP is widely used and credible by reputable bodies, as previously stated (and removed incorrectly). That is factual. So I've added it back. 
* The BPS (whatever Parker may have reported) do not lend support to the statement "NLP is charlatanery". That is factual, so I have added it.
* Reorganize Engrams to explain first, note that dianetics use differs second, and continue with NLP use third. Previous order was less helpful. No information deleted, engram paragraph made more encyclopaedic in style.
* NLP derived models are widely used - factual. Noted in "modeling" section.
* Eye accessing is a simple model, they get far more complex.
* It is considered to be a powerful persuasion tool, the citations (like most other sections) omit this. Noted.
* Removed "As NLP claims tend to include exaggeration, and have been proven to be ineffective in experiments, it is seen as unethical to use NLP for financial gain", please provide citation. Who considers this, and what is their basis of credibility? It sounds like editors own feeling.
* Add back 2 valid looking links previously deleted.
If there is doubt please discuss here, rather than fully and indiscriminately reverting, since the above are believed factual, credibly supported, and relevant to balance the present viewpoint. FT2 13:04, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Edits Nov 7

message: I've tried to pull this into Wikipedia standard form, without loss or slanting of information.
There is already an article at Modeling (NLP), I have first, merged all the information in this section into that article, so that it is there for other readers. Secondly, I have then updated the main NLP article to give an overview based upon that article's introduction and criticisms section, which explains modeling, overviews it, and reports criticisms of it. Third, I have linked to the full article as backup.
The "wide uses" referred to include for example - models of anger, used in health services for anger management, sports modeling, advocacy modeling used by lawyers, interview modeling used by law enforcement, spelling and teaching models used in education, and so on.
The test of the success of this is, would someone reading it, feel they know what NLP modeling is (in overview), and its criticisms (again in overview). They can then check the related article for detail.
FT2 20:49, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Modeling

message: the american cancer society has some info about NLP. 
there have been no large-scale randomized clinical trials of the method. One small-scale study found that NLP might be effective in treating phobias. However, a National Research Council committee did not find the theories or practices of NLP to be well founded. Indeed, some studies have found that eye movement is not a consistent marker of type of mental processing. This appears to contradict the observations of the NLP founders. 
Several reviews of the literature have reported there is little or no evidence to support the effectiveness of NLP. A survey of 139 psychologists listed in the National Register of Health Service Providers in Psychology found that the soundness of NLP was questionable. More scientific research is needed to determine if NLP may help any medical or psychological condition. 
FuelWagon 17:06, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: american cancer society

message: The word "scientists" is a bit... odd to describe the critics of NLP. Do these people have specific job titles? FuelWagon 15:22, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: FuelWagon, Maybe they can be called quantitative (statistical) researchers? See "The Qualitative Report, Volume 1, Number 4, Fall, 1992" for an opposing view that supports Grinder & Bandler's qualitative approach. --Comaze 00:12, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually it is amazing how many scientist do actually class NLP as pseudoscience.  Last time I counted there were a whole lot of researchers/scientists/psych practitioners who categorize NLP as pseudoscience.  Judging by the amount of obscurantist writing, exaggeration, refusal to accept science (because it indicates NLP is fraudulent) and the complete lack of research advancement going on to back up wild claims (because it will further prove NLP is fraudulent), I think it is simply going to get more pseudo.  I would still recommend the cult/religion idea for NLP.  Church of NLP.  It works for Hubbard and Tom!  Regards DaveRight 09:08, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

text: I guess that's a little clarifying and I agree too much a mouthful to write the way you've written it Bookmain.  However, saying "scientists say" would imply that all scientists say this, and that is misleading. Then again, it'd be just as misleading to say "psychologists view NLP as a pseudoscience" - though you've got a few good sources that some do. GregA 10:19, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: scientists

message: :: Ok, I've added a reference about teaching rapport (NLP) skills, which is currently not represented in this document. This is probably the most well-known NLP model. I want to add it to the goals section. This article (Clabby 2004) is published in two medical teaching journals  and . There are also hundreds of book references on the subject of rapport that cite Bandler & Grinder. --Comaze 23:54, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Rapport is the first skill taught in NLP practitioner training and is essential in any change work. What are the other views on rapport (NLP)? --Comaze 12:09, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rapport (interpersonal rapport) 

message: In this edit 
. After checking the sources for Bandler and Grinder, they do not refer to 'psychic energy' only 'energy' -- as in collateral energy (Bateson 1972) -- it is powered by metabolism. I added the page numbers so you can check this yourself. This is a necessary distinction to resolve some ambiguity. --Comaze 13:00, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I did not realise how similar my writing was to the original text such that I will need to rephrase it. There is a quote on p.167 of Structure (1975a) about the use of fantasy in gestalt therapy. In some other books Grinder refers to "time and energy" (p.34 Frogs 1979) or "ënergy and creativity"   (Grinder & Bandler 1975a p.13). At least in two later cases Grinder is referring to collateral energy (Bateson 1972, 1979), the type of energy powered by breakfast, metabolism, not the cosmic or santa cruzian 'new age' type of cosmic energy (p.53 Grinder & Delozier 1986). Grinder agrees with Bateson (Turtles, Grinder & Delozier 1986 p.xvi) stating he [Bateson] was "quite intolerant of the fuzzy kind of thinking characteristic of the uncritical importation into discussions of mind of the physical phenomenon of energy." There are many other quotes that exclude psychic energy from NLP epistemology (see epistemology sections of Whispering 2001, and Patterns 1977). Just check the index of Steps of Ecology of Mind or Angels Fear by Bateson for many more quotes criticism New Age/fuzzy/psychic/cosmic/force energy, and Bateson's criticism of psychology (especially Freud) for inappropriately introducing energy into discussions of the mind and language. See also, collateral energy as part of Bateson's Criteria of Mind (Bateson 1979, pp.85,86; [Malloy, Grinder, Bostic 2005 page.13 (PDF) http://www.psych.utah.edu/stat/dynamic_systems/Content/examples/Ecology-of-Emergence_Galley-proofs_Malloy-et-al.pdf]) --Comaze 16:05, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Comaze. Can you provide a Grinder quote that says psychic energy is not something that NLP espouses (or something like that)?  Otherwise, Grinder's view is irellevant. It certainly does not negate the use of psychic energy within NLP.  HeadleyDown 16:15, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes I can provide many references. Firstly, can we agree that psychic "energy" reading is an example of the skill known as cold reading? Here is my proposed section --Comaze 23:27, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Comaze.  I am not familiar with that term.  I am talking about energy as has been explained within NLP books.  You seem to be trying to talk about something else.  HeadleyDown 02:09, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  HeadleyDown. I am talking directly about cold reading and psychic energy (or anything else psychic, mystical or fuzzy) and criticising the NLP trainers who use this dodgy concept. Check the article on cold reading, http://skepdic.com/coldread.html -- you have quoted this author (Carroll) many times. There 133,000 results on google for NLP+"cold reading" -- this is significant. Compare it to your NLP+engram (~200 results). Here we go, a direct quote from your favourite author, "At the same time, much of what NLP is teaching is how to do cold reading. This is valuable, but an art not a science, and should be used with caution." http://skepdic.com/neurolin.html --Comaze 02:37, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yo Comaze.  I had to do some more resoring of facts that you deleted.  You want to delete any facts that put NLP within the new age category.  NLP is now used mainly throughout new age practices.  It is really flakey.  New age, occult, bogus religions, more neopagan witchdoctors.  I have no problem with them using NLP, or practicing what they want.  It's their life and their belief.  All the best to them.  But you seem to have a problem with that.  You seem determined to reduce the viewpoints to a Grinder only view.  That is against NPOV policy.   Cheers DaveRight 03:46, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: In the merge you lost alot of important distinction, including confusing collateral energy with psychic energy. We need to keep these distinct. You also removed all the information that exaplins psychic/fuzzy/energy as simply cold reading eg. "At the same time, much of what NLP is teaching is how to do cold reading. This is valuable, but an art not a science, and should be used with caution." http://skepdic.com/neurolin.html  --Comaze 04:25, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Energy 

message: Well, I see my changes have been reverted with some brief explanation from Hans. I'll present my changes here to get comments and resubmit my changes based on responses.GregA 03:33, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Heap actually states that NLP is fraudulent.  AMaulden 05:05, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: NLP is self help mostly, with some therapists doing a course, and some NLPers pretending to be real therapists. AMaulden 05:05, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

text: I have to make an admission that there are a lot of people promoting NLP here when they should be writing an encyclopedia.  I see no balance in their arguments.  NLP is mostly self help.  The therapy people and organizations are minor in comparison with the self help industry part of NLP.HansAntel 02:20, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Concerning the changes made; Submodalities needs explaining.  Its a bad word anyway, but it should be explained (The distinctions we make within each rep system, the qualities of our internal representations) etc.  Right now it is not clear.  I also think this is not a "how to do NLP" manual, and so that babble could simply be kept in the pseudoscience section. HansAntel 02:20, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I noticed that Patrick placed that there.  Do you think he is anti NLP or is it simply that NLPers do not even know what each other are on about? Nice bit of psychobabble there also.  AMaulden 05:05, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Actually, when you look into the background of NLP, the left right thing is throughout all of the books in the form of eye accessing cues diagrams and other such pseudoscientific nonsense. AMaulden 05:05, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

text: The intellectual antecedents part is very dubious.  I think you could call those wild claims also.HansAntel 02:20, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This is very funny.  The claims NLPers love to make are completely bogus.  NLP was designed to sell. Of course they are going to use names such as Einstein, Perls, Satir and so on.  Sounds great, but means absolutely nothing.  AMaulden 05:05, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Some statements really do need restating for the sake of clarity.  I think you should be happy that the statement does not read "NLP has always been ineffective and is full of ridiculous pseudoscientific salespitch". AMaulden 05:05, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

text: I see some people wanting to remove "objectionable" facts about NLP.  I also think this is just bad editing.  I will revert it myself.  Really after looking at this article for a few weeks, I see a good deal of real information being presented about NLP, and I see some NLP sellers wanting to remove objectionable knowledge from public view.  I noticed a lot of compromise towards the sellers, but none the other way. I think the only way to solve the problem is to explain as I have done, and to change it back. Sorry HansAntel 02:20, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV Dispute and dubious stuff

message: All I changed was "Heap etc find that NLP to be pseudoscience" to "Heap etc state that NLP is a pseudoscience". See NPOV Bias in Attribution.GregA
::Heap actually states that NLP is fraudulent.  AMaulden 05:05, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Opening

message: I added that NLP is applied to therapy, and clarified that NLP is applied to fields. A month ago everyone was saying therapy was the prime application, then self-development became the prime one... but both are valid and representative applications of NLP. GregA
::NLP is self help mostly, with some therapists doing a course, and some NLPers pretending to be real therapists. AMaulden 05:05, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to make an admission that there are a lot of people promoting NLP here when they should be writing an encyclopedia.  I see no balance in their arguments.  NLP is mostly self help.  The therapy people and organizations are minor in comparison with the self help industry part of NLP.HansAntel 02:20, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Concerning the changes made; Submodalities needs explaining.  Its a bad word anyway, but it should be explained (The distinctions we make within each rep system, the qualities of our internal representations) etc.  Right now it is not clear.  I also think this is not a "how to do NLP" manual, and so that babble could simply be kept in the pseudoscience section. HansAntel 02:20, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I noticed that Patrick placed that there.  Do you think he is anti NLP or is it simply that NLPers do not even know what each other are on about? Nice bit of psychobabble there also.  AMaulden 05:05, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Actually, when you look into the background of NLP, the left right thing is throughout all of the books in the form of eye accessing cues diagrams and other such pseudoscientific nonsense. AMaulden 05:05, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

text: The intellectual antecedents part is very dubious.  I think you could call those wild claims also.HansAntel 02:20, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This is very funny.  The claims NLPers love to make are completely bogus.  NLP was designed to sell. Of course they are going to use names such as Einstein, Perls, Satir and so on.  Sounds great, but means absolutely nothing.  AMaulden 05:05, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Overview

message: It says that you can replace beliefs with good ones, or replace beliefs with bad ones. Why not say "it can replace beliefs"? I'm not too worried as long as it's clear.GregA 03:33, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Goals

message: All I've done is corrected some grammar and explained some slightly clearer. No idea if there's an objection to that.GregA 03:33, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Principles & Presups

message: This had some significant changes simply because so much is irrelevant to NLP. This is not a history of Perls article.
Nor is it a rehash of the scientific testing or spiritual connections - I left a note on these in my change and referred to the appropriate section GregA 03:33, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Background

message: This section I went back over past changes that have been made and reverted without much comment, and reposted what I thought was fair and hope to have some debate on it. I'll say why I thought it was fair: GregA 03:33, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Some statements really do need restating for the sake of clarity.  I think you should be happy that the statement does not read "NLP has always been ineffective and is full of ridiculous pseudoscientific salespitch". AMaulden 05:05, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

text: I see some people wanting to remove "objectionable" facts about NLP.  I also think this is just bad editing.  I will revert it myself.  Really after looking at this article for a few weeks, I see a good deal of real information being presented about NLP, and I see some NLP sellers wanting to remove objectionable knowledge from public view.  I noticed a lot of compromise towards the sellers, but none the other way. I think the only way to solve the problem is to explain as I have done, and to change it back. Sorry HansAntel 02:20, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Criticism

message: I removed the "as yet no scientific evidence" as it clearly belongs in the science section, and it's repeated ad nauseum. 
::Some statements really do need restating for the sake of clarity.  I think you should be happy that the statement does not read "NLP has always been ineffective and is full of ridiculous pseudoscientific salespitch". AMaulden 05:05, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Extraordinary Claims

message: This is the area where ecology is really important. Ecology is how NLP processes are used in a way beneficial to the subject, and as such need to be discussed in relation to ethics. Instead it's been removed, so I readded it (and it was removed). 
You've got more comments on "NLP is unsupported"... refer to the other section. GregA 03:33, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Unethical Use

message: Firstly I changed the heading to remove the bias.  Clarified the application of NLP in those areas. I'm not sure who wrote this originally but it is far more neutral that what's there. GregA 03:33, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Dubious New Age

message: You'd better read that one. It's incredibly biased at present. "The presuppositions of NLP create a background for reduced resistance"... really...GregA 03:33, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Cult Characteristics

message: :I see some people wanting to remove "objectionable" facts about NLP.  I also think this is just bad editing.  I will revert it myself.  Really after looking at this article for a few weeks, I see a good deal of real information being presented about NLP, and I see some NLP sellers wanting to remove objectionable knowledge from public view.  I noticed a lot of compromise towards the sellers, but none the other way. I think the only way to solve the problem is to explain as I have done, and to change it back. Sorry HansAntel 02:20, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: so in summary....

message: Hello again.  I myself am from mainland Europe and I have noticed that the NLP sellers like to follow the Anglo American view of NLP too much.  In Europe and Asia, NLP does not get the same kind of views.  It is seen very much as a pseudoscince cult in France, in Germany they are very against such weak methods, and other places also simply call it self help sales speak.  This is especially after the 90s when businesses all over were changed and they were told to get used to it using such NLP seminar kind of change management methods.  In business it is just seen as hoodwinking.  I think this needs to be taken into account much more.  The article needs a world view.  HansAntel 02:31, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Anglo-American View is Too Narrow

message: I just removed a sentence that says NLP is used for "occult" practices. This sentence is in the part of the intro that is reporting the pro-NLP point of view. I find it highly unlikely that an advocate for anything would call their practices "occult". The "applications" for NLP that can be listed in the pro-NLP part of the intro must be from the main NLP advocates, and it must be sourced. This sentence reads more like it is coming from an anti-NLP critic and is being used to discredit NLP by saying "Look, see? They use NLP for occult ceremonies" or whatever. If that's the case, you must report this in the anti-NLP part of the intro, you must write it in the form of who said it, and you need to provide a URL, so someone else can verify you didn't stretch the truth in order to defame NLP people. Reporting from the source is required for NPOV policy. Providing a URL helps protect wikipedia against defamation lawsuits. And if you do not have a source for the term "occult", it is also violating "No Original Research" policy. FuelWagon 16:28, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: who is Jan Damen? Is he a critic or supporter of NLP? Is he an expert in the field in some way that we can report his view as expert testimony? A degree in psychotherapy? Since I can't read german, someone will have to translate the page for me. Also, if he is the only person who uses the word "occult" to describe NLP, someone will need to justify why the opinion of one man is not giving him "undue weight".  Please read up on "undue weight" before replying. FuelWagon 17:06, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: occult and NPOV

message: I've posted to HeadleyDown's talk page directly regarding his recent large reversion to the NLP article. FuelWagon 16:57, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This isn't censorship, HeadleyDown. This is all about policy. You continuously violate NPOV, No Original Reseach, Verifiability, and Undue Weight. These are all wikipedia policies on how to write an article. You haven't followed any of them. Until you do, your personally biased edits in direct violation of policy will be reverted. FuelWagon 17:09, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

text: ... and yet you've done little other than complain in general about them. How about actually checking out the research described yourself instead of complaining? Or are you saying all 100 abstracts are inaccurate? Its a shame that for a scientific person, you are unable to approach it scientifically as others do. I'd like a citation from a reputable scientist or journal of each one you claim is not taken seriously, thanks. Otherwise don't bother. FT2 03:04, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I find that an amazingly good idea of FT2's, it keeps the discussion on this page where we can all see. There's atleast one editor who seems to deliberately want to make a response harder to track or follow (you may not know who I'm talking about) so I think this is a good idea. GregA 08:33, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: HeadleyDown reversion